Things aren't going smoothly on the home front, either: Influx of Wounded Strains VA (news.yahoo.com/washingtonpost, 10/03/04)

An interesting compilation of international attitudes about U.S. policy under the Bush Administration: U.S. Policies Stir More Fear Than Confidence (news.yahoo.com/latimes, 10/03/04). There are some very unfortunate sentiments expressed resulting from the way in which the U.S. has chosen to use force.

The recent news about Iraq is a litany of horrors: Children massacred by Iraq bombs (bbc.co.uk, 09/30/04), reports that 34 kids were killed by a car bomb while pursuing sweets from U.S. soldiers, and that the U.S. killed a woman and child while engaging in house-bombings. In 'Scores die' in Samarra assault (bbc.co.uk, 10/01/04) the U.S. claims a precise estimate of 109 "insurgent" kills, while local hospitals report a high number of injuries, including to civilians.

On a different note, one correspondent notes that the use of force will not succeed in bringing order to Iraq on its own, and says that other efforts are afoot. Analysis: Battle for Iraq's future, by Jonathan Marcus (bbc.co.uk, 10/01/04) suggests that military campaigns which level cities and kill civilians won't create peaceful settings for elections, but that Allawi claims to be in negotiations with representatives from insurgent groups. If all the major Iraqi groups are represented in negotiations of the country's new constitution, peace may be achievable. Negotiations are a refreshing change from the force-only approach many of the parties in Iraq had taken.

Two Italian aid workers, who had been kidnapped in Iraq and were feared dead, were released and have created a controversy by insisting that resistance to puppet governments, such as Allawi's interim government in Iraq, is legitimate. Italy split over hostages' views (bbc.co.uk, 10/02/04) The two Simonas, Pari and Torretta, urged Italy to withdraw troops from Iraq, and condemned the kidnapping of civilians.

Their abductors gave them embroidered kaftans (British spelling) as gifts. The women feared they would be killed until they were freed, so I imagine the kaftans were quite unexpected. (understatement)

Their entire story has not been told, but should be interesting: one of the women was fluent in Arabic and had been doing aid work in Iraq for a long time, and so was likely able to communicate with their captors in a way that many other kidnap victims had not. The women were unaware of the unfortunate fates that hostages held by others in Iraq had recently suffered.

U.S. Foreign Policy Explained

This is the best and most concise explanation for why the U.S., promoter of Democracy in all of its glory, is allied with monarchies, theocracies, and dictators in addition to various democratic entities:

What the United States has never supported, however, or even tolerated, is a regime that is unwilling to enter into 'normal' trade or financial relations with American business. A country, to put it simply, in which no profits can be made by Americans. The presence or absence of profit opportunities, not the presence or absence of freedom, is what has traditionally determined American policy toward other regimes.

This excellent summary is a quote from a lengthy and very good review of four political books and is entitled Homeland Insecurity, by George Scialabba (thenation.com), and is printed in the October 11, 2004 issue (now available on newsstands).

Hey! That really is a U.S.-style democracy! How Much U.S. Help? The Bush Administration takes heat for a CIA plan to influence Iraq's elections, (time.com, forthcoming 10/04/04 issue) reveals that the Bush Administration planned to covertly fund pro-U.S. candidates in Iraq's upcoming "democratic" elections.

But U.S. officials tell TIME that the Bush team ran into trouble with another plan involving those elections — a secret "finding" written several months ago proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington. A source says the idea was to help such candidates — whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran — but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections.

(bold emphasis mine) THIS should give folks in the Middle East a happy signal about the U.S.' great intentions for a free Iraq.

I found this Prof. Juan Cole's blog at this Informed Comment entry, along with his commentary about how he finds the Time characterization of Pelosi inappropriate. Cole also has comments he has received from Iraqis about the "redevelopment" of certain areas of Najaf, which are being leveled without local input. I've heard elsewhere that through some coincidence, Mr. Sadr's offices, among others, will be demolished...

A necessary ingredient for democracy, at home or abroad: justice

I periodically point out to my peers, upon hearing of some terrible tragedy like a suicide bombing or a violent militaristic assault, that you never see millionaires wiring bombs to themselves. You never see doctors wearing jewelry driving their custom luxury cars into military barricades. You never see brain surgeons in tailored suits rioting.

While wealthy people may direct acts of violence by others, the people who act to harm themselves or others generally are not having their material or other needs met. It is people with no economic or personal stake in the future who feel they having nothing to lose by engaging in crimes of political or personal violence. It is people who have few social or economic options who join militaries around the world, whether for 'good' governments or 'bad' governments. People without hope, who are not invested personally in the future of their society, wind up in dangerous, hopeless situations which threaten everyone.

Being a student of compassionate action, it appears that an obvious solution to the problem of violence by the hopeless is to give them the means to have a future. But many world leaders instead believe that military power and repression can prevent hopeless people from acting violently.

I would be more inclined to believe this if I saw evidence of it working.

A discussion of two approaches to hopelessness came up in a good interview with a great writer and thinker: AlterNet: Finding Justice with Arundhati Roy. Roy says, in part:

Obviously there are two paths that humanity can choose to take. One is to increase inequality and then bank on weapons to maintain that, which is the project of the New American Century, and the project of any person who bids to be president of this country....

[The second path:] The way we can turn the world around is if we are at least moving on a path toward justice. Maybe it can never be achieved in any pristine form. Right now, the powerful, and I don't just mean the powerful in America, but the coalition of the powerful elites across the world are making it very clear that they are not even interested in justice.

On the same topic of justice and also very much worth reading: Matters of Justice, an interview with Cornel West, in which West says:

I think that?s a real challenge to the Bush administration in particular and to Americans in general, in their response to terrorism. Terrorism is ugly, wrong and vicious, but you don?t want to get in the same gutter as the terrorist to simply reinforce the same cycle of killing innocent people, demonizing others, losing sight of the humanity of others. You want justice, justice, justice.

I think Roy and West are very much on the right track.

It may be difficult for Americans to see, because the repressive perspective has spread to the populace: many Americans live in gated communities, fearful of the disenfranchised; many Americans support the imprisonment of huge percentages of the population, including impoverished, addicted, and hopeless people, rather than treatment or life assistance; many Americans live in fear of have-nots, building "safe rooms," purchasing guns, subscribing to guard services and alarm systems, driving tank-like vehicles to protect their possessions from those who have no legitimate means to acquire them... Yet none of these actions make American society safer, or the neighbors they fear more hopeful of their futures.

I am not suggesting that money alone is the deciding factor, but I am saying that material need/comfort is at least one factor. Social investment in neighborhoods and intact, healthy communities is another.

Radicalism consistently appears to be a resort of those who believe they have few options. Surely there is a reason the terrorists of Beslan were made up of widows and people who lost their children to Russian military violence. Surely there is a reason that Israel's poverty-producing policies and repeated destruction of neighborhoods that people were socially invested in has produced radically violent responses. Surely there is a reason that the impoverished of America's slums act in disregard to the rules of a society that shunts them aside.

If we want to live in a more peaceful, safe world, we need to consider all approaches. Creating a more just, secure, safe world is a great option.

Reports 'predicted Iraq violence' (bbc.com, 09/29/04). Not that this is a surprise, but:

US intelligence reports written before the Iraq war warned President George Bush that an invasion could lead to an insurgency, the New York Times reports.

The reports also predicted the war would increase sympathy in the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, officials who saw the reports say.

Of course, Bush Senior decided years ago that occupying Iraq was a bad idea. (themoderntribune.com; see also same at snopes.) Which means that "Gulf War I" could have been worse! I knew there was an upside here somewhere...

Ouch!. (sfgate.com). This is an image of a young child who was injured by U.S. airstrikes in Sadr City.

There are some strange things in mainstream news reports about the coverage of airstrikes against civilian areas. I've read that the insurgents in Najaf where intentionally having people live in their own houses, for example, so that they would be victims of U.S. bombings. As if living in one's own house is some sort of radical insurgent act. I think Rumsfeld brought up the same accusation in the documentary film Control Room. My partner has heard announcements by commentators on radio that civilian injuries as the result of bombing neighborhoods are 'impossible' and 'lies.'

How wacky - the idea that people live in neighborhoods, in houses even!!!

*

Of course, we don't usually get front page stories like this (bbc.com image of Independent cover dated 08/01/04) about specific civilians killed by the U.S. military, and the loss to their families for which cash offers cannot compensate.

Frighteningly, I don't think that war hysteria allows people to view Iraqi civilians as individuals with families, even though they are supposed to be the beneficiaries of U.S. military activities there. And the U.S. media isn't about to change that.

A flashback to a dark time in an earlier war: Vietnam, Inc. by Phillip Jones Griffiths. The photo has an unpleasantly familiar aspect.

CAPTURED SUSPECTS. Anyone who was male and between 15 and 50 was automatically assumed to be Vietcong and treated as such. After the traumatic experience of being arrested tnd then 'interrogated,' any person released would quickly want to join the Vietcong.

Link to post in the sidebar when I have a chance: AlterNet: War on Iraq: News Log.

Torture by beatings AND loud western music US troops face new torture claims (guardian.co.uk, 09/14/04). Ick.

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was harrowing and terrible, showing the corruption of U.S. "liberators" in a horrifically graphic light. Sadly, similar abuses by U.S. forces have also come to light - this time, against Afghan soldiers. U.S. Probing Alleged Abuse of Afghans (latimes.com, 09/21/04, registration required).

Alleged American mistreatment of the detainees included repeated beatings, immersion in cold water, electric shocks, being hung upside down and toenails being torn off, according to Afghan investigators and an internal memorandum prepared by a United Nations delegation that interviewed the surviving soldiers.

Some of the Afghan soldiers were beaten to the point that they could not walk or sit, Afghan doctors and other witnesses said.

One soldier was beaten to death; others were kept in custody until their torture wounds healed sufficiently for the U.S. forces to hand them over to Afghan authorities, who challenged the legality of their custody. When the U.S. was asked to investigate its role, "Pentagon officials said they could find no reports passed up the chain of command as required when a death occurs in U.S. custody, raising questions about possible efforts by American troops in Afghanistan to cover up the incident."

This is disturbing on several levels.

A simple question: how is torturing Afghan soldiers, who support the government the U.S. inserted in Afghanistan, helping support the U.S. anti-terrorist program?

*

If only this were a joke: If the U.S. is torturing the forces of its allies, could that explain why there are so few members of the so-called 'Coalition of the Willing?'

Not a pretty picture: Informed Comment : If America were Iraq, What would it be Like? (juancole.com, 09/22/04)

Informed Comment : Violence, Allawi, Sistani and Elections (juancole.com, 09/24/04) offers some interesting information, both on majority Iraqi fears of being sidelined in the elections, on Allawi's inaccurate comments about where violence in Iraq is occurring, and on Rumsfeld's comments about how not all parts of Iraq may enjoy elections in January.

Having your vote left uncounted really is becoming some sort of American tradition, isn't it?

The U.S. military still hasn't figured out what is wrong with this headline: U.S. Planes Strike Sadr City (washingtonpost.com, 09/24/04). Bombing an occupied civilian area tends to lead to bad feelings toward the bombers, and horrific images in the (foreign) press. I haven't yet heard of bombing a neighborhood resulting in improved relations between the surviving inhabitants and the occupying force.

Counting the civilian cost in Iraq (bbc.com, 09/22/04) points out that there is an obligation in the Geneva Conventions for occupiers to track civilian deaths, yet U.S. General Tommy Franks comment, "we don't do body counts" still stands.

I am glad the article includes an observation that the U.S. military seems to often estimate the number of "insurgents" it kills, but never the civilians, which are somehow unknowable.

The article provides links to groups that have been counting (but not to CIVIC).

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column is often great, but today's column is especially great. Bush Speech: Resolute or Clueless? (washingtonpost.com) (washingtonpost.com, 09/22/04) is full of interesting comments about war and peace. For example:

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace," Bush said.

Some people see irony there. Others don't.

Oh my. Froomkin's news summary and excerpts also quote from yesterday's post, from a great article I missed by Glenn Kessler, also of the Post::

Kessler writes that Bush "describes almost all issues through the prism of terrorism, giving short shrift to concerns such as world poverty, globalization and a growing divide between rich and poor that were often the focus of other leaders and that some argue are the root causes of terrorism. . . .

It's nice that other leaders are concerning themselves with the root causes of terrorism. It would be nicer if ours was.

Read the entire article: he's got everything from Annan's comments about the illegal war to an update on Kitty Kelly's sources for unflattering information about the Bushes.

No Justice, No Peace: This is more horrific evidence that governments (and societies) must never allow large segments of their population to become hopeless, from The Nation: September 27, 2004 issue, the editorial called "Putin's War":

During the past two years alone, more than 1,000 Russians have been killed in a series of increasingly lethal terrorist acts inside Russia... [since] 1994 more than 100,000 Chechens, most of them civilians, have died, fueling horrifying acts like those in the Beslan school. As a surviving hostage told a Russian newspaper, "The terrorists told us that their own children have been killed by Russians and they have nothing to lose..."

There is a vision of hell: people whose children were killed by your government coming to kill your children. It's hellish, because you know what you would want to do in their shoes, and NEVER want to be in their shoes.

Those of us in the peace movement have an obvious answer: stop allowing your government to kill other people and/or their children.

For reasons which are never apparent to me, this exotic tactic of not killing other people's children has not caught on, not even with my own government.

A new angle in Still Divided Three Years Later (washingtonpost.com, 09/14/04): the idea that the rest of the world may be safer as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but Iraqis are not.

This would be more compelling if any of Iraq's neighbors had been worried prior to the U.S. invasion, when even Kuwait was unenthusiastic...