|
MAY 2008
U.S. PLANS BAGHDAD AMUSEMENT PARK
BY DISNEY
TRUE FACTS ABOUT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
NATIONAL SECURITY NETWORK It has been five
years since the President declared victory in the battle for
Iraq. Since that day, more than 3,900 American troops have been
killed - bringing the total to more than 4,000. There are still
150,000 American troops in Iraq, just as in May 2003 - but the
number of soldiers from other countries fighting alongside them
has fallen by more than half, to just 9,800. Under the strain
of repeated deployments, two-thirds of Army brigades are rated
"not combat ready." The cost to the American economy
has reached $1.3 trillion ($16,500 per family of four) and in
the end will likely rise to $3 trillion ($35,000 per family of
four). Iraqi civilian casualties are in the hundreds of thousands,
and four and a half million Iraqis have been forced from their
homes. The Iraqi economy is stagnant with oil production and
electricity below prewar levels.
The Iraq War has lasted longer than World
War II. It has been 61 months since military operations in Iraq
began. As of May 1, 2008 American troops have been in Iraq for
1,870 days, 267 weeks. World War II lasted 45 months.
The direct cost of the war in Iraq is more
than 10 times what the Bush Administration said it would be.
Roughly $525 billion have been allocated to fight the war in
Iraq, with no end in sight. Once the fiscal year 2008 funding
process is complete, the cost will go above $600 billion.
The war has cost the overall economy $1.3
trillion ($16,500 per family of four) thus far and Nobel Prize
winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates that it could rise
to $3 trillion ($35,000 per family of four
Last year was the deadliest yet for American
troops in Iraq. 901 Americans were killed in Iraq in 2007, the
most of any year of the war.
Civilian casualties appear to be well over
200,000 - roughly one percent of Iraq's population. The World
Health Organization concludes that 150,000 Iraqi civilians were
killed between April 2003 and the summer of 2006.
4.7 Million Iraqis have been forced from
their homes. 2 million have fled the country. 2.7 million are
displaced inside of Iraq.
Five years later, Iraqi oil production
remains below prewar levels. Despite the assertion that Iraqi
oil production would pay for the war, production is at 2.23 million
barrels per day compared to 2.5 before the war.
Baghdad is getting only 9.7 hours of electricity
per day - a fraction of what it was getting before the war. Without
a steady supply of power businesses have suffered.
The U.S. military is overstretched, understaffed
and under-equipped.
FEBRUARY 2008
PRINCE ANDREW SAY U.S. SHOULD
HAVE LISTENED TO BRITISH ON IRAQ
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
- While Prince Andrew declares himself a fan of the United States
- and his cellphone ring tone comes from the American TV drama
"24" - the man who is fourth in line to the British
throne has some critical words for America's Iraq policy and
thinks that Washington should have listened to advice from London.
In a rare Buckingham Palace
interview ahead of his departure for a 10-day U.S. trip to support
British business, the prince described the United States as Britain's
No. 1 ally but conceded that relations were in a trough. There
are, he added, "occasions when people in the U.K. would
wish that those in responsible positions in the U.S. might listen
and learn from our experiences.". . .
"If you are looking
at colonialism, if you are looking at operations on an international
scale, if you are looking at understanding each other's culture,
understanding how to operate in a military insurgency campaign
- we have been through them all," he said. "We've won
some, lost some, drawn some. The fact is there is quite a lot
of experience over here which is valid and should be listened
to."
Prince Andrew's view that
post-invasion chaos in Iraq could have been avoided if President
George W. Bush's administration had listened more is widely shared
in Britain. Geoff Hoon, the former British defense secretary,
has said that British views on Iraq were ignored in the decisions
to outlaw the Baath Party and dissolve the Iraqi military.
The fallout from Iraq
has fueled, the prince argues, "healthy skepticism"
toward what is said in Washington, and a feeling of "why
didn't anyone listen to what was said and the advice that was
given."
After all, British views
had been sought - "it's not as if we had been forcing that
across the Atlantic."
BAHRAIN PAPER REPORTS OIL COMPANIES
BRIBING IRAQI POLITICIANS
AKHBAR ALKHALEEJ, BAHRAIN - An Iraqi MP
preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly
confidential negotiations took place by representatives from
American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes
in favor of the Oil and Gas law. The amount that could be paid
to pass the votes do not exceed $150 million dollars in the case
of $5 million to each MP, pointing out that the Oil law requires
138 votes to pass. . . Focusing on the heads of parliamentary
blocs and influential figures in the parliament to ensure the
votes, the Americans guaranteed the Kurdish votes in advance
but they are seeking enough votes to pass and approve the law
as soon as possible.
DECEMBER 2007
WE INTERRUPT THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE
SURGE WITH A FEW FACTS
BILL BLUM, ANTI-EMPIRE REPORT - The "surge"
is working, we're told. Never mind that the war is totally and
perfectly illegal. Not to mention totally and perfectly, even
exquisitely, immoral. It's making progress. That's a good thing,
is it not? Meanwhile, the al Qaeda types have greatly increased
their number all over the Middle East and South Asia, so their
surge is making progress too. Good for them. And speaking of
progress in the War on Terror, is anyone progressing faster and
better than the Taliban?
The American progress is measured by a
decrease in violence, the White House has decided -- a daily
holocaust has been cut back to a daily multiple catastrophe.
And who's keeping the count? Why, the same good people who have
been regularly feeding us a lie for the past five years about
the number of Iraqi deaths, completely ignoring the epidemiological
studies. A recent analysis by the Washington Post left the administration's
claim pretty much in tatters. The article opened with: "The
U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in
Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts
within and outside the government, who contend that some of the
underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore
negative trends." . . .
Oh, did I mention that 2007 has been the
deadliest year for US troops since the war began? It's been the
same worst year for American forces in Afghanistan.
One of the signs of the reduction in violence
in Iraq, the administration would like us to believe, is that
many Iraqi families are returning from Syria, where they had
fled because of the violence. The New York Times, however, reported
that "Under intense pressure to show results after months
of political stalemate, the [Iraqi] government has continued
to publicize figures that exaggerate the movement back to Iraq";
as well as exaggerating "Iraqis' confidence that the current
lull in violence can be sustained." The count, it turns
out, included all Iraqis crossing the border, for whatever reason.
A United Nations survey found that 46 percent were leaving Syria
because they could not afford to stay; 25 percent said they fell
victim to a stricter Syrian visa policy; and only 14 percent
said they were returning because they had heard about improved
security. . .
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/aer52.htm
GORDON BROWN TO BRITISH TROOPS: THE WAR IS OVER
THE SUN, UK - Gordon Brown delivered a
stirring festive message to Our Boys in Iraq: "Happy Christmas
- war is over." The PM was cheered as he praised UK troops
and revealed combat operations in Basra will end "within
two weeks". Iraqi forces will take over as the 4,500-strong
British force switches from front-line duties to a training role.
By early next year, our contingent in Southern Iraq will be cut
to 2,500 - and may be withdrawn completely in March.
NOVEMBER 2007
BUSH AGREES TO AN "ENDURING"
U.S. PRESENCE IN IRAQ
PROGRESS REPORT - The
administration has announced one of its goals is an endless,
unqualified, "enduring" presence in Iraq. President
Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "signed the
new U.S.-Iraq 'declaration of principles' during a secure video
conference morning." The key principle in the agreement,
according to the White House, is that "Iraq's leaders have
asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek
an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq." Iraqi
officials told the Associated Press that "Iraq's government
will embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S.
security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership."
The White House's determination to establish a permanent presence
in Iraq contradicts its long record of declarations against permanent
bases. In a press briefing yesterday, White House war czar Gen.
Doug Lute said the new long-term occupation plan won't require
Congress's approval. "We don't anticipate now that these
negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which
would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from
the Congress," said Lute.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport
DEMOCRATS ZERO FOR 40 ON IRAQ
POLITICO - As the congressional session
lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing
arithmetic on Iraq. The numbers tell a story of political and
substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing
to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.
Since taking the majority, they have forced
40 votes on bills limiting President Bush's war policy. Only
one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run
by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.
Indeed, the only war legislation enacted
during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what
he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years:
more money, with no limitations.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6845.html
THIS IS SO BAD WE CAN'T EVEN THINK
OF A GOOD HEADLINE FOR IT
OCTOBER 2007
SURGE PRODUCES DEADLIEST YEAR YET FOR
U.S. SOLDIERS IN IRAQ
REUTERS - Six U.S. soldiers were killed
in Iraq on Monday, the U.S. military said, making 2007 the deadliest
year for U.S. forces in the country. The deaths took the number
of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq this year to 852. The worst previous
year was 2004, when 849 deaths were recorded. In total, 3,855
U.S. soldiers have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion to
topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSYAT64897120071106
LARGEST IRAQ DAM IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE,
COULD DROWN A HALF MILLION
AMIT PALEY, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD,
AUSTRALIA - The largest dam in Iraq is in danger of an imminent
collapse that could unleash a huge wave of water, possibly drowning
500,000 people, new assessments by the US Army Corps of Engineers
show.
A collapse would put Mosul under 20 meters of water and parts
of Baghdad under 4.5 meters, according to Abdulkhalik Thanoon
Ayoub, the dam manager.
Even in a country gripped by
daily bloodshed, the possibility of a catastrophic failure of
the Mosul dam had alarmed US officials, said Abdulkhalik Thanoon
Ayoub. . .
At the same time, a US reconstruction
project to help shore up the dam in northern Iraq has been marred
by incompetence and mismanagement, according to Iraqi officials
and a report by a US oversight agency that was to be published
yesterday. The reconstruction project, worth at least $US27 million,
was not intended to be a permanent solution to the dam's deficiencies.
The effort to prevent a failure
of the dam has been complicated by behind-the-scenes wrangling
between Iraqi and US officials over the severity of the problem
and how much money should be allocated to fix it. The Army Corps
has recommended building a second dam downstream as a fail-safe
measure, but Iraqi officials have rejected the proposal, arguing
that it is unnecessary and too expensive.
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2007/10/30/1193618880877.html
SEPTEMBER 2007
CIA'S LAST MAN IN VIETNAM SAYS IT'S
TIME TO PLAN FOR A QUICK EXIT FROM IRAQ
JEFF STEIN, CQ - No matter President Bush's assurances of an
"enduring relationship" with Iraq, it's not too soon
to plan for a swift evacuation of Baghdad, says the CIA man at
the center of the chaos when the Vietnam War ended three decades
ago.
The swift retreat of the South Vietnamese Army in the face of
an enemy offensive was as much of a surprise to American commanders
in Saigon as a complete Iraq government collapse is unimaginable
to U.S. leaders today, says Frank Snepp, who was the CIA's top
analyst on communist strategy in Saigon in 1975.
"Wishful thinking is a narcotic, and it doomed us, and a
lot of our friends, in Vietnam in the last days," Snepp
said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles, where he now
works as an investigative producer for KNBC-TV.
"If we want to go through that humiliation again, then we
should proceed along with our blinkers intact. That should be
one cautionary lesson from the last moments of that war,"
he said. "There are others, but that is an overriding one.".
. .
U.S. commanders need to prepare to exit with what friends they
have, Snepp said.
"What they need to do is prepare for an endgame. I'm not
talking a vague preparation of some possible landing zones and
egress routes for American forces and our friends. They have
to get down to the nitty-gritty, and talk about how many people
can be evacuated by whatever means, whether overland or by airlift,
within a particular given time and emergency circumstances."
In Saigon, U.S. officials feared setting off mass panic by even
thinking aloud about evacuation plans, much less making them,
right up until North Vietnamese tanks were crunching up the city's
streets. "Then it was too late. We didn't have time to draw
up lists of the people we should be assisting," Snepp said
-
http://public.cq.com/docs/hs/hsnews110-000002584782.html
WHISTLEBLOWERS IN IRAQ IMPRISONED, FIRED, DEMOTED AND ABUSED
BY BUSH REGIME
One after another, the men and women who have stepped forward
to report corruption in the massive effort to rebuild Iraq have
been vilified, fired and demoted. Or worse.
For daring to report illegal arms sales, Navy veteran Donald
Vance says he was imprisoned by the American military in a security
compound outside Baghdad and subjected to harsh interrogation
methods. Story continues below ?advertisement
There were times, huddled on the floor in solitary confinement
with that head-banging music blaring dawn to dusk and interrogators
yelling the same questions over and over, that Vance began to
wish he had just kept his mouth shut.
He had thought he was doing a good and noble thing when he started
telling the FBI about the guns and the land mines and the rocket-launchers
all of them being sold for cash, no receipts necessary, he said.
He told a federal agent the buyers were Iraqi insurgents, American
soldiers, State Department workers, and Iraqi embassy and ministry
employees. . .
So Vance says he blew the whistle, supplying photos and documents
and other intelligence to an FBI agent in his hometown of Chicago
because he didn't know whom to trust in Iraq. For his trouble,
he says, he got 97 days in Camp Cropper, an American military
prison outside Baghdad that once held Saddam Hussein, and he
was classified a security detainee.
Also held was colleague Nathan Ertel, who helped Vance gather
evidence documenting the sales, according to a federal lawsuit
both have filed in Chicago, alleging they were illegally imprisoned
and subjected to physical and mental interrogation tactics "reserved
for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants.". . .
There are no noble outcomes for those who have blown the whistle,
according to a review of such cases by The Associated Press.
"If you do it, you will be destroyed," said William
Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El
Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers
Coalition.
MORE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/
THE ONE CLEAR WINNER IN IRAQ: MERCENARIES
& WAR PROFITEERS
JEREMY SCAHILL, COUNTERPUNCH - With almost
no congressional oversight and even less public awareness, the
Bush administration has more than doubled the size of the U.S.
occupation through the use of private war companies. There are
now almost 200,000 private "contractors" deployed in
Iraq by Washington. This means that U.S. military forces in Iraq
are now outsized by a coalition of billing corporations whose
actions go largely unmonitored and whose crimes are virtually
unpunished.
In essence, the Bush administration has
created a shadow army that can be used to wage wars unpopular
with the American public but extremely profitable for a few unaccountable
private companies.
Since the launch of the "global war
on terror," the administration has systematically funneled
billions of dollars in public money to corporations like Blackwater
USA , DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup. They have
in turn used their lucrative government pay-outs to build up
the infrastructure and reach of private armies so powerful that
they rival or outgun some nation's militaries. . .
Precise data on the extent of U.S. spending
on mercenary services is nearly impossible to obtain - by both
journalists and elected officials-but some in Congress estimate
that up to 40 cents of every tax dollar spent on the war goes
to corporate war contractors. At present, the United States spends
about $2 billion a week on its Iraq operations. . .
At present, an American or a British Special
Forces veteran working for a private security company in Iraq
can make $650 a day. At times the rate has reached $1,000 a day;
the pay dwarfs many times over that of active duty troops operating
in the war zone wearing a U.S. or U.K. flag on their shoulder
instead of a corporate logo.
http://www.counterpunch.com/scahill08132007.html
THE TURKISH FACTOR IN IRAQ
DJELLOUL MARBROOK - Turkey, a Sunni nation
and a member of NATO, has been telling the government of Nuri
al-Maliki in Baghdad for more than a year now that it must curb
pan-Kurd ambitions in northern Iraq. The situation is far more
volatile than the press has described. The Shias have their own
militias. The Kurds have the well-trained Pesh Merga, which is
in fact a standing army. But Iraq's Sunnis have only their tribes.
That in itself is enough to explain Sunni concerns.
The Kurds would like to see an independent
Kurdistan. Considering the large Kurdish minorities in Iran and
Turkey, it is not difficult to see why Shia Iran and Sunni Turkey
are worried. Short of independence, the Kurds would like a semi-autonomous
Kurdistan, which would contain Mosul's rich oil fields. The Kurds
could then continue to agitate for a greater Kurdistan, perhaps
even arming militants inside Iran and Turkey.
Where does this leave us? In the soup,
where we have been from the beginning. Consider these combustibles:
- Turkey has not set foot on Arab land
since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
- Iran and Turkey are traditional enemies. Iran would feel as
threatened by an expanded border with Turkey as the Arabs feel
threatened by a militant Iran.
- The Sunni Arabs have more in common with
the Turks than they have with the Iranians, but the reappearance
of Turkish soldiers on Arab land would be viewed with alarm.
- There are more than 100 million people
in the world of Turkish origin. Turkey, a secular nation with
an Islamist party in power, regards itself as the protector of
these people. There are large Turkish minorities in Iran and
Afghanistan, and people of Turkish origin are spread throughout
Central Asia.
- Turkey has no oil, but it is host to
oil pipelines. Moving into northern Iraq would give Turkey control
of its oil fields. The Turks would say they have come only to
stabilize the situation, but that is our story too, and we have
already witnessed how many people in the world believe us.
If we are soon presented with a situation
in which Turkey has as many troops in Iraq as we do it will change
the entire equation, and yet the Washington establishment - the
press, the government, the think tanks, the industry lobbyists
- are all silent about an eventuality that would change everything
in a thin minute.
http://www.djelloulmarbrook.com/
WE INTERRUPT THE OFFICIAL LYING
FOR A FEW FACTS ABOUT IRAQ
This chart, prepared
by Angry Bear, shows that GI Iraq fatalities in 2007
have exceeded those in 2006 each month so far.
AUGUST 2007
A PLAN FOR PEACE IN IRAQ
[From the Transnational Foundation]
1. Withdraw foreign troops, mercenaries
and bases and end the occupation.
2. Respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial
integrity and reduce the role of the U.S. Embassy
3. Establish an international peace building
mission for Iraq under UN leadership
4. Cancel all Iraq's debt
5. Compensate Iraq for the sanctions, the
war and the occupation
6. Secure that Iraq regains full sovereignty
over its oil resources and receives 100% of the revenues
7. Make the Middle East as a Zone free
of Weapons of Mass Destruction
8. Establish a Truth and Reconciliation
Process, public apology accompanied by dialogue and forgiveness
9. Organize people-to-people co-operation
and civil society exchanges
10. Organize a long-term regional conference
working toward a comprehensive settlement for the entire region,
including its two core conflicts - Iraq/the West and that Palestine/Israel
DETAILS
http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/TFF_Iraq_Peace_Plan.html
BAGHDAD RUNS SHORT OF WATER
SIGNS OF THE TIMES -
For the past 24 hours, Baghdad has had virtually no running water.
Major parts of the city of six million people have lacked running
water for six days, while daily high temperatures have ranged
from 115 to 120 degrees. The tiny amount of water dripping through
the pipes is causing many of those who must drink it to suffer
acute intestinal illness. According to reports, not enough electricity
is available to run Baghdad's water pumps. This in a country
with vast energy resources. . .
According to Article 55 of Geneva Conventions
to which the U.S. government is a signatory: "To the fullest
extent of the means available to it the Occupying Power has the
duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population;
it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs,
medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied
territory are inadequate."
Article 59 states: "If the whole or
part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately
supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on
behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all
the means at its disposal."
To say that a huge city deprived of running
water is "inadequately supplied" would rank as one
of the great understatements of human history. . .
The U.S. government tries to relieve itself
of its obligations by pretending that Iraq's "sovereignty"
was restored in June 2004. But that is just another hoax.
MORE
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003819451_iraq03.html
CHENEY EXPLAINS WHY WE SHOULDN'T
HAVE INVADED BAGDHAD
[BACK IN 1994]
THE BRUTALITY OF U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ
REVEALED IN INTERVIEWS
LEONARD DOYLE, INDEPENDENT, UK - It is
an axiom of American political life that the actions of the US
military are beyond criticism. Democrats and Republicans praise
the men and women in uniform at every turn. Apart from the odd
bad apple at Abu Ghraib, the US military in Iraq is deemed to
be doing a heroic job under trying circumstances.
That perception will take a severe knock
with the publication in The Nation magazine of a series of in-depth
interviews with 50 combat veterans of the Iraq war from across
the US. In the interviews, veterans have described acts of violence
in which US forces have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and
children with impunity.
The report steers clear of widely reported
atrocities, such as the massacre in Haditha in 2005, but instead
unearths a pattern of human rights abuses. "It's not individual
atrocity," Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, a sniper from
the 263rd Armor Battalion, said. "It's the fact that the
entire war is an atrocity.". . .
Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness
and criminal behavior born of panic, a narrative emerges of an
army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A
number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt
to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked
American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The
veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors
and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov
AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died
in combat. . .
The worst abuses seem to have been during
raids on private homes when soldiers were hunting insurgents.
Thousands of such raids have taken place, usually at dead of
night. The veterans point out that most are futile and serve
only to terrify the civilians, while generating sympathy for
the resistance.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2758829.ece
MARINES ROUTINELY BEAT IRAQIS ACCORDING TO TRIAL
WITNESS
AP - A corporal testifying in a court-martial
said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after
officers ordered them to "crank up the violence level."
Cpl. Trent D. Thomas faces murder charges after witnesses alleged
he shot a 52-year-old Iraqi man. Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo testified
Saturday at the murder trial of Cpl. Trent D. Thomas. "We
were told to crank up the violence level," said Lopezromo,
testifying for the defense. When a juror asked for further explanation,
Lopezromo said: "We beat people, sir.". . .
Lopezromo, who was not part of the squad
on its late-night mission, said he saw nothing wrong with what
Thomas did. "I don't see it as an execution, sir,"
he told the judge. "I see it as killing the enemy."
He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.
JUNE 2007
BLAIR KNEW BUSH HAD NO POST-WAR IRAQ PLAN
NICHOLAS WATT, OBSERVER, UK - Tony Blair agreed to commit British
troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington
had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction
of the country. In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations
for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week
in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have
revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised
his concerns with the White House.
He also agreed to commit troops to the conflict even though President
George Bush had personally said Britain could help 'some other
way'. The disclosures, in a two-part Channel 4 documentary about
Blair's decade in Downing Street, will raise questions about
Blair's public assurances at the time of the war in 2003 that
he was satisfied with the post-war planning. In one of the most
significant interviews in the program, Peter Mandelson says that
the Prime Minister knew the preparations were inadequate but
said he was powerless to do more.
'Obviously more attention should have been paid to what happened
after, to the planning and what we would do once Saddam had been
toppled,' Mandelson tells The Observer's chief political commentator,
Andrew Rawnsley, who presents the documentary.
'But I remember him saying at the time: "Look, you know,
I can't do everything. That's chiefly America's responsibility,
not ours."' Mandelson then criticises his friend: 'Well,
I'm afraid that, as we now see, wasn't good enough.'. . .
Blair's most senior foreign affairs adviser at the time of the
war makes clear that Blair was 'exercised' on the exact issue
raised by the war's opponents. Sir David Manning, now Britain's
ambassador to Washington, says: 'It's hard to know exactly what
happened over the post-war planning. I can only say that I remember
the PM raising this many months before the war began. He was
very exercised about it.'
Manning reveals that Blair was so concerned that he sent him
to Washington in March 2002, a full year before the invasion.
Manning recalls: 'The difficulties the Prime Minister had in
mind were particularly, how difficult was this operation going
to be? If they did decide to intervene, what would it be like
on the ground? How would you do it? What would the reaction be
if you did it, what would happen on the morning after?
'All these issues needed to be thrashed out. It wasn't to say
that they weren't thinking about them, but I didn't see the evidence
at that stage that these things had been thoroughly rehearsed
and thoroughly thought through.'
On his return to London, Manning wrote a highly-critical secret
memo to Blair. 'I think there is a real risk that the [Bush]
administration underestimates the difficulties,' it said. 'They
may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean
that they will avoid it.'. . .
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's envoy to the postwar administration
in Baghdad, confirms that Blair was in despair. 'There were moments
of throwing his hands in the air: "What can we do?"
He was tearing his hair over some of the deficiencies.' The failure
to prepare meant that Iraq quickly fell apart. Greenstock adds:
'I just felt it was slipping away from us really, from the beginning.
There was no security force controlling the streets. There was
no police force to speak of.'
The revelation that Blair was 'exercised' in private will raise
questions about his public assurances. The former Labor leader,
Neil Kinnock, told the program he was given a personal assurance
by Blair that he was satisfied by the preparations. 'I said to
Tony, are you certain?' Kinnock told the programme. 'And when
he said: "I'm sure," that was a good enough reassurance.'
LOST
IN IRAQ SINCE WORLD WAR II
ONLY 10 OF 1,000 U.S. STAFFERS AT BAGHDAD
EMBASSY SPEAK ARABIC
ABC NEWS BLOTTER - Of the 1,000 U.S. employees
at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, only 10 have a working knowledge
of Arabic, according to the State Department. . . The report
found that more than one-third of public policy diplomacy positions
at Arabic language posts were filled by people who did not speak
the language at the designated level.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/
BUSH WANTS TO STAY IN IRAQ FOR A HALF
CENTURY
STEVE HOLLAND, REUTERS - President George
W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq
like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a
frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday. The
United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea
to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years. . .
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush
would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that
in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future
where you want it to be a purely support model."
"The Korean model is one in which
the United States provides a security presence, but you've had
the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over
a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there
as a force of stability," Snow told reporters. . .
Iraq's neighbors have raised concerns about
the possibility of the United States maintaining permanent bases
in Iraq, and some U.S. lawmakers have said they think the Iraqi
insurgency may have been fueled by perceptions the United States
wants a permanent presence in the country.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/053107J.shtml
MAY 2007
FOUR YEARS SINCE MISSION ACCOMPLISHED:
A REPORT ON THE POST WAR ERA
NATIONAL SECURITY NETWORK - It has been
four years since the President declared victory in the battle
of Iraq. Since that time, more than 3,000 American troops have
been killed. The cost to the American taxpayer is approaching
$500 billion - ten times what the White House estimated before
the war began. Insurgent attacks in Iraq doubled between 2005
and 2006, while estimates of civilian casualties are in the hundreds
of thousands. Four years into the war, the Iraqi economy is going
backwards with oil production and electricity below prewar levels.
Meanwhile, as the U.S. military continues to suffer under the
strain of repeated deployments, Iraqi politicians have made little
progress on meeting the benchmarks that are so critical for political
reconciliation. . . .
"The idea that it's going to be a
long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the
fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five
months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than
that . . . It won't be a World War III." - Donald Rumsfeld,
11/15/02
America has been in Iraq longer than it
was in World War II. It has been 50 months since military operations
in Iraq began. As of May 1, 2007, American troops have been in
Iraq for 1,504 days the equivalent of 214 weeks. [NPR, 11/27/06]
Four years after "Mission Accomplished,"
American troop levels in Iraq are where they were in May 2003.
There were 150,000 American troops in Iraq in May 2003. Today
there are 146,000 troops in Iraq. [Brookings Institution, 4/23/07]
"Well, the Office of Management and
Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under
$50 billion for the cost." - Donald Rumsfeld, 1/19/03
The actual cost of the war in Iraq is almost
10 times the Bush Administration's initial estimates. Roughly
$450 billion have been allocated to fight the war in Iraq, with
little to show for it. Once the FY 2008 funding process is complete,
the cost could reach nearly $600 billion. [Congressional Research
Service, 3/14/2007]
Even the White House's most realistic analysis
was far lower than the costs of the war. White House Economic
Adviser Lawrence Lindsay's "aggressive pre-war estimate,
stated that the war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion.
He was asked to resign. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]
Annual costs have risen every year since
the war began. FY 2007 appropriations for the Iraq War are almost
twice as much as what they were three years ago (FY 2004) and
2.5 times more than the costs in FY 2003. [Congressional Research
Service, 3/14/2007]
A study by a Noble Prize winning economist
found that factoring in the indirect costs of the war could raise
the final bill to more than $2 trillion. Estimating the cost
of the war ignores the value of losses in military readiness,
increased recruitment costs, the cost of medical treatment for
returning veterans, and even declining profits for American businesses
in the region due to rising anti-Americanism. These factors suggest
that the real cost of invading Iraq has been somewhere between
$750 billion and $1.2 trillion and could ultimately cost as much
as $2 trillion. [Boston Globe, 1/8/2006]
"The level of activity that we see
today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline.
I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
- Vice President Cheney, 06/05
American troop fatalities are up 33 percent.
Since the escalation was announced on January 10, 2007, American
troop fatalities have risen by 33%, averaging 3 per day as opposed
to 2.25 per day during 2006. [Iraq Coalition Casualty Count]
Civilian casualties are in the tens if
not hundreds of thousands. The United Nations estimates that
35,000 civilians were killed in Iraq during 2006 alone. No one
really knows how many people have died. [Brookings, 4/23/2007]
As of the end of 2006, the rate of insurgent
attacks had hit record highs. By the end of 2006, average insurgent
attacks had skyrocketed to 185 per day, almost two and a half
times the number of attacks at the end of 2005. [Brookings, 4/23/2007]
Despite more than four years of nearly
constant combat, the estimated size of the Iraqi insurgency has
actually grown. It is believed that there were between 3,000
and 5,000 insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq at the end
of 2003 and beginning of 2004. That estimate has grown to more
than 20,000 by the end of 2004, and has remained constant ever
since. [Brookings, 4/23/2007]
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/141
APRIL 2007
U.S. USES A QUARTER MILLION BULLETS
FOR EVERY OPPONENT KILLED
ANDREW BUNCOMBE, INDEPENDENT, UK
- US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan
- an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American
ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the
US is having to import supplies from Israel. A government report
says that US forces are now using 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms
ammunition a year. The total has more than doubled in five years,
largely as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well
as changes in military doctrine
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0925-02.htm
HOW TO GET THE U.S. OUT OF IRAQ
JUAN COLE, NATION - The key to preventing
an intensified civil war is US withdrawal from the equation so
as to force the parties to an accommodation. Therefore, the United
States should announce its intention to withdraw its military
forces from Iraq, which will bring Sunnis to the negotiating
table and put pressure on Kurds and Shiites to seek a compromise
with them. But a simple US departure would not be enough; the
civil war must be negotiated to a settlement, on the model of
the conflicts in Northern Ireland and Lebanon.
Talks require a negotiating partner.
The first step in Iraq must therefore be holding provincial elections.
In the first and only such elections, held in January 2005, the
Sunni Arab parties declined to participate. Provincial governments
in Sunni-majority provinces are thus uniformly unrepresentative,
and sometimes in the hands of fundamentalist Shiites, as in Diyala.
A newly elected provincial Sunni Arab political class could stand
in for the guerrilla groups in talks, just as Sinn Fein, the
political wing of the Irish Republican Army, did in Northern
Ireland.
The United States took a step in
the right direction by attending the March Baghdad summit of
Iraq's neighbors and speaking directly to Iran and Syria about
Iraqi security. Now the United States and Britain should work
with the United Nations or the Organization of the Islamic Conference
to call a six-plus-two meeting on the model of the generally
successful December 2001 Bonn conference on Afghanistan. The
Iraqi government, including the president and both vice presidents,
would meet directly with the foreign ministers of Iran, Turkey,
Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to discuss the ways regional
actors could help end the war as the United States and Britain
prepare to depart. Unlike the Baghdad summit, this conference
would have to issue a formal set of plans and commitments. Recent
Saudi consultations with Iranian leaders should be extended.
The Saudi government should then
be invited to reprise the role it played in brokering an end
to the Lebanese civil war at Taif in 1989, at which communal
leaders hammered out a new national compact, which involved political
power-sharing and demobilization of most militias. At Taif II,
the elected provincial governors of Iraq and leaders of the major
parliamentary blocs should be brought together. Along with the
US and British ambassadors to Baghdad and representatives of
the UN and the OIC, observers from Iraq's six neighbors should
also be there.
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has
credibility with Iraq's Sunnis, especially now that he has denounced
the US occupation as illegitimate. They could trust his representations,
which would include Saudi development aid in places like Anbar
province. Since the Sunnis are the main drivers of violence in
Iraq, it is they who must be mollified, bribed, cajoled and threatened
into a settlement. . .
On the basis of a settlement at
Taif II, the US military should then negotiate with provincial
authorities a phased withdrawal from the Sunni Arab provinces.
The Sunnis will have to understand that this departure is a double-edged
sword, since if they continued their guerrilla war, the United
States could not protect them from Kurdish or Shiite reprisals.
Any UN or OIC presence would be for peacekeeping and could not
be depended on for active peace-enforcing. The rewards from neighbors
promised at Taif II should be granted in a phased fashion and
made dependent on good-faith follow-through by Iraqi leaders.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070423/cole
BRITISH GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS
CONFIRM ESTIMATE OF 650,000 IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
RICHARD HORTON, GUARDIAN, UK - Our
collective failure has been to take our political leaders at
their word. This week the BBC reported that the government's
own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study
on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable, following
a freedom of information request by the reporter Owen Bennett-Jones.
This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated
that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American and
British led invasion in March 2003.
Immediately after publication, the
prime minister's official spokesman said that the Lancet's study
"was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate".
The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet
figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap".
President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report".
Scientists at the UK's Department
for International Development thought differently. They concluded
that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed,
the Johns Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation
of mortality".
The Ministry of Defence's chief
scientific adviser said the research was "robust",
close to "best practice", and "balanced".
He recommended "caution in publicly criticizing the study".
When these recommendations went
to the prime minister's advisers, they were horrified. One person
briefing Tony Blair wrote: "Are we really sure that the
report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief
implies?" A Foreign and Commonwealth Office official was
forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing
the Lancet".
The prime minister's adviser finally
gave in. He wrote: "The survey methodology used here cannot
be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality
in conflict zones".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2044345,00.html
MARCH 2007
A FEW WEEKS AFTER 9/11: SEVEN COUNTRIES
TARGETED BY BUSH
[Gen. Wesley Clark in a Democracy Now interview
with Amy Goodman]
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: About ten days after
9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld
and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say
hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work
for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir,
you've got to come in and talk to me a second."
I said, "Well, you're too busy."
He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision
we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the
20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq?
Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I
guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well,
did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?"
He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new
that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq."
He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about
terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down
governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool
you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."
So I came back to see him a few weeks later,
and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are
we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh,
it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked
up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down
from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office
-- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that
describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five
years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?"
He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show
it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You
remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that
memo! I didn't show it to you!"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/19200
FEBRUARY 2007
FORGOTTEN HEROES
Senators who voted in 2002 against going
to war in Iraq:
Democrats: Akaka, Hawaii; Bingaman, N.M.;
Boxer, Calif; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton,
Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis; Graham, Fla.; Inouye, Hawaii;
Kennedy, Mass.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray,
Wash.; Reed, R.I.; Sarbanes, Md.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wellstone,
Minn.; Wyden, Ore.
Republicans: Chafee, R.I
Independents: Jeffords, Vt.
POSITIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON IRAQ WAR
JANUARY 2007
A stunning report on what it's
really like
as American troops train Iraqis. . . from Britain's Channel Four
FINALLY AN ANTI-WAR ANTHEM FOR IRAQ
IRAQ OIL SCAM UPDATE
INDEPENDENT, UK - Iraq's massive
oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be
thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies
under a controversial law which is expected to come before the
Iraqi parliament within days. The US government has been involved
in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The
Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as
BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude
and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests
in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
The huge potential prizes for
Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq
war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one
from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was
still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton,
that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of
oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?...
The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest
cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.
. .
Greg Muttitt, a researcher for
Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors
the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous
price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They
would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't
have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal.".
. .
James Paul, executive director
at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog,
said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming
majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it
anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament
is really just pouring more oil on the fire."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece
MOST U.S. TROOPS KILLED BY ROADSIDE
BOMBS
BRAD KNICKERBOCKER, CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE MONITOR - Of the 3,000 American GIs lost in Iraq as of
midday Sunday, more have been killed by roadside bombs - improvised
explosive devices - than any other cause. More than by rifle
fire, mortar attack, or car bomb. . .
IEDs are "the enemy's most
effective weapon," Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of
all US forces in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services
committee last March. "They are the perfect asymmetric weapon
- cheap, effective, and anonymous."
Improvised bomb attacks on US
troops now top 1,000 a month, four times the rate in 2004. Insurgents
have become more sophisticated in their bomb making, placement,
and means of detonation. The British military has determined
that there are enough stocks of illegal explosives to continue
the same level of attack for years without resupply, reports
DefenseNews.com.
Since the beginning of the war
in March 2003, IEDs have accounted for about 45 percent of all
US fatalities from hostile causes. And that percentage is increasing.
Of 100 recent hostile fatalities, IEDs caused 67. December saw
the highest number of Americans killed overall in Iraq in two
years.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p01s03-usmi.html?s=hns
THE LIST
How to tell your country's in
trouble
RIVERBEND, BAGHDAD - You know
your country is in trouble when:
1. The UN has to open a special
branch just to keep track of the chaos and bloodshed, UNAMI.
2. Abovementioned branch cannot
be run from your country.
3. The politicians who worked
to put your country in this sorry state can no longer be found
inside of, or anywhere near, its borders.
4. The only thing the US and
Iran can agree about is the deteriorating state of your nation.
5. An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country's
'Golden Years'.
6. Your country is purportedly
'selling' 2 million barrels of oil a day, but you are standing
in line for 4 hours for black market gasoline for the generator.
7. For every 5 hours of no electricity,
you get one hour of public electricity and then the government
announces it's going to cut back on providing that hour.
8. Politicians who supported
the war spend TV time debating whether it is 'sectarian bloodshed'
or 'civil war'.
9. People consider themselves
lucky if they can actually identify the corpse of the relative
that's been missing for two weeks.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
ONLY 3,000 U.S. MILITARY KILLED,
BUT 150,000 INJURED
AARON GLANTZ, IPS - On New Year's
Eve, the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq passed 3,000.
. . But the number of injured has far outstripped the dead, with
the Veterans Administration reporting that more than 150,000
veterans of the Iraq war are receiving disability benefits. Advances
in military technology are keeping the death rate much lower
than during the Vietnam War and World War Two, Dr. Col. Vito
Imbascini, an urologist and state surgeon with the California
Army National Guard, told IPS, but soldiers who survive attacks
are often severely disabled for life.
"If you lost an arm or a
leg in Vietnam, you were also tremendously injured in your chest
and abdomen, which were not protected by the armor plates back
then," he said. "Now, your heart and chest and lungs
and heart are protected by armour, leaving only your extremities
exposed.". . .
According to documents obtained
by the National Security Archive at George Washington University,
25 percent of veterans of the "global war on terror"
have filed disability compensation and pension benefit claims
with the Veterans Benefits Administration. . .
Pentagon studies show that 12
percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq suffer from post-traumatic
stress disorder. The group Veterans for America, formerly the
Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, estimates 70,000 Iraq
war veterans have gone to the VA for mental health care.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36056
WHAT BUSH BURIED WITH SADDAM
ROBERT FISK, INDEPENDENT, UK
- Now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support
- given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities
since the Second World War - is dead. Gone is the man who personally
received the CIA's help in destroying the Iraqi communist party.
After Saddam seized power, US intelligence gave his minions the
home addresses of communists in Baghdad and other cities in an
effort to destroy the Soviet Union's influence in Iraq. Saddam's
mukhabarat visited every home, arrested the occupants and their
families, and butchered the lot. Public hanging was for plotters;
the communists, their wives and children, were given special
treatment - extreme torture . . .
There is growing evidence across
the Arab world that Saddam held a series of meetings with senior
American officials prior to his invasion of Iran in 1980 - both
he and the US administration believed that the Islamic Republic
would collapse if Saddam sent his legions across the border -
and the Pentagon was instructed to assist Iraq's military machine
by providing intelligence on the Iranian order of battle. . .
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2114403.ece
HOW WASHINGTON HELPED CREATE THE MAN
IT HANGED
RUPERT CORNWELL, INDEPENDENT,
UK - What is forgotten is that once, for more than a decade,
Saddam Hussein was staunchly supported by the US.
Indeed, it was Washington that supplied him with many of the
weapons of mass destruction the dictator used against his foes
- weapons that one day would serve as a pretext for the US-led
invasion that toppled him. . .
Saddam seized complete power
in 1978. Two years later he attacked Iran, in what he called
an "Arab war against the Persians", to overthrow the
Islamic revolutionary regime. . . Quietly, the US delivered the
technology, weapons and logistical support to prevent Iraq's
defeat. Its policy was symbolized by the cordial meeting in Baghdad
in December 1983 between Saddam and a certain Donald Rumsfeld,
then President Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East. Two
decades later, as Secretary of Defense, he would plan the invasion
that toppled Saddam. . .
In 1982, the administration ignored
objections in Congress and removed Iraq from its list of countries
supporting terrorism. By November 1983, the National Security
Council had issued a directive that the US should do "whatever
was necessary and legal" to prevent an Iranian victory.
Washington did nothing to deter Saddam's use of chemical weapons.
As the 1980s progressed, a clandestine
network of companies developed in the US and other countries
to help the Iraqi war effort. The conflict between Iraq and Iran
ended in 1988, but Saddam continued his Western-supported military
build-up until the very moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
It would be the turning point.
Until then, the US had dealt with Saddam in the context of keeping
Iran at bay. Thereafter, however, the Iraqi dictator was the
enemy in his own right. The irony, of course, was that America's
previous support encouraged him to think he could get away with
annexing Kuwait.
Indeed, just a week earlier,
on 25 July 1990, the American ambassador, April Glaspie, had
met Saddam. According to a transcript of the meeting, she informed
him that Washington had no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, "like
your border disagreement with Kuwait".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2114494.ece
What it feels like driving down
an Iraqi road
DECEMBER 2006
CITY OF
THE DISPLACED
From the Times
of London
146,322: Baghdad residents
displaced since February
38,766: displaced persons living in Baghdad (as of December 11)
85 per cent of displaced living in Baghdad come from within the
city
72 per cent of displaced living in Baghdad are Shia
27 per cent of displaced living in Baghdad are Sunni
17 per cent of displaced living in Baghdad are Yazidi
Source: International Organisation
for Migration
ANTHROPOLOGIST REPORTED CIVIL WAR THREE
YEARS AGO
[Modern media tends to use itself
as a guide to reality. Hence NBC thinks Iraq's civil war started
with its pronouncement that it had. This, of course, is nonsense,
witness the following. Although we did not run this particularly
item, we cited Beeman during both parts of the Iraq War (under
Bush I & II) If NBC had spent less time with "military
experts" and more time with people like Beeman who actually
knew the area, they wouldn't have had to wait so long to make
their ex cathedra pronouncements.]
WILLIAM O. BEEMAN, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,
AUG 29, 2003 - The bombing
of one of Islam's holiest shrines not only killed an important
Shi'a leader, it also signals the first shot in an Iraqi civil
war that Middle East experts warned would ensue if Saddam were
removed without careful planning. One of the most consistent
and ominous prewar warnings to the Bush administration by Middle
East experts was that removal of Saddam Hussein without the most
careful political and social engineering would result in the
breaking apart of Iraq into warring factions that would battle
each other for decades.
The hawks in the White House
would not listen. They were so wedded to the fantasy scenario
that the removal of Saddam in an act of "creative destruction"
would result in the automatic emergence of democracy. They brushed
aside all warnings.
Present-day Iraq was three provinces
of the Ottoman Empire before World War I. It was cobbled together
by the British for their own convenience after that conflict.
IRAQ WAR LASTS LONGER THAN WORLD WAR
II
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, AUSTRALIA
- They were America's days of infamy, 60 years apart - Pearl
Harbor and September 11. The first led the US into World War
II, a conflict it endured for 1348 days; the second was followed
by a war that from [November 25] will have lasted even longer.
America's involvement in Iraq
will reach that milestone at a time when the clamor for withdrawal
has never been louder, and the possibility of achieving it has
never seemed so difficult. The decisive end of World War II in
1945 delivers no lessons that could be applied to a very different
war in a very different era.
If anything, things seem to be
getting worse, the options less appealing. . .
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraq-conflict-passes-wwii/2006/11/24/1164341399638.html
NOVEMBER 2006
BRITAIN PLANNING TO BEGIN EXTRICATION
FROM IRAQ EARLY NEXT YEAR
TORONTO STAR - Britain said yesterday it could hand back Basra
province to Iraqi control early next year, the first time Washington's
main ally has put a date on reducing its presence in Iraq. The
announcement came as the United Nations reported that 3,709 Iraqi
civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll of
the war and one that is sure to be eclipsed when November's dead
are counted. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq also
said citizens were fleeing the country at a pace of 100,000 each
month, and that at least 1.6 million Iraqis have left since the
war began in March 2003. . . Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret
Beckett told Parliament yesterday: "The progress of our
current operation in Basra gives us confidence that we may be
able to achieve transition in that province ... at some point
next spring."
Until yesterday, Britain had refused to be drawn on when troops
might withdraw despite widespread criticism of Britain's involvement
in the U.S.-led war, which has savaged Prime Minister Tony Blair's
popularity ratings. But with U.S. President George W. Bush now
rethinking strategy in Iraq after a crushing U.S. mid-term election
defeat, Blair has room to try to improve his standing at home
before he steps down next year by detailing possible Iraq exit
options.
 BLAIR ADMITS IRAQ HAS BEEN A DISASTER
GUARDIAN, UK - Tony Blair conceded last
night that western intervention in Iraq had been a disaster.
In an interview with Al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV station, the prime
minister agreed with the veteran broadcaster Sir David Frost
when he suggested that intervention had "so far been pretty
much of a disaster". Mr Blair said: "It has, but you
see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?'
It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's
difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaida with
Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia
militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will
of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority
for war.". . .
Mr Blair's remarks came hours after his
trade and industry minister, Margaret Hodge, was reported to
have described Iraq as his "big mistake in foreign affairs"
and criticized his "moral imperialism".
John McDonnell, the leftwing MP who has
pledged to challenge for Labor's leadership, said the prime minister's
concession was "staggering" and urged him to bring
forward Britain's exit strategy.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell
said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take
military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1951267,00.html
RIVERBEND
RIVERBEND, BAGHDAD - When All Else Fails...
… Execute the dictator. It's that simple. When American
troops are being killed by the dozen, when the country you are
occupying is threatening to break up into smaller countries,
when you have militias and death squads roaming the streets and
you've put a group of Mullahs in power - execute the dictator.
Everyone expected this verdict from the
very first day of the trial. There was a brief interlude when,
with the first judge, it was thought that it might actually be
a coherent trial where Iraqis could hear explanations and see
what happened. That was soon over with the prosecution's first
false witness. Events that followed were so ridiculous; it's
difficult to believe them even now.
The sound would suddenly disappear when
the defense or one of the defendants got up to speak. We would
hear the witnesses but no one could see them- hidden behind a
curtain, their voices were changed. People who were supposed
to have been dead in the Dujail incident were found to be very
alive. Judge after judge was brought in because the ones in court
were seen as too fair. . .
I'm more than a little worried. This is
Bush's final card. . . Iraq has not been this bad in decades.
The occupation is a failure. The various pro-American, pro-Iranian
Iraqi governments are failures. The new Iraqi army is a deadly
joke. Is it really time to turn Saddam into a martyr?. . .
It's not about the man - presidents come
and go, governments come and go. It's the frustration of feeling
like the whole country and every single Iraqi inside and outside
of Iraq is at the mercy of American politics. It is the rage
of feeling like a mere chess piece to be moved back and forth
at will. It is the aggravation of having a government so blind
and uncaring about their people's needs that they don't even
feel like it's necessary to go through the motions or put up
an act. And it's the deaths. The thousands of dead and dying,
with Bush sitting there smirking and lying about progress and
winning in a country where every single Iraqi outside of the
Green Zone is losing. . .
I just read somewhere that some of the
families of dead American soldiers are visiting the Iraqi north
to see 'what their sons and daughters died for'. If that's the
goal of the visit, then, "Ladies and gentlemen - to your
right is the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, to your left is the Dawry
refinery. . . Each of you get this, a gift bag containing a 3
by 3 color poster of Al Sayid Muqtada Al Sadr (Long May He Live
And Prosper), an Ayatollah Sistani t-shirt and a map of Iran,
to scale, redrawn with the Islamic Republic of South Iraq. Also.
. . Hey you! You- the female in the back- is that a lock of hair
I see? Cover it up or stay home." And that is what they
died for.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
THE MEDIA'S IRAQ OFFENSIVE
NORMAN SOLOMON, TOM PAINE - The American
media establishment has launched a major offensive against the
option of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. In the latest media
assault, right-wing outfits like Fox News and the Wall Street
Journal editorial page are secondary. The heaviest firepower
is now coming from the most valuable square inches of media real
estate in the USA - the front page of The New York Times. . .
Under the headline "Get Out of Iraq
Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say," the Nov. 15 front page of
The New York Times prominently featured a "Military Analysis"
by Michael Gordon. The piece reported that - while some congressional
Democrats are saying withdrawal of U.S. troops "should begin
within four to six months" - "this argument is being
challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former
generals, including some who have been among the most vehement
critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policies."
Reporter Gordon appeared hours later on
Anderson Cooper's CNN show, fully morphing into an unabashed
pundit as he declared that withdrawal is "simply not realistic."
Sounding much like a Pentagon spokesman, Gordon went on to state
in no uncertain terms that he opposes a pullout.
If a New York Times military-affairs reporter
went on television to advocate for withdrawal of U.S. troops
as unequivocally as Gordon advocated against any such withdrawal
during his Nov. 15 appearance on CNN, he or she would be quickly
reprimanded-and probably would be taken off the beat-by the Times
hierarchy. But the paper's news department eagerly fosters reporting
that internalizes and promotes the basic worldviews of the country's
national security state.
That's how and why the Times front page
was so hospitable to the work of Judith Miller during the lead-up
to the invasion of Iraq. That's how and why the Times is now
so hospitable to the work of Michael Gordon.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/16/the_medias_iraq_offensive.php
MARINE GENERAL WANTED PENTAGON TO TELL
HIM WHAT THEY WOULD DO WHEN HE WON. . .NEVER HEARD BACK
CBS - There is no one on the
Joint Chiefs of Staff who has visited Iraq more often than Gen.
Mike Hagee, whose term as Commandant of the United States Marine
Corps ends Monday. . . As Commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary
Force during the lead-up to the war, Hagee was in charge of planning
for the Marines' original push to Baghdad. So I asked him about
one of the enduring mysteries of the invasion - why there was
no real plan for running the country once Saddam Hussein fell
from power.. . . He says he was deeply concerned about who would
take charge of major Iraqi cities, like Najaf, as the Marines
pushed through them on their way to Baghdad. Hagee says he asked
his boss again and again who would take charge of those cities.
He wanted to know what the plan was for Phase IV - military terminology
for the phase that follows the end of major combat operations.
Phase IV is, in other words, what comes after "mission accomplished."
Hagee says that he sent his questions up the chain of command,
as they say in the military - and never heard back.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/national/main2177031.shtml
SOUTH JOINS NORTH IN DISTASTE FOR WAR
INSTITUTE FOR SOUTHERN STUDIES
- Despite strong early support for the Iraq war in the South,
the region's opposition to the war now matches national levels
-- and by some measures frustration is higher in the South than
elsewhere in the country. Those are the findings of a new public
opinion poll run by the Institute for Southern Studies and the
School of Public and International Affairs at North Carolina
State University.
57% of Southerners believe the
U.S. "should have stayed out of Iraq," compared to
44% who think the U.S. "did the right thing" by taking
military action. Nationally, 58% of the public believes the U.S.
should have stayed out and 43% now agree with military action.
Southerners are skeptical about
the goals of the Iraq mission. 29% of Southerners agree with
the Bush Administration's position that "Iraq is the central
front in the war on terrorism," compared to 25% nationally.
But 30% in Southern states -- the same as the national average
-- believe the main reason the U.S. is in Iraq is "to ensure
access to oil."
By at least one measure, Southerners
are more frustrated with the war than their counterparts in other
regions. Asked if they were "proud" or "sad"
about Iraq, a surprising 62% of respondents in the South said
they were "very sad" about the course of the war, compared
to only 56% in other regions of the country. Only 10% of those
surveyed in the South say they are "somewhat proud"
or "very proud" of the Iraq mission -- slightly less
than those polled in other states.
30% of those polled in Southern
states say the U.S. should "withdraw completely" from
Iraq. Those in non-Southern states were less likely to call for
a total withdrawal of U.S. troops (26%), but more likely to think
U.S. troop levels should be decreased "some" or "a
lot" - 34% in non-Southern states, compared to 26% in the
South. Put together, 56% of Southerners and 59% in other regions
support a decrease or withdrawal of U.S. troops.
http://southernstudies.org
1999 WAR GAMES SHOWED WHY IRAQ WAR MIGHT
FAIL
JOHN
HEILPRIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS - The U.S. government conducted
a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion
of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might
ensue. In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military,
diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop
levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care
of other security needs. The documents came to light Saturday
through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington
University's National Security Archive, an independent research
institute and library. "The conventional wisdom is the U.S.
mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton,
the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game
in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even
with 400,000 troops on the ground." There are currently
about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about
160,000 in January. . .
A change in regimes does not
guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A
number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation
along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival
forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
"Even when civil order is
restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could
be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or
out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
"Iran's anti-Americanism
could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the
briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces
into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation
of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
"The debate on post-Saddam
Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential
and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The
lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy
development."
"Also, some participants
believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy
U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a
democratic government."
"A long-term, large-scale
military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE INDICTMENT
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 1992
- The Pentagon said that a "gap" in the laws governing
warfare made it legally permissible during the gulf war for U.S.
tanks to bury thousands of Iraqi troops in their trenches and
for U.S. warplanes to bomb the enemy retreating along the so-called
Highway of Death. An elaborate legal justification was contained
in an appendix to the report on the war sent to Congress by Secretary
of Defense Dick Cheney. The section also accused Iraq of "widespread
and premeditated" war crimes and environmental terrorism.
But it absolved U.S. forces on war crime issues raised "by
some in the post-conflict environment."
Newsday disclosed in September
that many Iraqi troops were buried alive when the First Mechanized
Infantry Division attacked an 8,000-man division defending Saddam
Hussein's front line. U.S. commanders told Newsday that thousands
had been buried during the two-day assault Feb. 24-25, 1991.
During the February 27 Iraqi retreat from Kuwait, tens of thousands
of vehicles were destroyed by U.S. jets. But most estimates said
1,000 or fewer Iraqis were killed.
According to the new report,
the incidents raised questions about the Geneva Convention's
prohibition of "denial of quarter" -- refusing to accept
an enemy's offer to surrender. It said: "There is a gap
in the law of war in defining precisely when surrender takes
effect or how it may be accomplished. An attempt at surrender
in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated
nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness.". . .
"Many Iraqis surrendered
during this phase of the attack and were taken prisoner. The
division then assaulted the trenches containing other Iraqi soldiers.
Once astride the trench lines, the division turned the plow blades
of its tanks and combat earth movers along the Iraqi defense
line."In the process many more Iraqi soldiers surrendered;
others died in the course of the attack and the destruction or
bulldozing of their defensive positions."
Kenneth Roth, executive director
of Human Rights Watch, said the report ignored the Bush administration's
failure to disclose the location of the burial site. "That
is a clear violation of Articles 15 and 16 of the First Geneva
Convention," he said.
Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams
has said Cheney's interpretation of the conventions does not
require the United States to provide such details. Roth said
the killing of Iraqi troops fleeing Kuwait was another violation
of the conventions -- specifically the ban on attacking defenseless
soldiers: "Those Iraqis were wholly at the mercy of our
warplanes."
But the Pentagon report argued
that the fleeing soldiers could have reorganized and resumed
offensive operations. "The law of war permits the attack
of enemy combatants at any time, whether advancing, retreating,
or standing still," the report said.
ONE REASON WE'RE STILL IN IRAQ: WHEN
YOU RUN PICTURES OF WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON, YOU END UP WITH STORIES
LIKE THIS
DAVID BAUDER, AP - A CNN executive
said Thursday the network's effort to present the "unvarnished
truth" about the Iraq war led it to televise portions of
a video that shows insurgent snipers targeting U.S. military
personnel. . . In one instance, the tape shows a uniformed member
of the U.S. military milling in a public area with Iraqis. A
shot rings out. CNN fades the screen to black before the result
- described as a victim falling forward - is visible. It's one
of 10 separate sniper attacks on Americans documented on the
tape, which CNN technicians concluded was authentic, said David
Doss, executive producer of Cooper's show, in a Web log entry
describing the network's decision what to show.. . .
CNN understood that some critics
might find that the tape had public relations benefits for the
insurgency, Doss wrote. "We also understood that this kind
of footage is upsetting and disturbing for many viewers,"
he said. "But after getting beyond the emotional debate,
we concluded the tape meets our criteria for newsworthiness."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061020/ap_en_tv/tv_cnn_snipers_2
BRITISH CENSORING WAR COVERAGE
DOMINIC KENNEDY, TIMES UK - The
Ministry of Defence has banned Britain's biggest commercial news
broadcaster from frontline access to the nation's forces, The
Times has learnt.
In an unprecedented move that
risks accusations of censorship, the government has withdrawn
co-operation from ITV News in war zones after accusing it of
inaccurate and intrusive reports about the fate of wounded soldiers.
. .
The row began last week after
ITV broadcast the first of a series of reports showing how British
soldiers wounded during the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan
are treated. . . MoD sources have indicated that there was concern
about images showing identifiable wounded servicemen arriving
at Birmingham airport by night. It has been suggested that no
permission was obtained from the men and that their families
may have been caused distress.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2417831,00.html
RETIRED NSA CHIEF SAYS CUT
AND RUN
LT GEN WILLIAM E. ODOM [RET]
- The United States upset the regional balance in the Middle
East when it invaded Iraq. Restoring it requires bold initiatives,
but "cutting and running" must precede them all. Only
a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops - within six months
and with no preconditions - can break the paralysis that now
enfeebles our diplomacy. And the greatest obstacles to cutting
and running are the psychological inhibitions of our leaders
and the public.
Our leaders do not act because their reputations
are at stake. The public does not force them to act because it
is blinded by the president's conjured set of illusions: that
we are reducing terrorism by fighting in Iraq; creating democracy
there; preventing the spread of nuclear weapons; making Israel
more secure; not allowing our fallen soldiers to have died in
vain; and others.
But reality can no longer be avoided. It
is beyond U.S. power to prevent bloody sectarian violence in
Iraq, the growing influence of Iran throughout the region, the
probable spread of Sunni-Shiite strife to neighboring Arab states,
the eventual rise to power of the anti-American cleric Muqtada
Sadr or some other anti-American leader in Baghdad, and the spread
of instability beyond Iraq. All of these things and more became
unavoidable the day that U.S. forces invaded. . .
Some lawmakers are ready to change course
but are puzzled as to how to leave Iraq. The answer is four major
initiatives to provide regional stability and calm in Iraq. They
will leave the U.S. less influential in the region. But it will
be the best deal we can get.
First, the U.S. must concede that it has
botched things, cannot stabilize the region alone and must let
others have a say in what's next. As U.S. forces begin to withdraw,
Washington must invite its European allies, as well as Japan,
China and India, to make their own proposals for dealing with
the aftermath. . . Rapid troop withdrawal and abandoning unilateralism
will have a sobering effect on all interested parties. . .
The second initiative is to create a diplomatic
forum for Iraq's neighbors. Iran, of course, must be included.
Washington should offer to convene the forum but be prepared
to step aside if other members insist.
Third, the U.S. must informally cooperate
with Iran in areas of shared interests. Nothing else could so
improve our position in the Middle East. The price for success
will include dropping U.S. resistance to Iran's nuclear weapons
program. This will be as distasteful for U.S. leaders as cutting
and running, but it is no less essential. That's because we do
share vital common interests with Iran. . .
Accepting Iran's nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for
the likely benefits. Moreover, its nuclear program will proceed
whether we like it or not. Accepting it might well soften Iran's
support for Hezbollah, and it will definitely undercut Russia's
pernicious influence with Tehran.
Fourth, real progress must be made on the
Palestinian issue as a foundation for Middle East peace. The
invasion of Iraq and the U.S. tilt toward Israel have dangerously
reduced Washington's power to broker peace or to guarantee Israel's
security. We now need Europe's help. . . less.
[Odom was the head of the National Security
Agency during the Reagan administration]
SEPTEMBER 2006
VIDEO OF CIVILIAN TRUCK DRIVERS BEING ABANDONED
BY U.S. MIL |