"Bad people have celebrations, too" - another chapter of winning hearts and minds

I'm not one who generally likes to watch others squirm, but watching the US revise it's denials about having bombed a wedding party now that a video of the wedding is circulating is just too much. Any tiny shred of credibility that the military may have thought it had is... merely the side effect of some medication their spokespeople are on.

How's this for an ineffectual effort? 'Wedding video' clouds US denials (bbc.com, 05/24/04)

"We still don't believe that there was a wedding or a wedding party going on when we hit in the early hours of the morning," the unidentified official was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency.

"Could there have been some sort of celebration going on earlier? Certainly."

(Emphasis mine.) This mistakenly implies that the world will be much more pleased knowing that a wedding party died in its sleep, rather than during an ongoing wedding celebration. Even this lame effort to pretend that this is what the military's earlier denials meant contradicts official statements, such as the one summarized here (In pictures: Iraq wedding video (bbc.com), stills from wedding video):

US forces maintain they attacked a safehouse for foreign fighters and, until the emergence of the video, insisted there was no evidence of a wedding at the location.

On Friday, US statements made it sound as if the scene was a battleground, and not a celebration with kids present:

[Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt] said earlier: "We sent a ground force in to that location. They were shot at. We returned fire." (Iraqis bury victims of US strike, (bbc.com, 05/20/04))

A little context explaining why the planes came back and bombed the site in the middle of the night might not fit in with the image being portrayed here.

Reporters who actually bothered to go to the scene (U.S. Says Iraq Attack Site Wasn't Wedding, news.yahoo.com 05/24/04) found evidence refuting just about everything stated by the US military:

"There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too."

But video that APTN shot a day after the attack shows fragments of musical instruments, pots and pans and brightly colored beddings used for celebrations, scattered around the bombed out tent.

An AP reporter and photographer, who interviewed more than a dozen survivors a day after the bombing, were able to identify many of them on the wedding party video, which runs for several hours.

APTN also traveled to Mogr el-Deeb, 250 miles west of Ramadi, the day after the attack to film what the survivors said was the wedding site. A devastated building and remnants of the tent, pots and pans could be seen, along with bits of what appeared to be the remnants of ordnance, one of which bore the marking "ATU-35," similar to those on U.S. bombs.

A water tanker truck can be seen in both the video shot by APTN and the wedding tape obtained from a cousin of the groom.

On Monday, a senior coalition military officer said "we still don't believe there was a wedding going on" and that intelligence showed that only legitimate targets were attacked.

[Emphasis again mine.] Since reporters were able to immediately access the site and make photographic and video comparisons, clearly the military could have performed a similiar investigation of the allegations had it wanted to. Instead, it appears to be releasing conclusions of imaginary investigations performed entirely on a desk in a far-flung office, and then being called on it.

This is not a time when the US military needs to be lying and looking more wicked to the rest of the world.

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing "Bush Speech: Was It Enough?" (washingtonpost.com, 05/25/04) provides an extensive compilation of links and quotes from major media commentary about Bush's Iraq war policy speech last night, many of which are fascinating. (And yes, it includes an interpretation of Bush's pronunciation of the prison central to the abuse scandal.) The link that's making the rounds most in my peer group: a graph indicating Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low (washingtonpost.com).

*

There are several very interesting quotes in another post article, primarily the perspectives of American troops in Iraq, including this one:

"I just think it's a lost cause," said Spec. Will Bromley, a gunner who sits inside the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and mans a 25mm cannon whose rounds can blast walls to pieces. "This has become harder than we thought. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that's one thing. Getting Iraqis to do what we want is another. It's like we want to give them McDonald's and they might not want McDonald's. They have to want it or we can't give it to them." -- from Soldiers' Doubts Build as Duties Shift, By Daniel Williams (washingtonpost.com, 05/24/04)

The article also details a raid performed by this particular unit, and the mishaps that occur along the way. Such details explain why the troops are demoralized, and why Iraqis who once were relieved at the US presence have grown eager for the US to depart.

The long, slippery slope

Many people who opposed pre-emptively attacking Iraq to prevent its use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the U.S. insisted that such an attack would be an ugly, drawn out process which could not possibly worth the inevitably high cost in human life.

After Bush declared the end of major combat and cut all the soldiers' combat pay accordingly, much of the press announced that the peaceniks were wrong, that the war was a cakewalk, that the war's (ever-changing) goals would all be shortly accomplished, and that the lovefest between the Iraqi people and democracy would begin immediately.

Apparently, some of the people doing the announcing had enjoyed their 5-martini lunches a little too early. Every day the news of more death, more anger, and less hope for order and peace gets worse. Bombing the way to peace as a strategy is exposed daily as a delusion. Those who prematurely predicted the cakewalk, not being the type prone to retrospective strategic analyses, have decided that the same approach that got us into our current situation is the best one to using moving forward: more force, 'staying the course," and odd rhetoric about how we can't stop what we're doing now.

Nothing has been learned.

And we can't announce that the peaceniks were right, can we?

*

Punishment and Amusement: Documents Indicate 3 Photos Were Not Staged for Interrogation, by Scott Higham and Joe Stephens (washingtonpost.com, 05/22/04) reveal additional details of the darkest side of occupation. Most hair-raising quote from a soldier at the prison:

"The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.' "

This Post article observes that documents about the prison abuses reveal that horrors were committed against Iraqis for interrogation purposes, and others were committed solely for the entertainment of the jailers. It also provides additional details about how soldier Joseph Darby acquired the photos and acted to try to stop the abuse.

This brings us to When Joseph Comes Marching Home, by Hanna Rosin (washingtonpost.com, 05/17/04), what may be the creepiest article about how one man's effort to stop the war crimes has cost a soldier's family their peace (and possibly their safety). The unguarded commentary from Darby's small home town reveals some of the biases which have complicated the American people's reaction to the revelations of torture and murder at Abu Ghraib. The most interesting suggestion to me is the idea that REPORTING a year of abuse is causing Iraqis to hate us, not the abuse itself . That's a disconnect I can't fathom -- the Iraqis who have been released have been telling their peers for a long time.

It is also deeply disturbing that one resident believes that reporting the atrocities was 'turning against your fellow man' -- yet somehow, committing atrocities isn't. I had to reread it to absorb that the speaker doesn't believe that Iraqis are 'fellow men.'

*

Those of our 'fellow men' who happen to have been caught committing atrocities are being tried for their crimes -- and are getting off with very light punishments. Within the military world, which has a unique perspective, losing your military career for killing someone is a big deal. Outside the military world, it looks more like a cover up. In Military Justice Is Put On Trial In Iraq Abuse Scandal by Vanessa Blum (law.com, 05/18/04, subscription required), the Pentagon's effort to make a show of their orderly justice system suggests that they'll have a hard time understanding what outside expectations would lead to.

Just before reading this, I had pointed out that Americans who had murdered civilians for sport in Vietnam and had been caught on film managed to avoid punishment despite national outcry, so it is difficult to point to a model of military justice which isn't an oxymoron. This article points to the sorry statistics associated with the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre, which does not provide hope for actual justice in the current situation.

*

It's amazing to me that the press has only recently taken to observing that American soldiers aren't infallible. Reuters' reporters are among those captured and abused at US-run prisons (bbc.com, 05/18/04). The deaths of several reporters at the hands of the US military have resulted in formal complaints by the media to the military, but no acknowledgement that the 'code of conduct' - the rules under which U.S. soldiers can shoot just about anyone for any reason - can result in murder.

Even as the bodies of more than 40 members of a wedding party killed by the US are being laid to rest, the US insists that it has 'intelligence' that proves it bombed the right house. (bbc.com, 05/20/04) No number of bodies or witnesses can bring the military to look at the evidence before it, to acknowledge that such evidence exists, OR (perhaps most importantly) to revise its approach of bombing large areas to kill suspects whose whereabouts are not known. Not even when there is video of the aftermath, and witnesses who happen to be Iraqi officials:

Video gathered in the western town of Ramadi by Associated Press Television News showed bloody bodies piled into a truck. The bodies included children, one of whom was decapitated, AP reported. Iraqi witnesses interviewed in the video said revelers at a wedding had been celebrating by shooting guns in the air before they came under fire.

The military presented a sharply different account of events, with a news release from U.S. Central Command and a Defense Department official in Washington saying "coalition forces" had attacked a suspected location of foreign fighters.[italics mine]

...Lt. Col. Ziyad Jbouri, a deputy police chief in Ramadi, told the AP that Wednesday's assault killed between 42 and 45 people, including 15 children and 10 women. Salah Ani, a doctor who works at a hospital in Ramadi, told the news service that the death toll was 45. --- from 40 Reported Killed in U.S. Attack in Western Iraq: American Officials Dispute Iraqi Claims That Aircraft Hit Wedding Party, by Thomas E. Ricks and Mark Stencel (washingtonpost.com, 05/19/04)

The Red Cross has plainly stated that "The excessive use of force violates international human rights." Yet, the US is using its unmatched brute force to argue for the rule of law, while violating the rule of law.

*

"50-100 Iraqis died in U.S. custody last year" (Torturing Hearts and Minds, by Marjorie Cohn, truthout.org, 05/04/04).

By the way: when was the last time you heard about the state of the Guantanamo Bay detainees?

*

New images of soldiers posing happily with the bodies of dead Iraqis (cnn.com) aren't generating the level of outrage one might expect in US papers who condemned the showing of live US POWs on TV. (fair.org). Meanwhile, in an unfortunate error of timing:

[General Ricardo Sanchez] warned senators that "this awful episode at Abu Ghraib must not allow us to get distracted" from the war against insurgents in Iraq.

"The honor and value systems of our armed forces are solid and the bedrock of what makes us the best in the world," Sanchez said. "There has been no catastrophic failure, and America's armed forces will never compromise their honor." -- General: No pattern of abuse at prisons [but] New Abu Ghraib images involve body, CNN, 05/20/04

(More at CIA investigates death of three detainees, CNN, 05/20/04.)

*

Last thought for the day, from a title of an article that says it all: US demands war crimes immunity: The US believes 'malicious cases' could be brought against its soldiers. (bbc.com, 05/21/04).

Timing is everything.

Try to wrap your brain around this one: according to a discussion I heard on the radio, the torture, abuse, and killing of hundreds of Iraqi civilians, most of whom were mistakenly arrested by the U.S., should now be dismissed because of the brutal killing of one American done in revenge for the aforementioned abuse, which shows that all those mistakenly arrested Iraqis have peers who are terrible people.

Again: if your people do something terrible to other people, and then some of the other people take revenge on your people for that terrible thing, that makes THEM bad.

But YOU are not bad for starting the cycle of violence by doing something terrible to them.

This was delivered by a man on the radio in all seriousness, couched in fancier words.

I feel a headache coming on...

Last item for this entry: "80% in Iraq Distrust Occupation Authority: Results of Poll, Taken Before Prison Scandal Came to Light, Worry U.S. Officials, from today's Washington Post. The long list of negative opinions of the US aren't surprising. The Pentagon's complete denial of reality is, however. See their fairyland quotes late in the article.

Winning hearts and minds by torturing innocent civilians

This from the Red Cross report which has caused such a media frenzy: 70 to 90 percent of persons arrested in Iraq were arrested BY MISTAKE. ("Red Cross report describes systematic U.S. abuse in Iraq," 05/10/04, AP/sfgate.com).

Think about that. Much of last year, the Red Cross was trying to call attention to abuses at prisons the US set up for its detainees, and 70 to 90 percent of those people should never have been detained.

There's more:

The agency said arrests allegedly tended to follow a pattern.

"Arresting authorities entered houses usually after dark, breaking down doors, waking up residents roughly, yelling orders, forcing family members into one room under military guard while searching the rest of the house and further breaking doors, cabinets and other property," the report said.

"Sometimes they arrested all adult males present in a house, including elderly, handicapped or sick people," it said. "Treatment often included pushing people around, insulting, taking aim with rifles, punching and kicking and striking with rifles."

It said some coalition military intelligence officers estimated "between 70 percent and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake....

This is another article best read in its entirety, so go.

*

Lynndie England, the female soldier grinning in some of the photographs of humiliated Iraqi prisoners which are at the center of international outcry, has stated in interviews that she was 'just following orders.' (BBC, 05/12/04). Perhaps this is why she is smiling so widely in the photographs? She claims that a superior officer may have encouraged the humiliations as part of a psyops operation. The fact that these and other photos were circulating widely among US soldiers for entertainment doesn't entirely support this theory, however.

While 'just following orders' has never excused war crime behavior for nationals of other countries, at least one of my colleagues believes this particular soldier, on the basis that she 'doesn't seem very bright.' (My colleague further notes that 19 year olds don't know anything, which is directly related to why so many of them wind up in the militaries of all nations... Which doesn't make the situation better, certainly.)

Her family has helped catapult Ms. England into the spotlight, by granting interviews in which they insist that England does represent the values of 'the American soldier,' (video) (BBC, 05/12/04), contrary to President Bush's assertions to the contrary. They also appear to think that 'anything' they daughter was told to do to make the captives cooperate is acceptable.

Read the previous item about how most of the people in captivity should not have been arrested again, please.

*

A short news item promoted by CBS news suggests that the evil depicted in the photographs (such as Ms. England's) is not the soldiers' fault at all, but merely the natural psychological result of being in 'an evil situation.' To support this theory, they rely upon the Stanford Prison Experiment (prisonexp.org). However, they appear to oversimplify the experiment.

The experiment's great website provides much more information about this 1971 project and its disturbing results. A small group of volunteers were paid a nominal sum to be screened for 'normalcy' and then randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or prison guard in a prison simulation in a Stanford basement. The two week study had to be cancelled after the 6th day, when several of the guards had become dangerously sadistic and the prisoners were showing signs of deteriorating mental health.

While CBS may conclude that 'everyone' turns evil in an 'evil environment,' the study actually demonstrated that the guards fell into one of three distinct behaviors, and only SOME of them became sadistic when given limitless power over others. That is an important point. Not all of the US military police in Iraq are abusing prisoners, so far as we can tell at the moment. So suggesting that the environment would turn 'everyone' evil doesn't really explain why all the other guards weren't doing the same thing.

If CBS concludes that the US prisons in Iraq are inherently 'evil,' that should also be examined: if war crimes are the natural result of detention centers, detention centers must not be created. If the abuse occurs because it is policy, that policy should end. If it is a failure of leadership, those leaders must be replaced. And if it is a policy of racism and oppression based on the occupation of a foreign nation with different customs and beliefs, the occupation MUST end.

*

P.S. I see that Slate now has an item called The Stanford Prison Experiment doesn't explain Abu Ghraib, by William Saletan (slate.msn.com, 05/12/04), which raises additional points negating the comparison.

*

The Executive summary of Article 15-6 investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade by Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba (msnbc.msn.com) came out on May 4, 2004, but no one has mentioned that female Iraqi detainees were raped in the mass media summaries of the scandal.

It is surely being mentioned overseas.

Read the findings of fact, section 6, which details the abuses, including:

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees...

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;...

See also Annexes 25 & 26, which detail chemical attacks, sodomy, and other abuses.

*

"New abuse photos are 'even worse'" ( BBC 05/12/04) reveals that the Pentagon has photographs depicting more despicable acts by US soldiers than have yet been released. Senators who have viewed them claim they are many times worse than those previously released. (See also Lawmakers Are Stunned By New Images of Abuse, by Charles Babington (washingtonpost.com, 05/13/04 (tomorrow's paper), in which U.S. lawmakers observe that there are more U.S. troop boots in the photographs than there are persons who have been accused of wrongdoing, and more people must have been involved in these acts).

*

The beheading of Nicholas Berg has been condemned by Bush as showing the true nature of the resistance to US forces, though the photographs of US forces tormenting Iraqi captives are NOT representative of their nature.

Oh, I see.

*

U.S. media are not broadcasting video of the beheading of Nicholas Berg. (BBC 05/12/04) It has been available in Arab media, where the images of the US tormenting hundreds of captives is still reverberating, and condemnation for the beheading is mixed with a lack of surprise, considering how much evil has recently been visited upon the people of Iraq in recent times. (same)

Since the Arab world gets completely different & much more graphic coverage of events there than we do, it isn't entirely surprising that the soft-news western expectation that the Arabs equate one beheading with the humiliation of hundreds and deaths of thousands aren't quite being met. It just may not be possible for such an equation to be made. At least, not by anyone who believes that all lives are of equal value, regardless of nationality.

System Failure

In the past few days I've been in conversation with several people about the abuses of prisoners and civilians in Iraq, the prison system in the U.S., the universally unfair application of the death penalty, and police violence in SF neighborhoods.

The previously posted link to the Washington Post about how we abstract the world to reaffirm our own goodness made me realize that the same glossy shine is put on unfair systems here at home by our fellow citizens. As my partner observed, the acquittal of the officers in the Rodney King beating had to be more about what people wanted to believe about our legal system than about the abundant evidence provided.

I can't figure out how to make people see that these problems are structural, however. Especially with fear mongers manipulating the media.

*

On May 7th, the Washington Post reported that "the International Red Cross said Friday it had warned U.S. officials of abuse of prisoners in Iraq more than a year ago" (washingtonpost.com). A report by the ICRC has been leaked to the press, describing the humiliation of naked prisoners in US custody, and worse:

The newspaper said that the 24-page report described prisoners kept naked in total darkness in empty cells at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison and male prisoners forced to parade around in women's underwear. Coalition forces also fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some of them.

In another incident, nine men were arrested in Basra and beaten severely, leading to one death, it added.

The abuses were reported in several locations, not just the prison being referenced in most U.S. media. Amnesty International had also warned repeatedly of the abuses by US soldiers. (05/08/04, washingtonpost.com).

Of course, in this election year, there are a few people who believe that the inconvenient truth that our soldiers are violating the Geneva Conventions is just a strange attempt to discredit an already discredited war!! Kurtz's 05/07/04 Media Notes column describes this, along with summaries of the outrage about how damaging these actions - not merely the release of them - are to the United State's credibility. (washingtonpost.com) Kurtz' quotes American news sources pointing out that celebrating the closure of Saddam Hussein's torture chambers isn't very compelling in the light of what the US is now using those same chambers for. (Read this one through and see the commentary on Rush Limbaugh's distressing justification for all of these acts - that the soldiers were just having FUN!?!? As if promoting the idea that torture is recreation is going to persuade the world that the US is righteous! Yipes!)

While families of some of the soldiers photographed humiliating prisoners devise strange excuses for their actions (washingtonpost.com 05/05/04), and the maximum sentence for the first soldier to be tried for these crimes has been capped at one year (washingtonpost.com 05/10/04), no substantive changes appear on the horizon. A few soldiers in the photos are being charged, (including Lynndie England (bbc.com), whose family insists her evil peers forced her to pose and smile so widely in many of the infamous images), but no one seems alarmed that CDs filled with images depicting these abuses were circulating widely among soldiers for entertainment. The fundamental aspects of the current bad situation aren't up for revision any time soon. The fact that young people are in a mentally unhealthy situation and are engaging in appalling crimes against human beings as a result is not being examined. There is a complete denial that occupying a foreign country using brute force provides a framework that is prone to abuse.

"We were dealing here with a broad pattern, not individual acts. There was a pattern and a system," said the ICRC's operations director Pierre Kraehenbuehl. (bbc.com 05/08/04) There, someone said it: there is a system in place that leads to this. Limitless power over defenseless foreign captives in the hands of young soldiers trained to shoot first and ask questions later. An administration that creates law-free enclaves in which its personnel can act with impunity. Simplistic world views in which people are either good, or 'evil doers' who deserve no recognition under the law -- unless they are American. The knowledge that anything the US can do by force goes, and there's nothing the rest of the world can do to stop it.

There is the problem. Not a few bad apples, but a system that is fundamentally rotten.

Full disclosure: liberation sometimes involves the torture and humiliation of the liberatees

I'm not sure why it's taken such a long time for the story to break, but now the scandal over the systemic abuses of Iraqis, our erstwhile liberatees, is in full swing. Hundreds of additional photographs (beyond those long displayed at thememoryhole.org) of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated, forced to simulate sex acts, or in other degrading positions are circulating, made by and for the entertainment of military personnel, and they have reached the press.

There are many good articles on the topic, but the best has to be A Wretched New Picture Of America
Photos From Iraq Prison Show We Are Our Own Worst Enemy, By Philip Kennicott in the Washington Post. The idea that Americans wish to take credit for all good in the world, but insist all evil is done by rogue elements is... completely true. This is a fabulous article - if you read one opinion this week, well, you're already reading mine, but go here to read a second one.

Another great article on the same theme is Willing Torturers, by Anne Applebaum. (also washingtonpost.com) Applebaum says the belief that atrocities are extraordinarily unusual events which occur due to the flaw in one lone national character (never ours) are based on pure fantasy.

There are also several very informative excerpts from international news sources at Morley's compilation of world viewpoints (washingtonpost.com), including:

"This is the face of freedom. The face of righteousness," said columnist Firas Atraqchi, a Canadian-Iraqi journalist for Islam Online.

"Next time someone asks you the most idiotic of questions -- 'why do they hate us' -- ask them to see the pictures in question. Next time someone asks you how Iraqis could have cut US and South African mercenaries to pieces, ask them to see the pictures in question. Next time someone asks you why Iraqis are taking up arms, tell them to shut up."

(If you're not checking in with Morley's compilations for a reality check against our domestic news sources routinely, start now.)

Reality is so unpatriotic

Cargo worker Tami Silicio lost her cargo job for making a photo of flag-draped coffins available to the press. (seattletimes.newsource.com) While we may be amazed at the number of soldiers dying in Iraq, we're not actually supposed to see the symbols associated with their deaths. That might allow us to know that the war is REAL. This was one of the (few?) lessons the US government learned from Vietnam: if people see what's happening, they get mad. So mention it between celebrity news and stock quotes, and it will be just as removed from reality as the abstractions of fame and virtual wealth.

The Pentagon's decades old policy of forbidding the publishing of images of caskets made news activist Russ Kick doubtful that his request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for such images would be productive. Kick was surprised when the Pentagon supplied 281 images of the caskets of soldiers killed in the Iraq war, along with some from the delivery of the Columbia Astronauts' remains, after some internal debate. (sfgate.com) The images are now at his site, thememoryhole.org (along with disturbing photos of Americans intentionally humiliating naked Iraqi captives, which are beginning to cause a stir in the national news, which hasn't published a fraction of them).

Reality continues to cause scandal, now in the mainstream media: Nightline's tribute to fallen soldiers is being criticized as anti-war for listing the names of the war dead. (sfgate.com)

What are we learning from this? Soldiers only exist when it is politically convenient - when "supporting" them is synonymous with the ruling party's goals. Soldiers do not exist for their own sake, or need decent pay or benefits or medical care. Their opinions matter when they support the ruling party, and do not when they object to their orders or fail to accept their mission. And they certainly don't exist once they are dead, because that generates bad press.

News Grab Bag

In the past few weeks, I’ve been overwhelmed with interesting clippings about events in Iraq. There are so many, I’m not really sure how to include them, beyond creating a general compilation, along with notes about why the link leads to something interesting.

Here goes:

April 19, 2004
-American soldiers killed two employees of the US Pentagon-funded Al Iraqiya television station. (SFGate.com) The article also discusses other recent killings of journalists by US forces.

April 16, 2004
-BBC’s Hostage Timeline. (BBC)

April 15, 2004
-US defends tactics at Falluja: The US siege of the Iraqi city of Falluja in which hundreds of people have died is "humane", the Pentagon's top soldier has told reporters. (BBC)

At least 87 US soldiers have died in action across Iraq this month while five international non-governmental organisations together counted at least 470 Iraqi dead in Falluja alone last week, Reuters news agency reports.

April 14, 2004
-Iraq death toll reaches new high (complete with charts). (BBC)
-Analysis: US 'emulates' Israeli tactics. (BBC) (Unfortunately, the US is seeking tips on how to occupy an unwilling nation from someone who hasn’t been ‘winning hearts and minds’ with their technique.)
-US in stand-off with Iraqi cleric. (BBC) "At least 87 US soldiers have died in action this month while aid agencies counted at least 470 Iraqi dead in the Sunni city of Falluja alone last week, with 243 women and 200 children among them."
-Viewpoint: Iraq worker's dilemma (BBC) is about a Syrian concerned for her brother, an employee of a Saudi company doing business in Iraq, whose roommates were kidnapped and who reports that many things happen in Iraq that never make it to TV. (BBC)

April 13, 2004
-Morley's World Opinion Roundup: "In Coalition Countries, Jitters About Staying in Iraq." (washingtonpost.com). The reports aren’t so positive:

The editors of the Financial Times , a leading voice of the British establishment, replied Monday that the problem is heavy-handed U.S. military tactics that alienate Iraqis. "Over-stretched, US forces are over-reacting and retaliating with heavy armour in a way that turns the innocent as well as the guilty against them," they say. "That is no recipe for political success."

-Foreign workers told to quit Iraq (BBC) after a wave of kidnappings.
-Iraqi officers 'refused to fight.' (BBC)
-West blasted over Iraq treasures. (BBC) More than 8,000 of the most valuable Iraqi cultural treasures are still missing, and the international community is turning a blind eye.
-NPR : Connie Rice Commentary: 10 Things Condi Didn't Say, which deals with the September 11th hearings, but which has implications associated with Iraq. (link to NPR audio file)

April 12, 2004
-Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US. (BBC) "US Brig Gen Mark Kimmitt said about 70 coalition troops had been killed in Iraq since 1 April, while casualties among insurgents were 10 times as high."
-This is an image file: "Bath party: Sgt. [] enjoys his first bath in about a month at a home held by the 1st Marine Regiment on the northwest side of Fallujah, Iraq." (sfgate.com) Can you figure out which part of this text alarmed me? Since when are U.S. forces occupying Iraqi homes?
-Iraqi troops reject Fallujah duty (BBC) "The troops were quoted as saying they had not signed up to fight Iraqis."
-Hundreds killed in Iraq, says US (BBC)
-Scale of Falluja violence emerges (BBC).

A group of five international charities estimated that about 470 people had been killed, while hospital officials put the death toll at about 600.

Reuters television footage from Falluja showed corpses of children, women and old men lying in the street beside body parts no one has had time to collect.

... The group said that at a conservative estimate, about 1,200 had been wounded, according to Reuters, which did not name the aid agencies involved.

April 10, 2004
- Analysis: US gamble on toughness: Iraqis feel the Americans have played into the hands of the extremists by letting themselves be drawn into a war on two fronts, says BBC's John Simpson. (BBC) Unpopular thugs are now popular because of US tactics against them.

April 8, 2004
-Sept. 11 Allegations Lost in Translation By Jefferson Morley (washingtonpost.com) discusses former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds' contentions that "[she] saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes," which she revealed in an interview with The Independent (by Andrew Buncombe, 04/02/04, (independent.co.uk) (payment required). The story has gotten significant coverage abroad, but nearly none in the US. The article discusses this issue as a matter of journalistic standards, without holding anyone to any. (If documents exist that prove Edmonds’ contentions, the press needs to demand them. But they don’t and then say that her contentions are unproven. Yet, had she leaked the documents, she’d be in the same situation as a Danish government employee, who leaked documents suggesting that his government knew that no WMDs would be found in Iraq, got fired, and now faces criminal charges. (04/15/04, BBC)

April 4, 2004
-Bush Loyalists Pack Iraq Press Office, by Jim Krane (AP) (Guardian.co.uk). The US coalition's press office is determined to help Bush get reelected, with numerous campaign workers appointed to their positions. "More than half a dozen CPA officials in the press office worked on Bush's 2000 presidential campaign or are related to Bush campaign workers, according to payroll records filed with the Federal Elections Commission." (British press officers are civil/foreign service career types, non-appointed.)

Today's episode of the audio program the World is especially great. (The show is always good, and frequently fabulous). If you're not a regular listener by either radio or web, I recommend that you start listening.

In the first segment, a Baghdad correspondent said that Iraqis who object to the occupation have always been very polite about it, but the situation of the US military attacking the people of Falluja has changed the tone: now locals are visibly disgusted by the presense of the US military. (File under 'Bad Signs.')

There was a segment about the Japanese government being annoyed that the recently freed Japanese hostages aren't quite as thankful as they should have been, which segwayed into a strange argument that the hostage crisis demonstrates that Japan needs to give up its self-defense-only constitution and build its military, because the hostage crisis showed that Japan can't protect its people. (!!!!!) Because a big military has nothing better to do than run around Iraq with the three that were hostages, who were an anti war activist, a humanitarian worker, and a journalist?? Because the US has the world's largest military, and that kept Americans safe from the September 11th attackers??? (What is this man smoking?)

Later, "Rami Khouri of Lebanon's English language newspaper, The Daily Star, and Italian journalist Ennio Caretto" (audio file) spoke about the differing coverage between the US and elsewhere. Caretto's comment that the war is much bloodier, more realistic, and crueler on European TV than in the US. American audiences see a much tidier, sanitized version of the war.

Doesn't it make sense that Europeans are opposed to the war because they're getting different information about it than we are? It certainly does.

Yesterday's episode featured a great interview with Rony Brauman of Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders)(audio file). Brauman notes that the U.S. military created humanitarian crises in places such as Basra by disrupting local supplies, and then used the disruption to justify further desired military action. He has written an essay discussing the difficult situation humanitarian organizations are placed in when the language of humanitarian aid is coopted for purely political, non-humanitarian purposes. It's worth listening to.

Brutality

It's strange to be back, wallowing in the ego, pride, illogical rationalizations, and impassioned testimony about the use of violence against us and against others after a break from it. It seems even more ridiculous after time away.

During my vacation, there was only one moment when politics & violence came up in discussion with one of the few strangers we encountered while camping in the backcountry. Just in passing, a healthy young man who had broken away from his companions for some exploration chatted with us about conditions in the area, and then made passing reference to our country's 'disastrous' foreign policy, and a short comment that US chances for success will be determined by 'whether or not we are willing to be brutal enough.'

S and I shrugged this comment off and went back to discussing local conditions, partly because the youth didn't sound like he meant it. (There's a lot of repeating phrases heard on TV in our culture, and it sounded like this could be one such senseless repetition.) But also, it would be hard to discuss without appearing to come down hard on our upbeat new acquaintance. Brutality is the wrong answer to just about every worthwhile question associated with Iraq.

How brutal does the US have to be to Iraqis to:
-make up for intelligence failures relating to an Afghan group?
-avenge the September 11th attacks against an innocent people with no connection to the attacks?
-find non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
-liberate them?
-convince them that foreign occupation is very similar to liberation?
-get consent to privatizing all Iraqi natural resources and industries?
-force a "lite" version of Democracy on them, when they want the real thing?
-create internal "national" unity, even though the 'nation' was forced together by the British?***
-make them like us?

Brutality just isn't an appropriate means to succeed in these goals except for unity, but not in a good way: there is now an increasing national unity against U.S. occupation, but nothing else.

Occupation doesn't lead to 'winning hearts and minds,' a precursor to many of the US' other aims. It can't. It isn't. It won't. New approaches are required. We could try, for example, listening to the Iraqis. (!!!!)

The best news summary of what occurred while I was out of town is "Did the US miscalculate in Iraq?
Iraqi officials, British commanders say US has mishandled the situation in Iraq," by Tom Regan (csmonitor.com, 04/12/04). I highly recommend this article and many links provided within the text.

I've been in The Great Outdoors since Sunday, away from all things that beep, honk, or report news.

My first glimmer of news came a few hours ago while visiting a relative in a hospital on the way home from the trip. There was a newspaper under her bed. While she slept, I perused the first section of the Contra Costa Times, and read a bit more once I came home this evening. The main story was about the worsening situation in Iraq (entitled "Baghdad and Parts of Central Iraq Chaotic"), including reports of 45 US soldiers' deaths this week alone; the US Marines defensive statements after bombing a mosque complex in Fallujah; word that three Japanese aid workers are being held hostage, and separate violent resistence efforts by both Sunni- and Shiite-backed factions who, despite their differences, all loathe the American occupation. (all links to contracostatimes.com).

It's very sad that things have gotten even worse since I last had access to news.

While there is something of a party line criticism accepting Bush's revised premises for war, yet pointing out the failures even in that context (same), I notice that the peace movement's premise that war and bombings couldn't bring peace and stability to a country are still not part of the discussion.

That's also sad.

The only options of permissable discourse from this limited sample of mainstream press material appear to be a) whether or not to bomb & occupy more (even though bombing and US occupation have not achieved previous stated goals) or b) whether to end the occupation but allow Iraq to descend into violence and chaos in the immediate future (even though violence and chaos are currently extant and appear to be increasing).

Continuing to make the same choices again and again while expecting different results are proverbial dictionary definitions of insanity. It is sad to learn that no wisdom has been gained during recent days (weeks, months, years...).

I was going to post a rant about the fluidity of American morality after being disgused by Dennis Miller whining at guest Eric Alterman about how it was really okay that Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds when he was our friend, because Iran 'was a bigger threat,' as if that would ever make gassing ANYONE okay... And then I got annoyed by the run-on-sentence nature of it all...

But then I decided to post something lighthearted instead. So here it is: "Charlie McCarthy Hearings" by Maureen Dowd. (04/01/04 NYTimes). Favorite line: "The President at all times, even on trips to the men's room, will be accompanied by the Vice President."

The Iraqi press should be free... but not TOO free. (sfgate.com photo - see sfgate article for more.)

The Iraqi press should be free... but not TOO free. (sfgate.com photo)

Another sad day without peace and security in Iraq

Just before my afternoon meeting I listened to the first half of 60 Minutes (cbsnews.com), where there was an extensive discussion of today's deaths of 4 civilians in Fallujah. (5 soldiers were also killed elsewhere.) They were killed with grenades and, quite appallingly, had their remains dragged through town. One correspondent discussed all the possible things civilians could have been doing for the Iraqi people, like supplying electricity or running water... but not what these particular civilians were actually doing.

According Five U.S. troops, four American. civilians die in day of 'horrific' violence in Iraq, by Robert Burns (sfgate.com/AP), there is information that the "civilians" were former military personnel providing [armed] security services for the military.

Early evidence indicated that the four civilian contractors worked for Blackwater Security Consulting, a company based in Moyock, N.C., the company said in a statement. The company is a security firm that hires former military members from the United States and other countries to provide security training and guard services. In Iraq, the company was hired by the Pentagon to provide security for convoys that delivered food in the Fallujah area, the company statement said.

(Similar info is available in this Washington Post article.)

I noticed this odd omission from the 60 Minutes reporting because a friend of mine has pointed out that "private contractors" or "civilian contractors" in many cases actually means "mercenaries" employed by private, for-profit armies.

They're good "civilian contractors" if they're working for us; they may be bad "foreign fighters" if they're working for others.

Right before I turned my radio off, it finally came it up: one of the hostesses asked why these "civilians" had DOD-issued dog tags, and the answer was that most of these "civilian contractors" are former military personnel, and they're functioning in a similar capacity now for the DOD... It may not come up in all reporting of the incident, however. I've now heard several news stories that omitted what role these contractors had, which is somewhat relevant. (It could not justify the treatment of their remains, but it does mean the men were armed foreigners, which makes the situation make slightly more sense.)

[Also see "Occupiers Spend Millions On Private Army of Security Men" by Robert Fisk and Severin Carrell in the Independent UK (truthout.org, 03/28/04) on how mercenaries are acting like, well, mercenaries during their time in Iraq...]

The September 11th Commission hearings and their aftermath (Or, 1000 reasons to read the Washington Post)

I haven't been writing as much as I've been reading and listening to the news of recent weeks as it has unfolded.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ("the 9-11 Commission") hearings have undoubtedly been THE media feeding frenzy of recent weeks. The hearings have been broadcast live on countless radio stations. Their purpose is to "prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." Mysteriously, the commission was long opposed by the current administration, who has provided various levels of cooperation with the Commission.

Much of the testimony I heard was very polite and professional, with blame cast on no one in particular, and a shared theory that little could have been done to prevent the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center in New York. The testimony was faster paced than I expected, and more educational: one of the questioners pointed out that decision makers seemed to never be presented with more options when presented with likely or possible terrorist facility location intelligence other than a) cruise missiles or b) the Normandy invasion. The questioner wanted to know why there weren't options presented in between. It took a while for the gentleman testifying in response to mention that there were options outside the narrow spectrum of missiles-to-Normandy, which was of concern to me. I was relieved when the idea of sending investigators (overt or covert) to actually visit a site to find out what it was used for eventually came up, but...

[An anti-Clinton opinion piece called 'The Clinton Mindset' by Peter Feaver (washingtonpost.com,03/24/04) actually suggests that the only option available to Clinton was cruise missiles, because the military was so opposed to Clinton's very existence. "A White House that could not prevail over military objections to using ground troops in Kosovo would have had a hard time overcoming institutional military objections." Feaver then blames Clinton for being a weak leader for this predicament, rather than military disloyalty, and insists that this lack of control over the military made us a target, and Bush is better/stronger because he invaded Iraq without a mandate. So the true measure of Presidential success is what you can get away with...]

Eventually, the tone of blamelessness gradually dissolved as past and present government officials suggested that nothing effective could have been done during their own watch, implying fault by others. (BBC)

And then came Richard Clarke, Republican, former Bush Administration counter-terrorism expert, and author of a new book which states that Bush didn't make terrorism an urgent priority. (BBC) (see also Washington Post summary) As with another Republican administration official who criticized Bush's decision making, the Bush Administration has gone bonkers trying to discredit him. In Bush, Clarke and A Shred of Doubt by Richard Cohen (washingtonpost.com, 03/23/04), the oddity of Bush's people so eager to discredit people they chose to work with doesn't add up.

As with former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, another fool who had somehow risen to become chairman of Alcoa, Clarke's account of his more than two years in the Bush White House was immediately denounced by a host of administration aides, some of whom -- and this is just the sheerest of coincidences -- had once assured us that Iraq was armed to the teeth with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Why is it that former Bush aides are all telling the same story?

That's a question we're not supposed to ask. Terror experts 'almost quit' in frustration with Bush
by Rupert Cornwell (Independent (UK), 03/25/04) makes the list of allegedly disgruntled employees longer, by reporting "that two veteran CIA counter-terrorism experts were so frustrated in summer 2001 that they considered resigning and making public their fears about an imminent terrorist strike against US targets."

The list of names of those within the Bush Administration who can't agree with its policies is growing. The best summary of this is The Professionals' Revolt by Harold Meyerson (washingtonpost.com, 03/24/04). This is an amazing article on internal rebellion by Republicans, and it names names:

Step back a minute and look at who has left this administration or blown the whistle on it, and why. Clarke enumerates a half-dozen counterterrorism staffers, three of whom were with him in the Situation Room on Sept. 11, who left because they felt the White House was placing too much emphasis on the enemy who didn't attack us, Iraq, and far too little on the enemy who did.

But that only begins the list. There's Paul O'Neill, whose recent memoir recounts his ongoing and unavailing battle to get the president to take the skyrocketing deficit seriously. There's Christie Todd Whitman, who appears in O'Neill's memoir recalling her own unsuccessful struggles to get the White House to acknowledge the scientific data on environmental problems. There's Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, who told Congress that it would take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to adequately secure postwar Iraq. There's Richard Foster, the Medicare accountant, who was forbidden by his superiors from giving Congress an accurate assessment of the cost of the administration's new program. All but Foster are now gone, and Foster's sole insurance policy is that Republican as well as Democratic members of Congress were burnt by his muzzling.

If you read any one article about the Bush Administration's internal dynamic, this should be the one.

But back to Clarke. Clarke's testimony and recent interviews are fascinating. In this Fresh Air interview (npr.org, 03/24/04), Clarke reveals that when he turned in his 9/11 report that blamed Al Qaeda but not Saddam Hussein, his memo cleared with CIA and FBI, but Bush's people returned it with a variation of 'wrong answer - do it again.' Clarke notes that the three major concerns of the outgoing Clinton intelligence personnel (Al Qaeda, the Arab-Israel Peace Process, and North Korea) appeared to become the lowest priorities of the Bush Administration, which fuels the perception that Bush's people had such a reactionary aversion to Clinton's administration and its ideas that it couldn't objectively look at the available information. (Great conceptual statement: 'There are more police in Manhattan than there are troops that the US put in Afghanistan.' I guess that shows how concerned we STILL are about terrorism there!)

Attempts to discredit Clarke are in full swing. But with a catch: Clarke's former boss, Condoleezza Rice, has been attempting to discredit his testimony while refusing to publicly testify herself. Rice's attempts to point to inconsistencies in Clarke's testimony has only called attention to her statements which conflict with those of her Bush Administration peers. (washingtonpost.com)

At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.

Rice's appearances on a variety of major media outlets while refusing to provide sworn testimony have attracted more and more attention to these problems. Some of Rice's private comments to the commission may wind up being released as a compromise to ward off even more bad press. (also washingtonpost.com, which has been FABULOUS as a source on this story.)

Perhaps that is why Condi looks SO VERY ANGRY in this photo. (Time magazine cover illustrating this BBC article)...

*

The problem that has become apparent to me is that nothing substantive that our government does has changed for the better in the wake of the WTC attacks. THAT is really the main point of concern for those of us listening to these hearings, and the point of the commission. The Bush Administration may want mileage out of posturing as a protector of the nation, but we do NOT need posturing: we need a real plan, and people who are willing to put safety and security above their own geopolitical agendas. If that isn't happening, we need new leadership to MAKE it happen.

Intro to Clarke 101

A few days ago, a friend of mine forwarded a message from her right-wing brother, insisting that anything former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke says which is in any way hurtful to the President is some sort of partisan Democratic conspiracy.

Her brother was blissfully unaware that Clarke is Republican, apparently.

She asked me to compile a few links that might educate a guy who relies on White House press releases for information, emphasizing the recent historic pattern within this administration of lying. And so this is what I sent:

----------
...I haven't seen the original comments [she sent to her brother], but I assume it relates to R. Clarke's reporting on what went on in the Bush White House.

Clarke has served 7 U.S. Presidents and has a 30 year career in government service, his book comes out at about the right amount of time (1 year of work after his resignation) both in terms of how long it took to write and when it's most likely to sell, and his complaints are reinforced by similar complaints made by former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, a man who was considered to have impeccable conservative/business credentials prior to his firing for disagreeing that tax cuts for the wealthy were a good idea.

Clarke's testimony to the 9/11 commission will be FASCINATING.

SO. While conservatives aren't big on facts (his facts will probably be White House Press Releases!!) My recommendations would be:

Clarke to Testify Wednesday (9/22/04, page with NPR audio file) About Clarke's reputation and allegations. Clarke was "Intensely loyal and mostly apolitical." Includes gripes by Bush Administration about the timing. "One of the nation's finest public servants."

BEST: 9/11 Commission Set to Convene (9/22/04, page with NPR audio file) Clarke issued repeated warnings to the Bush Administration, and was not allowed to brief Bush until after 9/11. "On 1/24/01 I wrote a memo to [Condi] asking for - URGENTLY, underlined, URGENTLY - a cabinet level meeting to deal with the impending Al Queda attack. And that urgent memo wasn't acted on." The response was basically that Bush had a plan anyway, and took Al Queda "seriously," and that was enough. (Condi has basically said this in her recent responses.) Clarke also says he was pushed to find a link to Iraq. Includes gripes by Bush Administration about the timing.

Audio interview with investigative reporter Michael Elliott on The World. January 2001 proposals to stop Al Queda didn't please Bush Administration, so they took a very long time to come up with new, grander proposals to eliminate Al Queda. Bush was skeptical about what he was told, and Condi wasn't impressed by the briefings. This is a non-partisan critique of the systemic transition problem.

Paul O'Neill, who was fired for publicly disagreeing with Bush over the merits of tax cuts, made statements supporting Clark's assertion that Bush's people only cared about Iraq. (BBC) Small excerpt:

The author of the new book, Ron Suskind, told CBS that he had received documents from Mr O'Neill and others which showed that during Mr Bush's first 100 days in office his officials were already looking at military options to remove Saddam from power.

O'Neill has also said he never saw evidence of the existence of WMDs - and he was in the cabinet! (This one is also fun, just for its harshness: [comments about dysfunctional administration]. (BBC))

Perhaps things would have gone smoother if Bush hadn't been on vacation so much: Ask Yahoo points out that "Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation." (ask.yahoo.com) (The appropriate right-wing defense to this, by the way, is 'at least it wasn't with an intern.' Because THAT is a meaningful response, hee hee...)

If your brother chooses to use any White House statements to refute Clarke, he'll have a hard time, considering all the documented lies that Bush has been caught telling:

pantsonfire.net Catalogs of lies
Caught On Film (a good catalog)
Bushlies.com (yes, there's a BOOK full of them)
whodies.com
bushwatch.com
buzzflash.com's compilation (July 2003 chart of lies known at that time)
Alterman's comments on how the press is shy about calling Bush a liar, but were fine with saying so about Clinton (thenation.com)
an example of the press being unwilling to call Bush a liar, yet listing some of his "flights of fancy" which aren't true (Washington Post)

And if you want to torment him with opinion, this is short and sweet: Paul Krugman's "Weak on Terror" points out that Bush has given Al Qaeda huge amounts of time to regroup while focusing on non-threatening, WMD-less Iraq. (originally in the NY Times, now at dailystar.com and elsewhere)