October 23, 2007
American air war in Iraq becoming a reign of terror.
Chris Floyd has an excellent and hard-hitting column on the rapidly increasing air war the US is carrying out in Iraq, which is mostly being directed at civilian populations. The number of air strikes is up 4 times since the beginning of the year. Several cases have been reported in recent weeks about civilian casulties, including many young children, but there have been many, many more that haven't been reported. Check out the complete
article over at Glenn Greenwald's Salon blog, or more articles over at Chris' own site,
Empire Burlesque.
Monday, the Pentagon acknowledged a long-unspoken truth: that the bombardment of civilian neighborhoods in Iraq is an integral part of the vaunted "counterinsurgency" doctrine of Gen. David Petraeus. The number of airstrikes in the conquered land has risen fivefold since George W. Bush escalated the war in January, as USA Today reports:
"Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics ... In Iraq, the temporary increase of 30,000 U.S. troops ordered by President Bush in January has led to the increase in bombing missions. The U.S. command has moved forces off large bases and into neighborhoods and has launched several large offensives aimed at al-Qaeda ... 'You end up having that many more opportunities for close air support,' said Air Force Brig. Gen. Stephen Mueller, director of the Combined Air Operations Center in Doha, Qatar."
Leaving aside the undigested lump of pure propaganda spewed up by the reporter -- "al-Qaeda" has not been the sole or even the main target of the "offensives" launched into civilian areas -- the military stats reveal the growing centrality of airstrikes in Iraq. What's more, these figures do not include attacks by helicopter gunships, whose fearsome destructive power rivals that of any bomb or missile.
The results of this deliberate strategy have been entirely predictable and deeply horrific: Innocent civilians chewed to pieces by blast force and metal. Innocent civilians dispossessed of homes, cars, goods, all means of survival. Innocent civilians turned into bitter enemies of the United States, as they bury their young, their old, their most beloved ones.
The American air war against the Iraqis has been going on continuously, 24/7 since the war began back in 2003, over 4 years of constant bombardment. It's the most violent and least reported part of this war, and represents the worst of all the many war crimes being perpetuated there.
permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 at 02:51 PM
February 20, 2007
The US has at least 737 foreign bases, probably more.
Over at
AlterNet there's a
lengthy selection from Chalmers Johnson's new book "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic", which outlines in detail the extent of the U.S.'s enormous overseas military. Not only does it provide updated details on the bases that we know about, it discusses the "hidden" ones as well, the ones that the US and other governments like to keep under cover. There are quite a few of those, but no one ever talks about them.
The total of America's military bases in other people's countries in 2005, according to official sources, was 737. Reflecting massive deployments to Iraq and the pursuit of President Bush's strategy of preemptive war, the trend line for numbers of overseas bases continues to go up.
Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 -- mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets -- almost exactly equals Britain's thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty.
Using data from fiscal year 2005, the Pentagon bureaucrats calculated that its overseas bases were worth at least $127 billion -- surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic products of most countries -- and an estimated $658.1 billion for all of them, foreign and domestic (a base's "worth" is based on a Department of Defense estimate of what it would cost to replace it). During fiscal 2005, the military high command deployed to our overseas bases some 196,975 uniformed personnel as well as an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and employed an additional 81,425 locally hired foreigners.
The worldwide total of U.S. military personnel in 2005, including those based domestically, was 1,840,062 supported by an additional 473,306 Defense Department civil service employees and 203,328 local hires. Its overseas bases, according to the Pentagon, contained 32,327 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and 16,527 more that it leased. The size of these holdings was recorded in the inventory as covering 687,347 acres overseas and 29,819,492 acres worldwide, making the Pentagon easily one of the world's largest landlords.
These numbers, although staggeringly big, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2005 Base Structure Report fails, for instance, to mention any garrisons in Kosovo (or Serbia, of which Kosovo is still officially a province) -- even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel built in 1999 and maintained ever since by the KBR corporation (formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root), a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston.
The report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq (106 garrisons as of May 2005), Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, even though the U.S. military has established colossal base structures in the Persian Gulf and Central Asian areas since 9/11. By way of excuse, a note in the preface says that "facilities provided by other nations at foreign locations" are not included, although this is not strictly true. The report does include twenty sites in Turkey, all owned by the Turkish government and used jointly with the Americans. The Pentagon continues to omit from its accounts most of the $5 billion worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases overseas, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure.
In some cases, foreign countries themselves have tried to keep their U.S. bases secret, fearing embarrassment if their collusion with American imperialism were revealed. In other instances, the Pentagon seems to want to play down the building of facilities aimed at dominating energy sources, or, in a related situation, retaining a network of bases that would keep Iraq under our hegemony regardless of the wishes of any future Iraqi government. The U.S. government tries not to divulge any information about the bases we use to eavesdrop on global communications, or our nuclear deployments, which, as William Arkin, an authority on the subject, writes, "[have] violated its treaty obligations. The U.S. was lying to many of its closest allies, even in NATO, about its nuclear designs. Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of bases, and dozens of ships and submarines existed in a special secret world of their own with no rational military or even 'deterrence' justification."
This is just a selection, it's a long article, well worth reading if you really want to know where all of those American tax dollars are going. On top of the money, think about just how much oil and other fuels all of this takes.
permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Putin's speech at kremlin.ru, and some other Russia links.
The complete text of Putin's recent remarkable
speech in Munich is up at the Kremlin's site,
kremlin.ru, including all of the answers to the many questions he was asked after the speech. I posted on it before, and I still think it was quite an extraordinary and important speech. The discussion after it is noteworthy as well.
First time I ever stumbled on the Kremlin's site, very interesting. More like a presidential site, but that's about the same as the White House site in the US. Here or there, it's always about the politicians, and the cult of personality. There's a lot of material there though, and quite a bit of it in English.
Add: nice
article on Putin and Russia in the Guardian, suggesting that the Europeans and Americans may regret their continuous bullying of Russia.
When Putin sought to join Nato in the 1990s he was rebuffed. Then Nato broke its post-cold-war promise and advanced its frontier through the Baltics and Poland to the Black Sea. It is now planning missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic and is flirting with Ukraine and Georgia. Against whom is this directed, asks Putin.
The west grovels before Opec, but when Putin proposes a gas Opec it cries foul. America seizes Iraq's oil, but when Putin nationalises Russia's oil that, too, is a foul. Meanwhile, every crook, every murdered Russian, every army scandal is blazoned across the western press. True, Russia is still a klepto-oligarchy that steps back as often as forward, but what of America's pet Asian democracies, Afghanistan and Iraq?
In his Munich speech Putin asked why America constantly goes on about its "unipolar world". Does Washington really seek a second cold war? Russia is withdrawing from Georgia and Moldova. Why is Nato advancing bases in Bulgaria and Romania? The west is handling Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran with the arrogance and ineptitude of 19th-century imperialists. Is it surprising Russia is seeking allies where it can, in China, India, Iran and the Gulf?
At an Anglo-Russian conference in Moscow last weekend I was bemused by the talk of a return to "east-west" confrontation. Diplomats have a habit of listing complaints like marriage counsellors inviting couples to catalogue what most irritates them about each other. The list seems endless, but it surely points to a proper talk rather than a divorce. Don't they really need each other after all?
Having visited Russia three times since the demise of the Soviet Union, I remain impressed by its progress. Debate and comment are open. Russia is not squandering its energy wealth but setting $100bn aside in an infrastructure fund. The links between Russia and western business are worth $30bn in inward investment. Cultural and educational contacts are strengthening. Moscow and St Petersburg are booming world cities, their skylines thick with cranes.
If you want more, the
Asia Times has some good recent articles on Russia. One by M. K. Bhadrakumar
entitled
Russia straddles Sunni-Shi'ite divide, discusses how Russia has been having more success with its diplomacy in the Middle East than the US has had using force. Another one by Nicolai Petro entitled
Russia as friend, not foe, is a very good article which details the many ways Russia has made progress since the end of the Cold War, and why the Euro-Americans can't seem to stop insisting that it's the same old Russia. And there's one by Spengler, who is a bit dogmatic and right-wing for my taste, entitled
Russia's hudna with the Muslim world, which discusses relations, both now and historically, between Russia and the Islamic world.
Petro's article is particularly good. He gives numerous examples of how what is reported about Russia by the Euro-American press is not matched by the reality inside Russia itself. In a number of areas: democracy, the media, Chechnya, the economy and so on. Sometimes what he reports is quite surprising.
One could go on and on, but these examples should suffice to provide a sense of the hurdles that even the most thoughtful and well-informed media consumers face when trying to understand the changes that have taken place in Russia since Putin took office. I will not even mention Russia's economic miracle - eight straight years of economic growth that have led to a fivefold increase in GDP, except to highlight one telling point. It astonishes people to learn that return on foreign investment in Russia is an order of magnitude higher than in China, and that foreign companies that invested in Russia have outperformed those that invested in China every year since 2001.
The fact that China is widely regarded as a more attractive investment opportunity than Russia despite yielding much lower profits, having more corruption and far less political freedom, and facing enormous future political uncertainties testifies amply to the role that media-fed cultural preconceptions play in relations with Russia.
One good thing about the Asia Times is that they publish relatively long and detailed articles, more than the quick soundbites you get from the western media, and ones that offer up some informed and educated historical perspective, something sadly lacking in the Euro-American media.
permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 at 03:39 PM
February 19, 2007
Murder, Inc.
People are finally starting to confront the and discuss the extent of American evil. Justin Raimondo has written an excellent essay,
Murder, Inc., expressing the view that America's so-called wars are nothing more than an excuse for psychopaths and sociopaths to run amuck. I'm quoting the whole thing, because it's important and to include the many links to video clips and other evidence he's collected.
He's so right though, especially in stating that American soldiers aren't "heroes" by any stretch of the imagination, but ruthless, cruel, sadistic killers and predators. Americans never accept any responsibility for anything they do. Left, right or middle they always look for someone else to blame, and the so-called soldiers are the worst of the lot.
Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington was
recently
sentenced to a mere eight years in jail for the wanton, planned murder of an
Iraqi man, in return for his testimony against the other monsters who participated
in the crime. He told the judge, at his sentencing, that he felt regret "but
that he and other Marines were frustrated by their ill-defined mission in Iraq
and the inability to tell friend from foe. 'As callous as it sounds,' he said,
every Iraqi was considered 'guilty until proven otherwise.'"
How typically American: he isn't to blame for his actions – certainly not!
– it's his "ill-defined mission." But what if carnage – for its own
sake, as an end in itself – is the mission? Forget the highfalutin' rhetoric
about "democracy," the "war on terrorism," the "weapons
of mass destruction" that somehow turned into a desert mirage. The ugly
reality is that Iraq has become an arena for American sadists
to act out their perverted
fantasies, a vast Charenton
where the de Sades in charge of American foreign policy have unleashed an army
of torturers
and murderous thugs on the Iraqi people. The American media doesn't
want to show the real face of U.S. "liberators," but they are
being outflanked by the new technology that makes the self-appointed "gatekeepers"
of journalism increasingly irrelevant.
The Americans seem particularly enthralled with shooting the wounded: here
is some young savage, living proof that devolution is not just a concept, expounding
on how "awesome" wanton murder is. He is the New American Man, invincibly
ignorant,
raised on rap music and violent video games,
grinning boyishly at the prospect of a future of endless slaughter. He rides
around the country, randomly
firing on civilians, as if he were at one of those shoot-the-duck booths
at the county fair.
They murder to a
Satanic tune – "Dead
bodies everywhere!" – while joyously creating
havoc wherever they roam. For allegedly stealing wood, an Iraqi taxi driver
finds that his livelihood is crushed
by an American tank – and, boy, it sure looks like those Americans are having
fun! That is how a
sick, decadent
people amuse themselves.
These "liberators" are war
criminals, and it's only fitting that they have installed a government of
death squads as their
local satraps. As they and their allies rampage
throughout Iraq, like
angels of death, committing
war crimes in the dark,
the U.S. Congress "debates"
a non-binding resolution – and the Senate cannot
even bring itself to vote on a meaningless motion, never mind one that could
actually end the slaughter.
Support our troops? Hell no. Anyone who "supports the troops" is
an accomplice to their
deeds. The evidence shows clearly that these are not innocent babes in the
woods: they are wolves,
predators, killers,
deeply, profoundly implicated in what will go down in history as a horrific
war of aggression.
The clear fact of the matter is that America's conquest of Iraq is the policy
of criminals – except that even most criminals act rationally, in the sense
that there's some profit in their activities, some benefit, real or imagined,
to be gained. But this war is not an ordinary crime: it is a wanton orgy of
murder that is all the more horrendous due to its utter senselessness. This
is nihilism in action.
I doubt that a congressional resolution is going to address the main cause
of this war and its continuation: the psychological sickness that is eating
away at the American character. It is a mix of hubris, bloodlust, and sheer
depravity, and it is being acted out against the backdrop of international politics.
The post-9/11 world we are living in has become a projection of our own demons,
which have now been unleashed on a horrified world.
Who will stop the madness? Not the politicians. Not Congress, or the media,
nor even the men of God – all of whom are complicit, to one degree or another,
with the crimes of the American government. Our intellectual, moral, and political
leaders have abandoned all standards, all sense of decency, and therefore have
no problem rationalizing the monstrous.
There will be no easy end to this war because it is merely a symptom of our
own inner rot. We've come a long way from the American of Jefferson's time to
the neo-barbarians of the Late Imperial era – and it's been downhill
all the way.
This isn't a political problem – it's a cultural affliction. The world's most
powerful nation is infected with the psychopathology of a serial murderer –
one who kills not out of grim necessity, but for the sheer
joy of it.
We live in a society sickened by its own poisons. Conservatives have known
this for some time. Liberals are learning it. The culture of permissiveness,
of moral relativism and heedless hedonism, is yielding some decidedly unexpected
consequences in the foreign policy realm. After all, we're the most powerful
nation on earth – why shouldn't we push others around? Even as we play
the role of international do-gooders, the obvious enjoyment our centurions take
in humiliating "Ali
Baba" – their name for any Iraqi – illustrates what is really driving
this war, and all the wars to come: what the conservative philosopher Claes
Ryn calls "the
will to dominate."
America is, today, the fountainhead of evil in the world. No one is killing
people faster, and with more cruelty and indifference, than the warlords of
Washington. The temptation is to turn away in disgust and resign oneself to
the degeneration of Jefferson's benevolent legacy into a maelstrom of malevolence
worthy of Caligula.
Yet the triumph of domination as the guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy
is not inevitable, or irreversible. Its overthrow, however, requires a moral
reawakening. By this, I don't mean a return to religion, although – unlike all
too many libertarians – I wouldn't rule it out entirely. This moral revolution,
in any case, will be born in an instinctive revulsion against what is depicted
in the video links above, married to an unwillingness to let such evil continue
for a moment longer.
Sooner or later, the American people must be made to understand that the choice
is between noninterventionism and barbarism. Americans are naïve: they
believe in the myth of automatic progress, the illusion of history as an ever
ascending stairway to higher levels of civilization, but the truth is far grimmer.
Empires rise – and fall. Dark ages follow. The kind of degeneracy we are now
seeing acted out in Iraq promises a fall that will plumb new depths of darkness.
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Ameicans need to wake up to the monster they've created and destroy it, or the world will do it for them. What goes around comes around, and what's coming to the US in the next few years will not be pretty.
To put it in blunter terms: American soldiers aren't "defending" you; they're "endangering" you.
permalink, posted by mike on Monday, February 19, 2007 at 12:30 PM
February 11, 2007
US donates paltry sum to "study" Agent Orange use in Vietnam.
Guardian
article, "US to help fund Agent Orange clean-up". After decades of refusing to acknowledge the long-term effects of the massive use of Agent Orange by Americans during the Vietnam war, the US has finally agreed to donate an incredibly paltry $400,000 to help research ways to remove soil still highly toxic after nearly 40 years. Note that while the article title says the US will help "fund" the clean-up, in actuality it is only helping fund research, not any actual clean-up. And $400,000, in an age where millions and billions are routinely squandered, is less than nothing. It'll probably end up going to some contractors too.
It is beyond scandalous that the US has been refusing for so many decades to acknowledge the long-term effects of its indiscriminate use of Agent Orange (and other chemicals), or to help clean up the toxic soil or help those with birth defects caused by it. The Vietnamese have continue to try to obtain legal redress for this war crime, but have had no luck so far, since the legal systems are controlled by the Americans. They continue to try however. Note that new victims are being born all of the time, this is not ancient history, but an on-going problem.
Two of the approximately four million Vietnamese people
with birth defects caused by American use of Agent Orange.
(Photograph: Richard Vogel/AP)
The US is to help fund efforts in Vietnam to clean up soil contaminated by the defoliant Agent Orange in a move hailed today as the first step in healing a long-running rift between the two former enemies.
Washington's ambassador to Vietnam said that the US would contribute $400,000 (£210,000) to a $1m study to find ways to removed the highly toxic chemical, dioxin, from earth at the war-era air force base at Danang.
It is one of three hotspots at air bases identified by US scientists, though 70m litres of the chemicals were dropped on southern Vietnam between 1961 and 1975 to strip trees of foliage and expose enemy positions and supply routes.
The move, announced at a joint media conference in Hanoi, is symbolically significant as the US has always rejected Vietnam's claims that Agent Orange — so-called because it was stored in orange barrels — caused birth defects and diseases in four million people.
The US always refused to pay compensation to the millions of Vietnamese said to have suffered from Agent Orange's effects, maintaining there was no proven scientific link. A court action brought against 37 American chemical companies by a group of Vietnamese was dismissed by US courts in 2005, but an appeal has been launched.
If the Vietnamese ever do win any court cases and obtain damages, the payments could be enormous. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but sooner or later the American people will have to pay reparations to the many peoples they've illegally attacked, and they could be in the trillions. Iraq alone will be in the trillions.
permalink, posted by mike on Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 02:57 PM
An American appeals to people around the world.
Stan Goff has recently published this
article, An Appeal to People Outside the United States to Break US Imperial Power, delineating the ways that people outside the US can use to limit and reduce the expansion of American power. It's very well thought out, and realistic. It's been published around the web a bit, but I thought I'd reproduce it here as a reminder that people around the world can learn what they can do. Americans in particular, politically aware or not, should be aware that global boycotts of American goods and services are being organized, and that soon they will be widespread and very effective.
NOTE: Please translate this into as many languages as possible, and distribute as widely as possible.
This series of suggestions is written because my country is on a path that will first destroy other societies -- upon which we depend -- and the biospheric basis of life itself; and this means eventually our own society.
Our society now -- an imperial society -- is deeply alienated, desperately unhappy, and thoroughly indoctrinated into the acquisitive individualism that creates that alienation and unhappiness. We continue down this path because the weight of the system gives it such enormous inertia. We need you to do these things, not just to ensure your own futures... but for our own good.
The United States now exists as a parasite upon the rest of the world. In this system, this political entity called the United States of America is not only a parasite, but a parasite that is destroying its own host. There is only one outcome in the end for such a relationship; we will all perish together. With the help of the people of the world -- and I will outline ten ways you can help us -- we can all escape this fate. Each of us -- with the destruction of US imperial power -- will be in a better position to work for a sustainable and indpendent future for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
(1) If there is a US military base in your country, begin a concerted campaign to get rid of it. These bases are exercises of imperial power against your own sovereignty. They are creating base-economies of crime, corruption, and prostitution. They are environmental disasters. Wage a sharp political struggle to make them untenable.
(2) If there are US companies, be they factories, financial offices, or retail outlets, in your country, organize sustained boycotts of them.
(3) If you live in a country that owes an external debt to the US or the US-controlled International Monetary Fund, begin a fight to either default on that debt outright, or secure low-interest or no-interest loans from other countries to pay down the principle. Your nations' debt is your peoples' slavery.
(4) Boycott any American agricultural products being dumped on your national markets; and wage a political fight to stop them coming in. US industrial agricultural corporations are heavily-subsidized and predatory monstrosities that destroy the environment and are used as a weapon to destroy your local, traditional agriculture. Ending agriculture for export and supporting your own subsistence and local market agriculture is necessary to break your dependency upon and subjugation to the United States. Fight for you nations' land; and do not let it become an export platform for dollar-crops in the US market.
(5) Boycott American cultural products. They are propaganda aimed at turning your children into mindless consumers and your nations into obedient colonies.
(6) Make these political issues at home. Fight politicians who are called "pro-American," This means they are stooges for US-based transnational corporations or for the US state.
(7) Fight to nationalize your most valuable natural resources; and support politicians who will abrogate agreements that allow US finance capital unlimited access to your national markets.
(8) Try to close down any projects that are run out of the US Embassy by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). These projects are designed to drain talented local people away from national independence movements, and the USAID works closely with the Central Intelligence Agency.
(9) Expose and resist any political activity by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), also operating in concert with the US Embassy. This is a front organization for the purpose of engineering election outcomes in your nation that are seen as favorable to US transnational corporations and the US state.
(10) Mount massive political efforts directed at US Embassies everywhere that oppose the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and demand not only withdrawal, but that no US bases be left behind.
NOTE: I have not called for violence in any of these suggestions. These are generic recommendations.
permalink, posted by mike on Sunday, February 11, 2007 at 02:39 PM
February 10, 2007
US veteran points out the idiocies of the surge.
Although I don't usually like linking to Counterpunch because of their blatant anti-semitism, they occasionally publish some useful articles, as
this one by an American Vietnam vet, "An Open Letter to America's Soldiers from the Ranks: The Looming Shadow of Nuremberg". He makes a number of good points, about the idiocies of trying to win a counter-insurgency in a country where you don't speak the language and everyone hates you, and others, which are excellent but which have been made before. But I was particularly intrigued by his point that the so-called "surge" is in actuality a plan to reinforce the protection around the Green Zone before an attack on Iran. Interesting idea.
Let me tell you a little secret about the plan to parcel you out in small groups and isolate you in Iraqi units. This was tried in Vietnam with disastrous results, with adjectives like suicidal. And that was before we had really gotten serious about killing people over there. How can you tell who the enemy is? Do you speak the Iraqi language and understand the culture? That friendly Iraqi kid or little girl in a burka may be taking reams of mental notes about your unit strength, equipment, and movement patterns to relay to their big brothers with the IEDs, RPGs and AKs. They may even be humping bags of ammo or ordnance and running commo for insurgents.
Count your fingers for the number of new insurgents every dead civilian creates. Rape a girl and murder her family to cover it up, and you'll need a computer. Don't forget to factor in the damage from 50,000 armed-to-the-teeth mercenaries, many of whom not only don't speak Iraqi, they don't even speak English. Always remember that none of these people invited you there to blow their country apart. Imagine how you'd feel if some friendly invaders and a bunch of their salaried thugs had wasted New York City and killed the entire population.
I can tell you from experience that it's impossible to win any kind of guerilla war without the support of the population and while soldiering from a defensive position. Have your missions turned from search and clear to search and avoid like ours did? Do you have a mentality of "the day is yours, the night is theirs"? If that's true, the situation has disintegrated into a war of attrition and you've lost.
Put aside from the moral conundrum of nuking a non-nuke country that has signed the non-proliferation treaty to keep that country from maybe getting nukes of its own, and all on behalf of another country that already has hundreds of nukes and refuses to sign any such treaties. An attack on Iran means you will be trapped between a rock and a hard place. Make no mistake: the real reason for the "surge" into Bagdad is to reinforce security around the laptop warriors and bureaucrats in the Green Zone. You'll find yourselves in the curious position of playing bodyguard for the hired guns. How ironic will that be?
Think about your families and loved ones. A large number of you are serving multiple tours, with many involuntarily extended. For the latter, your country has violated the contract it signed with you, but just try breaking your end of it. Meanwhile, military families suffer at home, a significant number of you will not have jobs to return to, and unbelievably, your government is doing its best to slash or delay veteran's benefits. For those of you who come home wounded, it will take years to get a VA disability claim processed if you succeed at all.
It's a powerful, emotional article, well worth reading. But note the little bit in the second paragraph of the quote he gives at the beginning, about "Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Fallujah, the rape of Lebanon, the concentration camps in the West Bank and Gaza." Even though Israel and the US are separate countries, involved in separate actions (no Israelis are serving in Iraq, no Americans are in the West Bank and Gaza), the anti-Semites try to distort the facts to tie them together. Observe the way the propaganda works. And note the use of the term "concentration camps" to refer to prisons in Israel, but not to Abu Ghraib and others run by the Americans, although its known throughout the world how much worse conditions are in Iraqi prisons these days.
It's part of the ongoing attempt by some Aemricans to blame Israel and the Jews for the major war crimes Americans are committing. You'll nearly always find nasty little bits of anti-Semitism in Counterppunch articles about the mideast, always, always, always. They're simply incapable of objectivity about the Jews. Part of it of course is just that the folks at Counterpunch are Americans, and like virtually all Americans these days, left and right it makes no difference, they are desperately trying to cover up the extent of the war crimes that all Americans are responsible for. But they're liberals, and liberals never accept responsibility for anything since it's always somebody else's fault, and so they need to find someone such as the Jews to blame.
permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Putin takes off the gloves.
Finally. A major world leader stands up in public and openly accuses the US of beginninig a new arms race, undermining global stability, and a number of other things. Russian President Putin made an
important speech at a major security conference in Munich.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia accused the United States on Saturday of provoking a new nuclear arms race by developing ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions and making the Middle East more unstable through its clumsy handling of the Iraq war.
In an address to an international security conference, Mr. Putin dropped all diplomatic gloss to recite a long list of complaints about American domination of global affairs, including many of the themes that have strained relations between the Kremlin and the United States during his seven-year administration. Among them were the expansion of NATO into the Baltics and the perception in Russia that the West has supported groups that have toppled other governments in Moscow’s former sphere of influence.
“The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance,” Mr. Putin said. “We have the right to ask, against whom is this expansion directed.”
He said that the United States had turned the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which sends international monitors to elections in the former Soviet sphere, “into a vulgar instrument of insuring the foreign policy interests of one country.”
The comments were the sternest yet from Mr. Putin, who has long bristled over criticism from the United States and its European allies as he and his cadre of former Soviet intelligence officials have consolidated their hold on Russia’s government, energy reserves and arms-manufacturing and trading complexes.
Slowly but surely the world is preparing to confront America's never-ending war crimes and attempts to dominate the world. It's a problem that simply will continue to get worse until it's dealt with. Putin's speech is an important landmark. I wonder what moves he has planned for his last year or so in office.
But you wouldn't know it from the NY Times or the rest of the so-called media, who remain as trapped in their American bubble as ever. Why don't we ever see the terms "cadre" or "cartel" used to refer to the cadres of American and European officials who have "consolidated their hold" on their own governments. Blair and Brown and the corrupt Labor party leadership aren't a cadre? Not to mention the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.
More: Another
article on this from the Guardian. They say "He did not have a good word to say about Washington's policies." Some rough talk.
In a blistering assault that reflected the Kremlin chief's self-confidence and conviction that he has restored Russia's international clout after years of decline, Putin told a security conference in Munich that America was destroying the international system and seeking to eliminate nuclear deterrence through the uncontained use of its power. 'One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way,' he told dozens of Western ministers and policy-makers including the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and a likely Republican presidential contender, Senator John McCain.
'This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law,' Putin said. 'This is nourishing an arms race with countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons... We're witnessing the untrammelled use of the military in international affairs... Why is it necessary to bomb and to shoot at every opportunity?'
The Russian leader accused Washington of plotting to evade its commitments to cut nuclear arsenals - already made through US-Russian arms treaties - and raged against the Pentagon's plans to site parts of its missile shield project in Poland and the Czech Republic. 'I don't want to suspect anyone of aggressiveness,' said Putin. 'But if the anti-missile defence is not targeted at us, then our new missiles will not be directed at you.'
The tirade indicated that the Kremlin is gearing up for confrontation with the Americans. He did not have a good word to say about Washington's policies.
McCain told The Observer the speech was 'the most aggressive from a Russian leader since the end of the cold war', adding that it was confrontational, with some of the observations bordering on paranoia. The US Defence Secretary sat stony-faced throughout Putin's words.
"Why is it necessary to bomb and to shoot at every opportunity?" Good question, and one not just Russians are asking. I like the fact the Russians are developing their own policies to deal with security problems, any alternatives to American unilitateralism are welcome.
The Kremlin spokesman, Dimitry Peskov, denied that his leader had intended to be aggressive or confrontational, but said that the time was right for Putin to throw down the gauntlet.
On several key disputes dominating the international agenda, Putin came out in flat opposition to the Americans. Russia was supplying Iran with air defence equipment, for example, so that Tehran did not feel surrounded by enemies. ...
He reserved his bitterest complaints, however, for the US drive to expand Nato into former Soviet eastern Europe and for the plans to deploy parts of the missile shield in central Europe. 'Why do you need to move your military infrastructure to our borders?' he declared.
McCain insisted that the missile shield was defensive and did not threaten anyone.
There's no way that Russia and China can accept having American bases and forces right on their borders. Their politicians may have different opinions, but their military people will all agree about this, it's simply unacceptable from a rational security standpoint. And since the US doesn't seem capable of backing down and, in fact, seems intent on further expansion (into Iran), it's inevitable that these countries will come into conflict.
More: LA Times
article. Adding this extra articles because this is a big story. Note the attitude of the Euro-American elite, blithely dismissing any of Putin's concerns, and simply stating that the Russians (and the rest of the world) have nothing to worry about. Note this comment in response to Putin's quite legitimate complaints that NATO is expanding right up to Russia's borders.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, told the conference later in the day that he was "disappointed" by Putin's statements, noting that NATO had for a decade held regular security consultations with Moscow through a formalized, legally binding agreement.
"Who can be worried that democracy and the rule of law are coming closer to somebody's border?" Scheffer asked.
If by "democracy" he means the US and the EU, then anyone with any sense should be worried. And to simply ignore the massive violations of "law" that the US, the UK and their corporate buddies have been perpetuating throughout the world at this point is so dishonest and hypocritical those words are simply inadequate.
Note that NATO stands for "NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization." Afghanistan and Bulgaria sure are a long, long way from the Atlantic. Exactly what is NATO for now, who runs it, what is its purposes, and why is it attempting to encircle Russia? Putin's asking some good questions, and rather than simply dismissing them out of hand, Euro-American leaders would be well to consider them, and come up with some answers that are somethingm more than platitudes.
permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 12:45 PM
February 07, 2007
Good analysis of the utterly ridiculous new US war budget.
There's a good
roundup of the proposed new American military budget in Asia Times. Lots of detail.
"What's remarkable about this year's military budget is that it's the largest budget since World War II, but, of course, we're not fighting World War II," noted William Hartung, a defense expert at the World Policy Institute in New York.
"We're fighting terrorist networks armed with explosives and AK-47s. This has to be considered a triumph of an arms lobby that can obviously sell us things we don't need at a time that the president claims we're in mortal danger."
To put a different perspective on the figure, $623 billion is about $10 billion more than the total gross domestic product (GDP) of all 47 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including South Africa and oil giants Nigeria and Angola, in 2005, according to the World Bank. ...
With the additional spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, total US military spending appears to be well above that of all of the rest of the world's combined.
In addition, the administration has announced it will push for expanding the size of the army from 482,000 to 547,000 troops by 2012 and the Marine Corps from 174,000 to 202,000 over the next four to five years.
"At a time when public opinion polls show strong support for a less militarized, less unilateral foreign policy, this budget clearly takes us in the wrong direction," according to Miriam Pemberton, an analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies.
In case you're keeping track, this is now more than double the war budget when Bush got into office. And this is just the official, unclassified section, there's more we aren't allowed to know about.
permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 10:04 AM
February 03, 2007
Watching America.
If you want a good sample of what the world's press is saying about America, try
Watching America. It gathers together articles from around the world and translates them for you. Stuff you probably won't read anywhere else. Very convenient. They're not saying very nice things about America these days, and there are a lot of opinions Americans need to hear. Another good site for different viewpoints is
Asia Times.
permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 01:56 PM
February 02, 2007
Bush plans on requesting hundreds of billions more for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reuters
reports that Bush is planning to ask for $100 billion more to fund the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan for this year (on top of $70 billion already recently requested), and hundreds of billions more to take it through 2008.
President George W. Bush will request slightly more than $100 billion to cover war operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year and an even larger amount for fiscal 2008 that begins on October 1, congressional sources said on Thursday.
The administration, which will submit the war cost proposals along with its annual budget on Monday, will provide details of its war spending plans to try to placate critics who have accused it of using a shadow budget to fund the war.
For the current fiscal year, the White House will ask Congress to approve an additional $93 billion for the Defense Department to conduct the two wars and about $7 billion for State Department activities, a Senate aide said.
Including other items, the request will total "a little over $100 billion," according to the Senate aide. That would come on top of $70 billion Congress already approved for the wars this year.
For 2008, the administration will ask for an amount "larger than the $100 billion in the fiscal 2007 request," the Senate aide said.
House and Senate aides said the administration was trying to detail the 2008 costs in advance, responding to complaints from Congress about the long line of "emergency" spending bills that have mostly funded the Iraq war since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
These are just "emergency" additions, not included in the regular budget. They are not included in the "regular" military budget of $500 billion or so, plus lots of "special ops", "intelligence", and other "classified" operations they're not telling us about. While the focus is on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is also involved in wars in Columbia, Somalia and god knows where else. Endless war, endless war, endless money, endless money ...
Naturally the Democrats will go along with it all. They're owned lock, stock and barrel by the military-industrial-financial-legal-corporate complex, and in their 200 year history have never met a war they didn't like. See these articles
"Democrats Sidestep Defunding Demands" and
Hillary Clinton calls Iran a threat to U.S., Israel" if you still have any doubts on that. All in all my estimate of America's total war budget is approaching a trillion dollars a year. And for wars that they are losing.
Remember Newton's laws of energy? "An object in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by an OUTSIDE FORCE. An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by an OUTSIDE FORCE."
And this doesn't include the costs of caring for the vets injured in these wars, of which there are at least 150,000 so far. At least 100,000 so far have been approved for disability claims. Those costs will continue for the life of the vets, decades at least. And it does not include the reparations that the US will be forced to pay sooner or later, since the entire thing is blatantly illegal. And if that isn't enough, it doesn't include the interest payments required to finance all of it, since all of this money is being borrowed, not paid through taxes. The total of these extra costs alone will be trillions over coming decades.
permalink, posted by mike on Friday, February 2, 2007 at 10:55 AM
January 30, 2007
Bush the empire slayer.
Excellent article by Bernard Chazelle entitled
Bush The Empire Slayer, which does a great job of summarizing all of the damage that these people have done to the world. This is from the ending.
The war has given the American mainstream media a brilliant opportunity to prove its essential worthlessness. It has shown itself to be little more than a circus of entertainers and cheerleaders for whom every season is the silly season. Tragically, the media has failed in its sacred duty to keep a vigilant, skeptical, critical eye on the centers of power. Who is the American Robert Fisk, Gideon Levy, or Amira Hass? Whoever they are (and Sy Hersh proves they exist), why are their writings not filling the op-ed pages of the great American newspapers? How can the nation that produces the bulk of Nobel prize winners be stuck with such a sullen bunch of journalistic mediocrities? The sycophantic enablers of the Fourth Estate have blood on their hands.
T he unfolding catastrophe in Iraq had a single cause: the reassertion of US hegemony after 9/11. Its trigger was a rare astral alignment. Big Oil, the neocons, the Christian fundamentalists, the liberal hawks, AIPAC, the MSM, and 9/11 all formed cosmic dots in the sky that only one power could—and did—successfully align: the president of the United States. No American leader has so much owned a war.
And none has so little owned up to it. Victors are never war criminals. That's because they get to write the history books. Bush won't have that chance. The die has been cast and the hour is too late for him or anyone to alter the unforgiving judgment of posterity. Therein, paradoxically, lies our quandary. For, if freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose, then Bush is a free man—free to pursue the most malignant policies, heedless of the consequences to his unworsenable presidential standing. Beware the desperation of a cornered man.
The apostle of imperial dominance, Bush slew the “last empire.” The towering figure of our time, he is a piteously small man. The self-anointed emissary of a “higher father,” he is servant to no power but himself. The captain of the sinking ship has laid his command upon his fellow Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for me.” No sacrifice of life shall be too great, no damage to civil liberties too high, no expenses too vast for a vainglorious man deluded by fantastic dreams of redemption by force.
But who besides the bereaved will mourn? Who besides the orphan will whimper? Who besides the humiliated will stare back? Who besides the thugs and the craven will lead? Patriotism is a lovely thing. In its name, some go dying by the side of an Iraqi road in twitching agony; others go shopping in oversized automobiles festooned with yellow ribbons. We all play our part—and nobody else's.
Yeats bemoaned an era when the best lacked all conviction, while the worst were full of passionate intensity. Today, Kristol blusters and hectors, Cheney scolds and forebodes, Bush struts and smirks. Meanwhile, the giant, timid chorus listens politely to the deafening silence of the outraged—and the mad march of war goes on.
This is all very true and all, and people should understand what Bush and company have done. But I stil think it misses the main point. In the larger sense it is the American military-industrial-legal-financial-corporate complex that has done all of this. And, by extension, all those in the US and throughout the world who, for many decades now, have been gleefully trying to profit from it, directly or indirectly. The complex has been building up for decades, and everyone in the world has watched it grow and done nothing. Absolutely nothing. The root cause of it all is GREED. And until people change their ideas about money, and stop thinking so damn much about their own lifestyles and comforts, and until the ENTIRE military-industrial-legal-financial-corporate complex is dismantled, the wars and the bombings and the suffering will go on. Eliminate the Republicans, eliminate the neo-cons, eliminate Israel, it will make no difference. Sure it will slow it down for a while. But the root cause will remain, and sooner or later, it will come back, like a multi-headed hydra, meaner and nastier than ever. The Democrats too, in their entire 200 year long history, have never met a war they didn't like. It's time that people looked deeper, and, above all, deeper into themselves, and stopped blaming everyone else. And the one and only way to make sure that America does not nuke the world is to take their nukes away. Once and for all. Nothing short of that will do.
And this also has to be said and repeated over and over: It is not Bush and Blair who have waged this war. It is the American and British people. All of them. With the complicity of the entire so-called western world. Period.
permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Soldiers gang-raped teenage girls at Abu Ghraib.
See
this video over at
IraqSlogger for the confession of an American soldier of crimes committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib that were far worse than anything reported so far. These included systematic gang-raping of girls and women. In one case he says they raped this girl, pimped her out for $50 a shot, until "she hung herself." It's clear that these war crimes were not committed by just a few individuals, but by virtually all of the so-called soldiers there, dozens and dozens of them. And he says that it was the CIA who encouraged them and pushed them on. And it is impossible to believe that all of this could go on for so long without officers knowing about it. Simply impossible.
The clip, originally linked via a now defunct account on YouTube, purports to show a former guard from Abu Ghraib talking about torture techniques employed at the American-run prison. The man also recounts the gang rape of a female teenage detainee, in which one guard "pimped" the girl to others for $50 each. As he recalls, "I think at the end of the day he'd made like 500 bucks before she hung herself."
The article mentions that this may be a hoax, but I tend to doubt it. The attitudes of the soldier talking about certainly reflects those of the other people in the U.S. military, who are quite violent and racist and have repeatedly shown a total contempt for the Iraqis.
Of course, the worst crime is being committed by those who know just how bad Americans have become, and continue to do business with them, and continue to turn their heads. There will always be evil people like those in the U.S. military or the Nazis, but they wouldn't be able to get away with anything if decent people didn't allow them to.
permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 01:28 PM
January 29, 2007
Endless American harassment of Iraqi civilians.
This account by a woman in Baghdad illustrates what living hell life is becoming over there for the Iraqi people. And not because of what the mythical "terrorists" are doing either, but mostly because of the damage the American so-called soldiers are doing. It seems pretty clear that the Americans are not really fighting a war, just harassing civilians because they are losers with nothing better to do. (Exactly what is the point of smashing her dishes?) They killed her husband because he happened to be driving in the wrong spot, and tortured her son for no real reason at all. They certainly are doing a great job in alienating the Iraqis and making more enemies for real Americans. From the
Irin News organization.
BAGHDAD, 22 Jan 2007 (IRIN) - “My name is Lina Massufi. I’m a 32-year-old laboratory assistant who works 10 hours a day just to make enough money to raise my children.
“My life has been like hell over the past three months. US and Iraqi soldiers have raided my house more than 12 times.
“My husband, Khalil, was killed during the US invasion in 2003 when he drove through a closed road and soldiers shot him dead.
“I live in Haifa Street, one of the most dangerous places to live in Baghdad today. The area is infamous for its huge number of insurgents. This is why Iraqi and US soldiers have increased their activity in the area, constantly raiding homes and arresting men for interrogation.
“Last month, they arrested my 23-year-old brother Fae’ek, who lives with me. He is a pharmacy student but nonetheless they took him and kept him in prison for more than a week - even after knowing he was innocent. He returned with signs of torture on his body and was crying like a baby because of the pain.
''It is common to see at least three corpses on Haifa Street each day and sometimes up to eight, as happened last week.''
“I cannot stand the constant military raids in my home. Every time they [the soldiers] raid my house, they break the door. They don’t know how to knock at a door. One day, when I asked them why they were entering like that instead of ringing the bell, they laughed at me and called me an idiot.
“My furniture is all broken into pieces because of the way they conduct their searches. I no longer have dishes or glasses to speak of because they destroyed most of them during the raids.
“I have two children and for most of the time, they are scared. Muhammad, a four-year-old, cannot sleep well at night. He has nightmares every day and when he wakes up he cries, asking me not to let the soldiers take him as they took his uncle.
“Fadia, my daughter, who is only eight years old, doesn’t want to go to school because she says that if they raid our home and I’m not around, they would do something bad to her brother. But with her at home, she can help him not be afraid.
“Our neighbourhood is in the middle of a constant war. It is not safe for us to leave or enter our houses. Most of the shops around here are closed. We have to walk about 5km to buy food like vegetables and rice.
“Sometimes, when I return by taxi from my job, which is about 45 minutes from my home, I find the street closed and bullets flying around everywhere.
''I have nowhere to run to. I have to withstand this desperate situation hoping that one day we will live in peace again.''
“I start to cry as I become afraid that something might have happened to my children even though I know that my brother is there. I know that when I get home, I will find Muhammad crying and Fadia scared but I cannot stay all day at home because if I leave my job, there will be no one to feed them.
“It is common to see at least three corpses on Haifa Street each day and sometimes up to eight, as happened last week. They are fighters, innocent civilians or soldiers. No one takes care of them [the bodies] because if you tried to get closer, you could become the next victim.
“I have nowhere to run to. I have to withstand this desperate situation hoping that one day we will live in peace again, even if it seems that it might take dozens of years for that to happen.”
permalink, posted by mike on Monday, January 29, 2007 at 12:35 PM
November 30, 2006
The sad, quiet death of Malachi Ritscher.
On November 3, 2006 an artist and activist named Malachi Ritscher set himself on fire at a public intersection in the city of Chicago in protest of the war in Iraq and America's imperialism and warmongering in general. It is the ultimate act of self-sacrifice. Curiously (or maybe not so curiously) hardly a word about this has been reported. He did this during rush hour in a prominent location in a big city, and yet no one notices. How weird, how sad. Anyway, the good folks at
Wood s Lot compiled this set of links about him. This is quite a story, hard to believe.
Malachi RitscherJanuary 13, 1954 - November 3, 2006
- out of time -Malachi Ritscher
mission statementMalachi Ritscher
The quiet death of Malachi Ritscher
After Death, Questions About a Man and His Cause
From Norman Morrison to Malachi RitscherSelf-Immolation as Anti-War Protest:
Joe Deraymond: Coverage of the sacrifice of Malachi Ritscher has been obsessively concerned with his sanity. The AP article on his death includes this conclusion, "Mental health experts say virtually no suicides occur without some kind of a diagnosable mental illness." Our government and its experts expect that rational citizens living rational United States lives understand that the burning of civilians is just part of the scenery, a necessary element of foreign policy. A person who actually takes responsibility for the purposes to which his/her tax monies are being devoted is by definition insane. It is a world turned upside down, in which torture, napalm and white phosphorus are "legal", and peaceful protest criminal. It is no mystery to me that there are human souls who cannot bear the light of truth, and choose to join the victims of our culture's madness.
permalink, posted by mike on Thursday, November 30, 2006 at 11:49 PM
November 15, 2006
Beginning to grasp extent of the Iraq mess.
Some columns in the Guardian recently seem to indicate that at least some people are beginning to wake up and confront the scale and implications of the disaster, and the fact that there simply isn't anything the US and the UK can do but accept the loss and its inevitable consequences. Simon Jenkins does a good job of describing exactly what a mess Iraq is in
"Why stop the Great Satan? He's driving himself to hell".
As we approach the beginning of the end in Iraq there will be much throat-clearing and breast-beating before reality replaces denial. For the moment, denial still rules. In America last week I was shocked at how unaware even anti-war Americans are (like many Britons) of the depth of the predicament in Iraq. They compare it with Vietnam or the Balkans - but it is not the same. It is total anarchy. All sentences beginning, "What we should now do in Iraq ... " are devoid of meaning. We are in no position to do anything. We have no potency; that is the definition of anarchy.
From all available reports, Iraq south of the Kurdistan border is beyond central authority, a patchwork of ganglands, sheikhdoms and lawlessness. Anbar province and most of the Sunni triangle is controlled by independent Sunni militias. The only safe movement for outsiders is by helicopter at night. Baghdad is like Beirut in 1983, with nightly massacres, roadblocks everywhere and mixed neighbourhoods emptying into safe ones. As yesterday's awful kidnapping shows, even a uniform is a death certificate. As for the cities of the south, control depends on which Shia militia has been able to seize the local police station.
The Iraqi army, such as it is, cannot be deployed outside its local area and is therefore useless for counter-insurgency. There is no central police force. There is no public administration. The Maliki government barely rules the Green Zone in which it is entombed. American troops guard it as they might an outpost of the French Legion in the Sahara. There is no point in patrolling a landscape one cannot control. It merely alienates the population and turns soldiers into targets.
To talk of a collapse into civil war if "we leave" Iraq is to completely misread the chaos into which that country has descended under our rule. It implies a model of order wholly absent on the ground. Foreign soldiers can stay in their bases, but they will no more "prevent civil war" than they can "import democracy". They are relevant only as target practice for insurgents and recruiting sergeants for al-Qaida. The occupation of Iraq has passed from brutality to mere idiocy.
[...]
Bush and Blair are men in a hurry, and such men lose wars. If there is a game plan in Tehran it will be to play Iraq long. Why stop the Great Satan when he is driving himself to hell in a handcart? If London and Washington really want help in this part of the world they must start from diplomatic ground zero. They will have to stop the holier-than-thou name-calling and the pretence that they hold any cards. They will have to realise that this war has lost them all leverage in the region. They can insult and sanction and threaten. But there is nothing left for them to "do" but leave. They are no longer the subject of that mighty verb, only its painful object.
He really gets it. This is a major disaster. It's not going to be fixed, or probably even affected, by any political changes in the US. This is way out of the Americans' hands now. He suggests they go back to "diplomatic ground zero" and start over, but pride will keep that from ever happening. The first step to dealing with the problem is to admit the extent of it and to take responsibility, but western leaders won't do it.
permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 10:18 PM
October 25, 2006
Hatred of America growing rapidly.
Found this great news site,
Watching America, which gathers together articles about the US from other countries. A good source for the views that aren't being represented in the American media. For instance, I found this
article from Al-Ray Al-Aam in Kuwait
'The Iraqi Razor in America's Throat, apparently from a Kuwaiti woman, who notes the growing hatred of America in the region.
The American administration doesn't want to put an end to that which has created these problems, nor does it want to pause and review where its policies are weak or defective. Rather, it continues to blindly rush ahead, desperate to achieve anything that would allow it to continue boasting to the world of its "achievements". By continuing to do this, day after day, it is instead stoking greater and greater hatred against it, at a time when America's enemies, whether they are labeled extremists or resistance fighters, are increasingly powerful and well-practiced in confronting American abuses.
This widespread hatred of America is attributable to the lengthening of Washington's time frame for imposing its imperial project on the region, and the huge and continuing failure of American policy in every land that U.S. forces fight or are harbored.
[...]
Perhaps it's time for America to acknowledge that the same mentality that led it into the swamp of Vietnam decades ago has led it into a new and far more damaging quagmire in Iraq. These are issues that may in fact threaten America's very existence.
Such thinking also resulted in the American-Israeli mistake [in Lebanon], when by being widely seen as an aggressive entity, the State of Israel fell into a trap set by the Islamists. From this, disastrous consequences will appear in the very, very near future.
All points of views are represented there, not just anti-American ones. Although most of them are anti-American these days, even from those who love the US. And not just from Muslim countries either. It's noteworthy that she mentions that America's very "existence" is at stake; the very fact that she can conceive of a world without America is rather disconcerting, to say the least.
permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 02:01 PM
May 21, 2005
George Galloway's testimony to Congress.
George Galloway, the British MP who strongly and publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq two years ago, and was thrown out of the British Labor party for his troubles, testified before the US Senate committee investigating the so-called UN food scandal. He is trying to clear his name from the slanderous remarks and lies that have been told about him by the warmongers and others still trying to justify their illegal and ridiciulous stupid war.
His testimony shows remarkable courage. Great that someone finally has the guts to stand up to the American Congress and tell them that _they_ are the problem, not everybody else. Kudos to him. See the
full transcript of his testimony over at
Common Dreams.
"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf.
"Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.
[...] "The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.
"Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.
I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.
If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.
"Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.
"Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.
"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."
2005 Times Newspapers
The cowardice and corruption of the American body politic is getting more than a little embarrassing and disgusting. And he is perfectly correct: they should be investigating the scandalous theft of countless billions of dollars in money, and god knows how much "unmetered" oil from the Iraqis. But they won't, and the Democrats won't do anything about it either, because the Democrats are in it as deep as anyone else.
permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, May 21, 2005 at 07:30 PM
Seymour Hersh reviews Abu Ghraib investigations.
In a Guardian
article, Seymour Hersh, who first broke the story of the abuses and torture at Abu Ghraib and other prisons in the American gulag, reviews the so-called investigations that the US has held about the problems.
It's been over a year since I published a series of articles in the New Yorker outlining the abuses at Abu Ghraib. There have been at least 10 official military investigations since then - none of which has challenged the official Bush administration line that there was no high-level policy condoning or overlooking such abuse. The buck always stops with the handful of enlisted army reservists from the 372nd Military Police Company whose images fill the iconic Abu Ghraib photos with their inappropriate smiles and sadistic posing of the prisoners.
It's a dreary pattern. The reports and the subsequent Senate proceedings are sometimes criticised on editorial pages. There are calls for a truly independent investigation by the Senate or House. Then, as months pass with no official action, the issue withers away, until the next set of revelations revives it.
[...] The 10 official inquiries into Abu Ghraib are asking the wrong questions, at least in terms of apportioning ultimate responsibility for the treatment of prisoners. The question that never gets adequately answered is this: what did the president do after being told about Abu Ghraib? It is here that chronology becomes very important.
[...] Three days later the army began an investigation. But it is what was not done that is significant. There is no evidence that President Bush, upon learning of the devastating conduct at Abu Ghraib, asked any hard questions of Rumsfeld and his own aides in the White House; no evidence that they took any significant steps, upon learning in mid-January of the abuses, to review and modify the military's policy toward prisoners. I was told by a high-level former intelligence official that within days of the first reports the judicial system was programmed to begin prosecuting the enlisted men and women in the photos and to go no further up the chain of command.
[...] Despite Abu Ghraib and Guantnamo - not to mention Iraq and the failure of intelligence - and the various roles they played in what went wrong, Rumsfeld kept his job; Rice was promoted to secretary of state; Alberto Gonzales, who commissioned the memos justifying torture, became attorney general; deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz was nominated to the presidency of the World Bank; and Stephen Cambone, under-secretary of defence for intelligence and one of those most directly involved in the policies on prisoners, was still one of Rumsfeld's closest confidants. President Bush, asked about accountability, told the Washington Post before his second inauguration that the American people had supplied all the accountability needed - by re-electing him. Only seven enlisted men and women have been charged or pleaded guilty to offences relating to Abu Ghraib. No officer is facing criminal proceedings.
Of special note are the increasing claims that thousands of children are being held prisoner. And there have been at least some verified reports of rape and other abuse involving children. I guess Michael Jackson hugging someone is more important.
What else do I know? I know that the decision was made inside the Pentagon in the first weeks of the Afghanistan war - which seemed "won" by December 2001 - to indefinitely detain scores of prisoners who were accumulating daily at American staging posts throughout the country. At the time, according to a memo, in my possession, addressed to Donald Rumsfeld, there were "800-900 Pakistani boys 13-15 years of age in custody". I could not learn if some or all of them have been released, or if some are still being held.
A Pentagon spokesman, when asked to comment, said that he had no information to substantiate the number in the document, and that there were currently about 100 juveniles being held in Iraq and Afghanistan; he did not address detainees held elsewhere. He said they received some special care, but added "age is not a determining factor in detention ... As with all the detainees, their release is contingent upon the determination that they are not a threat and that they are of no further intelligence value. Unfortunately, we have found that ... age does not necessarily diminish threat potential."
This story is just beginning. The American gulag is now the largest and most violent in world history, the lion's share of it inside the US, where nobody ever mentions it. Over two million people and counting (according to the reports the government issues, although there's no way of really knowing), in prisons condemned many times by the Red Cross, Amnesty International and other groups.
Conditions are much, much worse than in Abu Ghraib, torture, formalized sex slavery, rape and beatings pretty much becoming standard policies. A real scandal, and an even worse scandal in the fact that there's virtually no mention of it in the American media, hardly even in the so-called "leftist" or "alternative media."
Does anyone remember when Bush promised to tear down Abu Ghraib?
Seems to me that there's only two ways to cut this: either officers knew about and condoned what was going on; or they didn't, in which case they are guilty of dereliction of duty in not properly supervising troops under their command and for failing to properly maintain discipline and order. Are we really supposed to believe that officers in the US military have no idea what their soldiers are doing?
permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, May 21, 2005 at 04:18 PM
March 19, 2005
Afghanistan becoming one huge American prison camp.
The Guardian has published a long article,
'One huge US jail', describing conditions in Afghanistan over three years after the American invasion and conquest, how it is gradually descending into chaos, and becoming the hub of an enormous global gulag of American detention centers. It provides a good overview of current American practices and an outline of its future plans.
Afghanistan is the hub of a global network of detention centres, the frontline in America's 'war on terror', where arrest can be random and allegations of torture commonplace. Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark investigate on the ground and talk to former prisoners.
... Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is bleaker, its provinces more inaccessible and lawless, than it was under the Taliban. If anyone leaves town, they do so in convoys. Afghanistan is a place where it is easy for people to disappear and perilous for anyone to investigate their fate. Even a seasoned aid agency such as Mdcins Sans Frontires was forced to quit after five staff members were murdered last June. Only the 17,000-strong US forces, with their all-terrain Humvees and Apache attack helicopters, have the run of the land, and they have used the haze of fear and uncertainty that has engulfed the country to advance a draconian phase in the war against terror. Afghanistan has become the new Guantnamo Bay.
Washington likes to hold up Afghanistan as an exemplar of how a rogue regime can be replaced by democracy. Meanwhile, human-rights activists and Afghan politicians have accused the US military of placing Afghanistan at the hub of a global system of detention centres where prisoners are held incommunicado and allegedly subjected to torture. The secrecy surrounding them prevents any real independent investigation of the allegations. "The detention system in Afghanistan exists entirely outside international norms, but it is only part of a far larger and more sinister jail network that we are only now beginning to understand," Michael Posner, director of the US legal watchdog Human Rights First, told us.
... There we met Dr Rafiullah Bidar, regional director of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, established in 2003 with funding from the US Congress to investigate abuses committed by local warlords and to ensure that women's and children's rights were protected. He was delighted to see foreigners in town. At his office in central Gardez, Bidar showed us a wall of files. "All I do nowadays is chart complaints against the US military," he said. "Many thousands of people have been rounded up and detained by them. Those who have been freed say that they were held alongside foreign detainees who've been brought to this country to be processed. No one is charged. No one is identified. No international monitors are allowed into the US jails." He pulled out a handful of files: "People who have been arrested say they've been brutalised - the tactics used are beyond belief." The jails are closed to outside observers, making it impossible to test the truth of the claims.
It can't be stressed enough: American forces are operating in complete secrecy, entirely outside the law, and without any sort of civilian or international oversight or control. Nobody has any idea of what is really going on since the Americans won't report on anything or cooperate with any investigations. They are deliberately and violently suppressing attempts to find out how many camps there are, whose being held there, what is happening there, the conditions of the prisoners, or any other information. What hints do emerge indicate widespread abuse, torture, beatings and such, often resulting in death. And, worst of all, the American people clearly couldn't care less.
What's worse, the Guardian states that what is going on is nothing short than a deliberate policy to attempt to make all of Afghanistan into the center of a global prison network that would replace Guantanamo Bay, and which could operate entirely in secret, and outside of American, European, or global law.
What has been glimpsed in Afghanistan is a radical plan to replace Guantnamo Bay. When that detention centre was set up in January 2002, it was essentially an offshore gulag - beyond the reach of the US constitution and even the Geneva conventions. That all changed in July 2004. The US supreme court ruled that the federal court in Washington had jurisdiction to hear a case that would decide if the Cuban detentions were in violation of the US constitution, its laws or treaties. The military commissions, which had been intended to dispense justice to the prisoners, were in disarray, too. No prosecution cases had been prepared and no defence cases would be readily offered as the US National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers had described the commissions as unethical, a decision backed by a federal judge who ruled in January that they were "illegal". Guantnamo was suddenly bogged down in domestic lawsuits. It had lost its practicality. So a global prison network built up over the previous three years, beyond the reach of American and European judicial process, immediately began to pick up the slack. The process became explicit last week when the Pentagon announced that half of the 540 or so inmates at Guantnamo are to be transferred to prisons in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
Since September 11 2001, one of the US's chief strategies in its "war on terror" has been to imprison anyone considered a suspect on whatever grounds. To that end it commandeered foreign jails, built cellblocks at US military bases and established covert CIA facilities that can be located almost anywhere, from an apartment block to a shipping container. The network has no visible infrastructure - no prison rolls, visitor rosters, staff lists or complaints procedures. Terror suspects are being processed in Afghanistan and in dozens of facilities in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the British island of Diego Garcia in the southern Indian Ocean. Those detained are held incommunicado, without charge or trial, and frequently shuttled between jails in covert air transports, giving rise to the recently coined US military expression "ghost detainees".
I'm quoting too much. But it's a very long and detailed article. Well worth reading, especially for Americans who want to know where their tax dollars are going. A frightening, nightmare vision of the future for us all if this madness isn't stopped soon. (Which I think it will.)
permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, March 19, 2005 at 02:44 PM
March 18, 2005
Iraqi accounts of American war crimes at Falluja.
Americans seem to be very rapidly losing touch with reality. At least in the public sphere. Two recent columns by American women,
Bush Is a Loser at Logic but a Winner in D.C. by Arianna Huffington in the
LA Times, and
Americans just ignore the devil in the details by Marilou Johanek in the
Toledo Blade, discuss the degree to which the American people, or at least those in charge, have retreated into a fantasyland, a bubble into which no bad news or reality may penetrate, and which simply no longer has any connection to the real world.
And nothing illustrates the degree of the illusion than the complete absence of any coverage of the horrors Americans have perpetuated in Falluja over the past few months. This is a very major story, about as big as they get, which has been completely ignored. (Among other things, it was just about the biggest US armored operation since WWII, which alone should have made it important.)
Chris Floyd's latest
Global Eye column in the
Moscow Times gives a good overview of the major war crimes committed there, which include the cold-blooded murder of civilians including children, women, doctors and journalists, the delliberate bombing of hospitals and other civilian centers, and, especially, the apparently widespread use of chemical weapons, cluster bombs and other banned weapons, banned even against military forces much less civilian populations.
Floyd also notes what is perhaps the greatest horror of them all, which is the degradation of American society into something ugly, twisted and evil. This is the real story, and the one that the American media, and to an extent the global media as well, are not paying any attention to.
Here's the entire story, reprinted because articles in the Moscow Times go behind a paywall after a while, and it's too important to be forgotten. Very major crimes were committed here, and a level of savagery reached and hatred expressed that the world hasn't seen in quite a while. Also note the excellent list of links to documentation provided.
U.S. President George W. Bush often complains about the "media filter" that distorts the true picture of his administration's accomplishments in Iraq. And he's right. For regardless of where you stand on Bush's policies in the region, it's undeniable that the political and commercial biases of the American press have consistently misrepresented the reality of the situation.
Here's an excellent example. Earlier this month, the American media completely ignored an important announcement from an official of the Iraqi government concerning the oft-maligned U.S. operation to clear insurgents from the city of Fallujah last November. Although the press conference of Health Ministry investigator Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli was attended by representatives from The Washington Post, Knight-Ridder and more than 20 other international news outlets, nary a word of his team's thorough investigation into the truth about the battle made it through the filter's dense mesh. Once again, the American public was denied the full story of one of President Bush's remarkable triumphs.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli's findings provided confirmation of earlier reports by many other Iraqis -- reports that were also ignored by the arrogant filterers, who seem more interested in hearing from terrorists or anti-occupation extremists than ordinary Iraqis and those like Dr. ash-Shaykhli, who serve in the U.S.-backed interim government vetted and approved by President Bush. But while the media elite turn up their noses at such riffraff, the testimony of these common folk and diligent public servants gives ample evidence of Bush's innovative method of liberating innocent Iraqis from tyranny:
He burns them to death with chemical weapons.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli was sent by the pro-American Baghdad government to assess health conditions in Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that was razed to the ground by a U.S. assault on a few hundred insurgents, most of whom slipped away long before the attack. The ruin of the city was complete: Every single house was either destroyed (from 75 to 80 percent of the total) or heavily damaged. The city's entire infrastructure -- water, electricity, food, transport, medicine -- was obliterated. Indeed, the city's hospitals were among the first targets, in order to prevent medical workers from spreading "propaganda" about civilian casualties, U.S. officials said at the time.
Eyewitness accounts from the few survivors of the onslaught, which killed an estimated 1,200 noncombatants, have consistently reported the use of "burning chemicals" by American forces: horrible concoctions that roasted people alive with an unquenchable jellied fire, InterPress reported. They also tell of whole quadrants of the city in which nothing was left alive, not even dogs or goats -- quadrants that were sealed off by the victorious Americans for mysterious scouring operations after the battle. Others told of widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas -- a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, but a standard practice throughout the war.
The few fragments of this information that made it through the ever-vigilant filter were instantly dismissed as anti-American propaganda, although they often came from civilians who had opposed the heavy-handed insurgent presence in the town. Rejected as well were the innumerable horror stories of those who had seen their whole families -- including women, children, the sick and the elderly -- slaughtered in the "liberal rules of engagement" established by Bush's top brass. Most of the city was declared "weapons-free": military jargon meaning that soldiers could shoot "whatever they see -- it's all considered hostile," The New York Times reported, in a story buried deep inside the paper.
Yet the ash-Shaykhli team -- again, appointed by the Bush-backed government -- confirmed the use of "mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals" by U.S. forces during the battle. Dr. ash-Shaykhli said that survivors -- still living in refugee camps, along with some 200,000 former Fallujah residents who fled before the assault -- are now showing the medical effects of attack by chemical agents and the use of depleted uranium shells. (American officials have admitted raining more than 250,000 pounds of toxin-tipped DU ammunition on Iraqis since the war began.)
The Pentagon has acknowledged using white phosphorus in Fallujah, but only for "illumination purposes." It denied using napalm in the attack -- but, in the course of that denial, it admitted that its earlier denials of using napalm elsewhere in Iraq were in fact false. And individual Marines filing "After Action Reports" on the Internet for military enthusiasts back home have detailed the routine use of white phosphorus shells, propane bombs and "jellied gasoline" (also known as napalm) during direct tactical assaults in Fallujah.
Dr. ash-Shaykhli's findings -- coming from a pro-American government, buttressed by reams of eyewitness testimony from ordinary Iraqi civilians -- appear to be substantial, credible and worthy of further investigation by the U.S. press. Certainly, the findings are more credible than the pre-war lies and fantasies about Saddam's phantom WMD, which the "media filter" lapped up from the Bush regime and amplified across the nation, rousing support for an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war. Yet these serious new atrocity charges have not even been mentioned, much less examined.
Behind the filter -- with its basic story template of "always moral U.S. policies occasionally marred by a few bad apples" -- a relentless degeneration of American society is taking place. Brutality and atrocity are becoming normalized, systemized and rewarded. The noble American ideal of transcendence -- overcoming the beast within, seeking to embrace an ever-broader, ever-deeper, ever-richer vision of universal communion and individual worth -- is dying at the hands of the resurgent barbarity championed and cultivated by the Bush regime. Old-fashioned citizens are being replaced by "Bush Americans": wilfully ignorant, bellicose zealots, cringingly servile toward the powerful, violently hostile to all "outsiders." Despite Bush's artful complaints, the media filter has served his degenerate purposes very well.
Annotations:
Napalm, Chemical Weapons Used at Fallujah: Iraqi Official, ILCA Online, March 7, 2005.
Stories From Fallujah, Iraq Dispatch, Feb. 8, 2005
.
Fallujah, Tent City, Awaits Compensation, Informed Comment, March 13, 2005.
Another Sad Day for Our Country, The American Independent, March 7, 2005.
Iraqi Health Ministry Confirms Use of Prohibited Weapons in Attacks on al-Fallujah, Mafkarat al-Islam (Iraq), March 2, 2005.
U.S. General From Abu Ghraib Scandal Promoted, Stars and Stripes, March 15, 2005.
Odd Happenings in Fallujah, Electronic Iraq, Jan. 18, 2005.
U.S. Denies Use of Napalm in Fallujah, U.S, International Information Programs Jan. 27, 2005.
The Eyewitnesses Must Be Crazy, Antiwar.com, March 15, 2005.
Life Under the Bombs in Iraq, TomDispatch, Feb. 2, 2005.
TV News Turns Myopic: Profits Come First, Houston Chronicle, March 16, 2005.
The Media Lobby, CorpWatch, March 11, 2005.
Journalism, Infotainment and the Bottom-Line Business of Broadcasting, Buzzflash, March 17, 2005.
Handmaiden of the State: The Role of Media in an Age of Empire, Antiwar.com, March 16, 2005.
Extreme Cinema Verite: Soldiers Make Music Videos of Death and Destruction, Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2005.
A War Crime in Real Time: Obliterating Fallujah, CounterPunch, Nov. 15, 2004.
Inside Fallujah: One Family's Diary of Terror, Scotland Sunday Herald, Nov. 14, 2004.
The Marine's Tale: 'I Felt We Were Committing Genocide, The Independent, May 23, 2004.
Smoke and Corpses, BBC, Nov. 11, 2004.
20 Doctors Killed in Strike on Clinic: Red Crescent, UN Integrated Regional Information Network, Nov. 10, 2004.
US Strikes Raze Fallujah Hospital, BBC, Nov. 6, 2004.
Ghost City Calls for Help, BBC, Nov. 13, 2004.
Let Them Drink Sand: War Crimes in Fallujah, CounterPunch, Nov. 13, 2004.
American Heroes, Baghdad Burning, Nov. 16, 2004.
Beyond Embattled City, Rebels Roam Free, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 12, 2004.
Administration Rejects Ruling on PR Videos, Washington Post, March 14, 2005.
$226 Million in Government Ads Helped Pave the Way to War, Antiwar.com, May 28, 2004.
Americans should inform themselves about what happened in Falluja not because it's the decent thing to do, although that wouldn't hurt, but rather because there will be very major repercussions to come from this and other actions. Military repercussions, financial repercussions, trials and suits of all sorts, economic sanctions, and more. It engendered a vicious hatred of Americans that will continue for decades. And not just by Iraqis, but by people all over the world. Because this has been reported elsewhere, just not in the US. America went way too far this time and it will come to back to haunt her. In the world's view it wasn't Bush or the Republicans who did this. It was all of America, and it's all Americans who are legally and morally responsible.
permalink, posted by mike on Friday, March 18, 2005 at 03:07 PM
March 16, 2005
American efforts to suppress the truth about Iraq.
Truthout has a multi-part series by Steve Weissman on American attempts to target journalists in Iraq and elsewhere. It's in four parts:
Obviously you don't go so far as to deliberately murder reporters, including women, unless you really, really have something that you need to hide. The most frightening part is that they appear to have been relatively successful at hiding the truth so far. And the global media is certainly letting them get away with it. It's almost as if the world just doesn't want to know what kind of horrors are occurring under the banners of "freedom and democracy."
Reporters Without Borders has a lot more information on this.
permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 02:17 PM
February 24, 2005
Gomer Says Hey.
James Wolcott hits the nail on the head with this
post about Bush's hypocrisy in criticizing other nations' human rights violations while presiding over what is arguably the least free, more repressive and violent human rights abuser in the world. And maybe in history.
That joint press conference with Bush and Putin--jayzus. I suppose it's healthier for the well-being of the world not to have Bush in his belligerent rooster mode, mouth downturned with determination as he chops the air with his fist and puts the bad guys on notice that he means business, but oy is it embarrassing watching him act like Andy of Mayberry with world leaders, praising Putin as an honest "fella," sorta inviting Chirac to visit the Crawford ranch since he's always "lookin' for a good cowboy," and referring to the members of the press as "a nice bunch of folks." It's wonder he didn't send in Aunt Bea to present the Russian premier with homemade chicken pot pie. Bush was less gauche and aggressive this trip, yet more of a sagebrush rube, playacting the part as if he thought it had made him a beloved character at home. The most interesting aspect of the press conference was how unamused and uncharmed Putin looked as Bush did his John Denver thank-God-I'm-a-country-boy shtick. He refused to play along. Unfortunately, the questions from the reporters present were so rambling and shambling that they didn't penetrate Bush's strawman act and throw him off script. Reporters seem to have forgotten how to ask brief, pointed questions that elude easy deflection; they talk out the clock. If the American reporters had anything other than rubber-tipped arrows in their armory, they would ask the president where this administration gets off lecturing other countries about human rights abuses and rollbacks of civil liberties when it's flying suspects to other countries to be tortured, abusing prisoners in Guantanamo, and running its own far-flung gulag archipelago. Lecturing Putin is an exercise in hubris when American liberty itself is under such rapid assault and decay.
Bush embarrasses every human being by his actions. And, frankly, Europe and Russia contribute to it by refusing to publicly address and acknowledge America's own extensive human rights violation.
Having said that, I think it's also time to stop blaming Bush for things that Americans have done, and time for Americans to take responsibility for their own actions. If you work for or invest in an American corporation (as Mr. Wolcott does) then you are just as responsible, if not more so. Words aren't going to make any difference. What will is standing up for what is right, and refusing to support or finance these horrors any longer.
permalink, posted by mike on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 01:05 PM
February 23, 2005
Canadians won't participate in US missile plan.
Globe and Mail article. At the recent NATO meeting in Brussels, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin informed the US that Canada will definitely not be participating in the American missile defense program. That is, it will not allow the missiles to be places on Canadian territory, which is a very important part of the plan, almost essential in fact. American officials have been really pushing for this, but the growing anti-Americanism in Canada as elsewhere makes it politically impossible.
Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a firm no' to Canadian participation in the U.S. missile-defence plan and break a lengthy silence that fomented confusion on both sides of the border.
The announcement, first reported by Radio-Canada, will come in the House of Commons and end a streak of obfuscation where Mr. Martin refused to state Canada's position.
The end of that silence scheduled for Thursday will also come as an about-face for a Prime Minister who had repeatedly stated his support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate barely a year ago.
Mr. Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join a missile plan.
This is rather ominous. It's not just the missile system itself. It indicates that the Canadians no longer see their security as tied to that of the US, and that they are no longer willing to go along with whatever their (formerly) more powerful southern neighbor wants. Or, in this case, virtually demanded.
permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 at 01:05 PM
February 22, 2005
Report on US abuse in Afghanistan.
Mother Jones has a lengthy report by Emily Bazelon on the extensive prisoner abuse and torture in Afghanistan over the last three years,
From Bagham to Abu Ghraib. More horrific details of cruelty and sadism, which apparently continues and is getting worse. Even more fightening is the idea that the failure to deal with it in Afghanistan led to even worse in Iraq, where it also continues and is getting worse.
Americans, and the world, have become accustomed to accounts like Mustafas in connection with Iraqs Abu Ghraib prison. But his story hints at another scandalone that has received little sustained media attention and sparked no public outrage. Over the past three years, numerous reportsfrom Afghan and American human rights groups, and from the Pentagon itselfhave documented allegations of abuse inside U.S. compounds in Afghanistan. Hundreds of prisoners have come forward, often reluctantly, offering accounts of harsh interrogation techniques including sexual brutality, beatings, and other methods designed to humiliate and inflict physical pain. At least eight detainees are known to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, and in at least two cases military officials ruled that the deaths were homicides. Many of the incidents were known to U.S. officials long before the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted; yet instead of disciplining those involved, the Pentagon transferred key personnel from Afghanistan to the Iraqi prison. Had the investigation and prosecution of abusive interrogators in Afghanistan proceeded in a timely manner, Human Rights Watch executive director Brad Adams noted in an open letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last fall, it is possible thatmany of the abuses seen in Iraq could have been avoided.
Even now, with the attention of the media and Congress focused on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the problems in Afghanistan seem to be continuing. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, created in 2002 during the early stages of the transition to Afghan self-governance, has collected a total of 120 reports of abuse by coalition forces; 50 of them were made just since last May. Many of the complaints involve excessive force by soldiers during the course of an arrest. But others come from former detainees who say that soldiers stripped them naked and sexually abused them. The Afghan commission and Human Rights Watch, as well as a smaller group, the Washington, D.C.-based Crimes of War Project, have also gathered evidence on detainee abuse at American forward operating bases near Kandahar, Gardez, Khost, Orgun, Ghazni, and Jalalabad. Investigators estimate that in each of these places, between 5 and 20 prisoners are held at a time, compared to as many as 200 at Bagram.
Its hard to explain how facts this disturbing have garnered so little attentionespecially in light of the connection to Abu Ghraib. According to the U.S. militarys own investigators, it was at Bagram that interrogators devised and tested the methods that would shame the United States in Iraq. Documents and witness accounts from both detainees and soldiers starkly portray how an initially disciplined interrogation effort deteriorated, in a climate of lawlessness and pressure to produce intelligence, to the point where officers and soldiers first bent the rules, and finally broke them.
I do find the question as to why these reports have received so little attenti