News from the Colonies - America's War in Iraq

[John99]

The stuff i am seeing around the world perpetrated on women is ********* sickening. And it is every ********* country and for no ********* reason.

No. What i am seeing perpetrated around the world on innocent people is fucking sickening. Poor people, no one to fight for them, suffering every second of every day. Do you want me to post the images, the stories or do we sit here and fan the flames of war?

Shame. ********* shame.

 

[John99]

Its a losing battle and i really believe it is just getting harder to do anything about it.

http://www.feminist.com/violence/spot/

 

[Tiassa]

The toxic shock of it all

And TiaSSa doesnt want to hear it.

What, did I miss a tampon joke?

Reason: deleted all curses. im gonna go vomit now.

Actually, you missed one—

What i am seeing perpetrated around the world on innocent people is fucking sickening.

—but I'm not going to object.

Preach on, Brother John!

Do you want me to post the images, the stories or do we sit here and fan the flames of war?

Post away. Is there any particular reason that we haven't a general topic on sexual violence? Between S.A.M.'s inquiry about Iraqi women and your bitter presumption that I don't want to hear it, I feel like people—well, two people, at least—seem to think it's my responsibility.

Fine. Works for me. I'll get to it when I get to it. Probably tomorrow, so as not to rush out and make a clumsy topic on it just to prove a point.

 

[John99]

Preach on, Brother John!

" Oh Great Spirit, Whose Voice I Hear in the wind, Whose breath gives life to the world, hear me. I come to you as one of your many children, I am small and weak, I need your strength and wisdom. May I walk in beauty, make my eyes behold the red and purple sunset, make my hands respect the things that you have made, and my ears sharp to hear your voice. Make me wise so that I may know the things that you have taught your children, the lessons that you have hidden in every leaf and rock. Make me strong...not to be superior to my brothers but to be able to fight my greatest enemy...myself. Make me ever ready to come to you with straight eyes so that when life fades as the faded sunset, my spirit will come to you without shame. "

 

[S.A.M.]

"Letters My President Is Not Sending"


Dear Rafik, Sorry about that soccer game you won't be attending since you now have no . . .

Dear Fawziya, You know, I have a mom too so I can imagine what you . . .

Dear Shadiya, Think about your father versus democracy, I'll bet you'd pick . . .

No, no, Sami, that's not true what you said at the rally that our country hates you, we really support your move toward freedom, that's why you no longer have a house or a family or a village . . .

Dear Hassan, If only you could see the bigger picture . . .

-Naomi Shihab Nye

 

[Tiassa]

Ride the waiver, shoot the churl

Source: The Guardian
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/21/usa1
Title: "US army increases use of moral waivers to meet demand for troops", by Elena Schor
Date: April 21, 2008

Redemption in a time of war:

The US army doubled its use of "moral waivers" for enlisted soldiers last year to cope with the stress of the Iraq war, allowing convicted sex offenders, people convicted of making terrorist threats and child abusers into the military, according to new records released today.

The army gave out 511 moral waivers to soldiers with felony convictions last year, relaxing its recruiting standards in order to admit them. Criminals got 249 army waivers in 2006, a sign that the high demand for US forces in Iraq has forced a sharp increase in the number of criminals allowed on the battlefield.

The felons accepted into the army and marines included 87 soldiers convicted of assault or maiming, 130 convicted of non-marijuana drug offences, seven convicted of making terrorist threats, and two convicted of indecent behaviour with a child. Waivers were also granted to 500 burglars and thieves, 19 arsonists and 9 sex offenders ....

.... Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the oversight panel, wrote to Pentagon personnel chief David Chu to seek more details on how directly the rise in waivers stems from Iraq-related recruiting needs.

Waxman told Chu that while "providing opportunities to individuals who have served their sentences and rehabilitated themselves" is important, the waivers are a sign that the US military is stretched too thin.

The total number of moral waivers in the military reached 34,476 in 2006, or nearly 20% of all enlisted soldiers, according to the Palm centre at the University of California.

(Schor)

There is a question—at least, a germ or kernel or seed thereof—that presents itself. The final phrasing may vary from person to person, but the underlying theme is the same. At first glance, the news that the U.S. military, in a time of war, must increasingly waive standards that, in peacetime, seemed like a good idea, is unsettling, even discouraging. There are, of course, the bright-siders who will point out that these convicts have a chance to make good on their crimes, to repay their debts to society. Some might even suggest that rapists and other violent criminals make excellent front-line candidates; a presumable disposition toward violence, and a history of morally questionable outcomes that might view their destruction on the battlefield as a more utilitarian exchange than a weeping, tragic loss of one of our nation's precious sons or daughters.

But underneath it all is the question of standards. Why were these standards introduced in the first place? What, aside from the need for more boots to send to the theater, makes the increase of waivers a good idea or reassuring notion?

 

[Tiassa]

A fair trade?

How much collateral damage are we willing to trade for the destruction of an enemy?

Jacques Charmelot writes, for AFP:

A US air strike damaged a hospital in the Iraqi capital's violent Shiite stronghold of Sadr City on Saturday, injuring 20 people, as American forces claimed to have killed 14 militiamen.

(Charmelot)

If we left it at that, people might say, "Twenty injured? That's rough, but we got fourteen bad guys."

But that would be the problem of stopping there. It makes for a sexy lede, but it's not exactly accurate:

The US military said it carried out the strike in Sadr City, a bastion of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, where US troops in separate confrontations killed at least 14 militiamen since Friday.

(ibid)

Separate confrontations killed at least fourteen. In fact, as of the article's posting time, "Battle damage assessment is currently ongoing".

However, witnesses and an AFP reporter at the scene said the main Al-Sadr hospital had been badly damaged and a fleet of ambulances were destroyed.

Just outside the hospital, a shack which appeared to be the target was reduced to a pile of rubble.

The military said it destroyed a "criminal element command and control centre" at approximately 10 am (0700 GMT) ....

.... Hospital staff said at least 20 people wounded in the air raid were taken to the same hospital which had its glass windows shattered, and medical and electrical equipment damaged ....

.... "They (the Americans) will say it was a weapons cache (they hit)," said the head of Baghdad's health department, Dr Ali Bistan. "But, in fact they want to destroy the infrastructure of the country."

He charged that the attack was aimed at preventing doctors and medicines reaching the hospital which is located inside an area of increased clashes between American troops and militiamen ....

.... The huge concrete blocks forming a protective wall against explosions had collapsed on parked vehicles, including up to 17 ambulances, disabling the emergency response teams.

(ibid)

According to locals, the destroyed shack "was a transit point for Muslim pilgrims".

Now, admittedly, nothing is particularly simple about war except for the underlying principle, kill the enemy, which is, of course, easier said than done. And even if American spokesman Lt. Col. Steven Stover is correct that the enemy was using human shields, the question remains:

How much collateral damage are we willing to trade for the destruction of an enemy?​

____________________

Notes:

Charmelot, Jacques. "Air raid hits Baghdad hospital, US says 14 fighters dead". Yahoo! News. May 3, 2008. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080503/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestussadrcity_080503112533

 

[S.A.M.]

On the same note:

“This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”

“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=10&_r=1

 

[Tiassa]

Land of confusion?

I still don't get that bit, S.A.M. Whether or not we have democracy in Iraq, it doesn't mean anything if we do end up with the result that we want?

The context on that escapes me entirely. What the hell am I missing?

• • •​

Something else from Charmelot's article strikes me oddly:

Just outside the hospital, a shack which appeared to be the target was reduced to a pile of rubble ....

.... Hospital guard Alaa Mohamed, 26, was at a side entrance when the bombs exploded. "There were five missiles that exploded outside the parking lot," he said.

An AFP reporter saw three huge craters, each with a diameter of six metres (yards), created by the impact of the explosions. Youngsters climbed on top of the rubble and looked for anyone trapped underneath.

Residents said the shack that appeared to be the main target of the air strike was a transit point for Muslim pilgrims.

(Charmelot)

So let me get this straight: A building that we might describe as a shack required between three and five explosive missiles to destroy?

What the hell? A shack? This sounds like something that could have been handled with a laser-guided concrete bomb:

US Operation Northern Watch, which has been bombing Iraq regularly since December, has added another weapon to its war chest: laser-guided chunks of concrete. Dubbed "concrete bombs," these babies weigh 500 to 2,000 pounds each and can take out a military target without explosives, without a rain of shrapnel -- and, theoretically, without killing as many civilians.

(Solheim)

So what's the deal here? Concrete doesn't cost enough? Doesn't divert enough money defense contractors?

Seriously, a shack?
____________________

Notes:

Charmelot, Jacques. "Air raid hits Baghdad hospital, US says 14 fighters dead". Yahoo! News. May 3, 2008. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080503/wl_mideast_afp/iraqunrestussadrcity_080503112533

Soleheim, Karla. "Smart Bombs or Rocks for Brains?". Mother Jones. November 5, 1999. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/11/concrete.html

 

[S.A.M.]

My article is about how military analysts fight the war.

IOW, what the government and the military tell us about the war is the reality they have packaged and presented to elicit a required response from us.

Unless you examine the facts on their own merit, you are thinking what they want you to think.

 

[Tiassa]

Not everyone and everything opposes you

My article is about how military analysts fight the war.

Right, right, right. I'm actually familiar with the article. What I mean is, simply, that it seems there's a typo, or misstatement involved:

And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.​

Doesn't it seem like there should be a "don't" in there? As in, "... it doesn't mean a tinker's damn if we don't end up with the result we want ...."

Or is this one of those telling moments often called a Freudian slip? I mean, it doesn't take much effort to convince me that we're not actually there to win a war. I think we're in Iraq in order to start a conflict for the ages, a hundred year war. You know, the New American Century?

It's just ... it's just a strange quote.

 

[S.A.M.]

Right, right, right. I'm actually familiar with the article. What I mean is, simply, that it seems there's a typo, or misstatement involved:

And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.​

Doesn't it seem like there should be a "don't" in there? As in, "... it doesn't mean a tinker's damn if we don't end up with the result we want ...."

Or is this one of those telling moments often called a Freudian slip? I mean, it doesn't take much effort to convince me that we're not actually there to win a war. I think we're in Iraq in order to start a conflict for the ages, a hundred year war. You know, the New American Century?

It's just ... it's just a strange quote.

I read it differently

as in

And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn

followed by,

if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.


To me that says the democracy part is not as significant as the getting a friendly regime part, which is sort of consistent with US foreign policy in the region, like in Saudi Arabia for example. IOW, the aim is a friendly regime, rather than democracy.

The idea is, now how to sell that notion to Joe American? Bring in nonexistent Iranian nuclear bombs for instance.

 

[Vkothii]

And to nail the nuclear threat message home, or give sleeping Ammuricans something to dream about, a little "nuclear weapon mishap", where some grunt forgets to fill out the form properly, or whatever, means live cruise missiles fly across the continental US, gosh darn it.

Sure, the military screw up with their nukes, on like a daily basis, maybe. "It happens all the time".
Or the whole thing just happened to coincide with raising the awareness of the American public to the threat of nuclear weapons poised above the nation...?

 

[Tiassa]

Please don't vandalize this post, String!

To me that says the democracy part is not as significant as the getting a friendly regime part, which is sort of consistent with US foreign policy in the region, like in Saudi Arabia for example.

I do not disagree with you that this appears to be the intent, but I'm not sure the sentence actually equals that result.

I don't disagree with you, S.A.M., but rather

Actually, a switch flipped, just now, and I think I see your point. Really. As I was writing the sentences struck above.

I'll still go with the statement being poorly phrased by the analyst, but I do think I'm seeing your interpretation now.

Thank you for helping me resolve that one.

 

[John99]

Iraq did go to war against Iran and Kuwait.

As far as i can tell Saudia Arabia is not bad, i dont know whats bad about it? Maybe Tiassa or SAM know.

And what about Kuwait? Isn't that an outstanding country? Tell me, is it?
And what about that other place where they are building all that outstanding architecture? Sorry, I can think of the name right now.

All i am saying is that the regime in question did start a lot of wars. Or maybe I am wrong. Does anyone see where i am going with this?

Say maybe he meant what he said. I dont care for him either, but i am just saying.

 

[iceaura]

All i am saying is that the regime in question did start a lot of wars. Or maybe I am wrong. Does anyone see where i am going with this?

The operative part was "friendly to us" - whoever Rumsfeld meant by "us".

If "starting wars" were the problem, Iran would not be problematic.

 

[John99]

But they were not friendly to Kuwait and Iran either.

 

[Tiassa]

The Gitmo Disaster

The Gitmo Disaster
Guantanamo prosecutions falling apart

After years of waiting, Guantanamo Bay's terror suspects are getting their day in court. Sort of. In the first place, they're appearing before military judges. And, to the other, some curious results are coming about:

One judge in the Guantanamo Bay military tribunal has threatened to suspend the case against a Canadian terrorism suspect if Pentagon prosecutors continue withholding evidence from the defense.

Another judge has disqualified an Air Force general from advising the war-crimes court because of what he agreed was the general's politically motivated "unlawful command influence."

On Tuesday, the Pentagon lawyer in charge of the military tribunal approved charges that carry the death penalty against confessed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators but dropped them against the alleged "20th hijacker" without saying why. Mohammed Qahtani in February had been designated for prosecution along with the others.

As the six-year effort to bring alleged terrorists to justice crawls toward its first trial next month, military jurists have been distancing themselves from the prosecutorial juggernaut that appeared to have been launched earlier this year to bring swift convictions before the November election.

(Williams)

The stunning turn of events leaves analysts and commentators scrambling for explanations. Dan Slater writes for The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog that, "A source told the WSJ that Crawford had seen 'a real difference in the level of culpability' between Qahtani and the other five prisoners proposed for the 9/11 trial". Qahtani's lawyer, LtC Bryan Broyles suggested that Tribunal Convening Authority Susan J. Crawford's decision recognized the impact of abusive treatment his client allegedly endured at Guantanamo. "An objective view of the evidence in his case," he said, "would convince any attorney with criminal law experience that the charges should be dropped." The Washington Post editorial board wrote,

By most accounts Mr. Qahtani is now indeed a broken man, unable to communicate meaningfully even with those who would help him. Susan J. Crawford, who dismissed the charges against him, either came to believe that Mr. Qahtani's statements were unreliable and inadmissible because they were coerced; or, perhaps, that the proceedings against Mr. Qahtani had to be halted to keep a litany of abuses from being recounted within earshot of the rest of the world.

(Washington Post)

According to the Post, military prosecutors are attempting to "cleanse" the statements made by terrorism suspects at Guantanamo by attempting to compel them to repeat themselves through more legitimate methods. The board notes, however, that "it should not be forgotten that by the time the need for such cleansing arises, serious damage has already been done -- to those who were subjected to abuse and to the country that authorized it."

While some might describe the United States' unfortunate and buffoonish foray into the realm of torture as a "frat party", the reality is far more grim. In the race to justify sadism as necessary for national security, the government has created a situation in which the truth—and therefore the real nature and magnitude of the threats facing the United States—has been quite possibly irretrievably damaged.
____________________

Notes:

Williams, Carol J. "Charges dropped for 20th alleged 9/11 hijacker". Los Angeles Times. May 14, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tribunal14-2008may14,0,4723388.story

Slater, Dan. "Defense Department Jettisons Charges Against ‘20th Hijacker’". The Wall Street Journal Law Blog. May 14, 2008. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/14/defense-department-jettisons-charges-against-20th-hijacker/

Editorial Board. "Torture's Blowback". Washington Post. May 16, 2008; page A18. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503705.html

 

[S.A.M.]

How do we know the rest of the testimonies aren't equally unreliable?

Or even that they will get a fair trial?

Military and civilian defense lawyers have complained for years that terrorism suspects cannot get fair trials at Guantanamo. Hearsay evidence and that obtained through coercive interrogation techniques are admissible in tribunal proceedings if the judge deems it necessary. Defendants can be prevented from seeing confidential evidence or confronting accusers whose identities the prosecution considers protected.

Upon learning that the five Sept. 11 suspects had been charged, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, complained that security clearances for volunteer defense lawyers were being blocked by the Pentagon. "This raises very serious questions when civilian lawyers and civil liberties organizations step up to the plate in an inherently unfair and fundamentally flawed process and the government still impedes our efforts to do vigorous lawyering," he said.

Looks like a kangaroo court

 

[DiamondHearts]

What's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan right now is simply ridiculous and makes all claims of America or the other Western nations spreading democracy and freedom void.

This is real terrorism (state terrorism on the scale of hundreds of thousands of deaths) perpetrated on innocent civilians (women, children (girls mostly), elderly are the ones suffering the most). The utter disregard for all human decency as portrayed in prisons of Abu Ghareeb and Bagram airbase are only the tip of the iceberg. These sadistic acts (rape of women and men) and inhuman torture (simulated drowning, attacks by dogs, having metal tools sticks into inmates, beatings, and continuously being under bright lights, wet, naked, in cold prisons). These people are mostly not soldiers from the resistance, these are innocent people who have happened to be alone and been captured, raped, abused. What do you expect when there are all women jails in Afghanistan and Iraq captured by male American soldiers? These prisoners are not soldiers, these are mostly civilians. One of the main demands of many of the resistance groups fighting Western forces right now is the release of women prisoners.

If you think that peace and justice can prevail while Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos, anarchy, and oppression, then you are either really naive or simply inhumanely insensitive to human suffering (like those who support the wars).

All people in Middle East and Muslim world are rightfully angered at these blatant imperialistic and terrorist acts perpetrated by the "champions of liberty." In reality this is all hypocrisy and only a means to control, oppress, and scare people into submission. These are war crimes, and eventually in a more fair and just world order we may be able to punish these soldiers, government officials, and warmongers for their crimes.

The foolish things is after they occupy, destroy infrastructure, and engage in constant and gross acts against the public, they blame them for their situation. Its similar to how you can bulldoze someone's house and blame them for the crime. People are not foolish, most people in the world know this war is a sham and it is a crime. Those people who tell themselves that this is for freedom and justice to help "Iraqi and Afghani victims" are either extremely naive or imperialistic racists to whom one life of their race is preferable to thousands of Muslim lives. Some people really think like this, and its unfortunate, but then again Hell is made for these people. These innocents who are victims, what crime is theirs other than to be Iraqi, Afghani and Muslim.

I may get carried away so you must forgive me as this hits very close to my heart.

I always think about on my satellite channel when I say an Iraqi mother who was crying and when the reporter asked her to tell her story, she said that her son who was a grown man, was captured one day by American soldiers on his way from work, and she had not heard anything about him for months. She finally saw him, but he was in a pile of tortured human corpses in one of the pictures of Abu Ghareeb prison, she recognized him from a scar on his thigh. Now for billion plus Muslims around the world who see this, what do you expect their response to be. This is one mans story, but what of the thousands of raped women, children, and of those abused innocent young men. What kind of justice is this?

After this, no kind of "winning hearts and minds" tactic will work, as long as this torture of innocents and plunder of nations' resources, children, and honor takes place.