Under The Same Sun

« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »

November 30, 2004

Why Do They Hate Us, Continued

This shirt is being sold with the following text:

In addition to helping a worthy cause, it's important to make sure the public does not forget about this brave Marine, who acted swiftly, in defense of his brothers.

We're proud of what this Marine did. At MetroSpy we believe terrorists should be hunted down and killed. And we're as happy as a room full of November 3rd Republicans every time that happens. Enjoy!
----
The Marine who killed the wounded insurgent in Fallujah deserves our praise and admiration. In a split second decision, he acted valiantly. CAPTION READS:"The Gods of War Hate those who Hesitate"

I don't need to explain much here, all you have to do is reverse the situation. Imagine a wounded, unarmed marine being left to die in a church in, say, rural Montana by, say, the occupying army. A day later another group of occupier soldiers come back, notice one of the wounded marines is still not dead, and shoots him, point blank, on camera. Then, all they talk about is how the shooter had the right to defend himself from the unarmed, wounded, dying man on the ground. What if he was booby-trapped? What if he was about to lunge?

Then they sell shirt celebrating the shooter. And their columnists keep blabbing about how uncivilized we are, and how we don't value life like they do.

Posted by zeynep at 05:09 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

November 29, 2004

Sudan and Activism

In the comments section of my entry on the situation in the Sudan, there have been some discussion about what to do. I obviously don't have the perfect, complete and ready-to-implement answer. So here are a few thoughts.

It's hard for a blog to produce one-size-fits-all recommendations about becoming involved. It depends on who you are, where you are, and what you are willing and able to do. It's about your choices and your opportunities and the intersection of those options with what's politically useful and beneficial -- which isn't always easy to see in advance, so there's certainly an argument to try whatever you are moved to do. Who knows what will work in this climate of apathy and callousness?

And the basics --writing letters to elected representatives, newspapers, holding demonstrations, leaflets-- many not sound glamorous or innovative, but they are the requisites for any political campaign. Without some level of buzz and pressure on the media and the politicians nothing will get off the ground, and all our bright and smart ideas will not have the ground upon which they can stand.

As for groups that have been working politically on this issue, I can name Trans Africa Forum and Africa Action as good places to start. There are others, of course, and please do feel free to chime in with comments about your experience and your ideas about what to do. Also, the humanitarian organization Conscience International has just sent a delegation to Darfur and they have first hand stories of a very grim situation. Conscience International's web page doesn't yet have an update of this trip -- that's partly because they are a low-budget operation. CI's president Jim Jennings, who was on that trip to Darfur, can be reached at jimjennings (at) earthlink.net.

Now, there is some real political thorny issues around the question of calling fro military intervention. As we all witnessed, humanitarian disguises have been repeatedly used to justify good ol' military interventions, most recently in Iraq.

The thorniness of the issues should not make us ignore it. We must confront this question because humanitarian tragedies sometimes do require some form of peacekeeping / military intervention and our justified resistance to imperialism should not mean we are going to ignore real victims to grave crimes against humanity.

And there are many options short of military intervention that haven't been tried and our focus should first be there. That's another political trap that I think the anti-war movement has largely failed to avoid. The establishment points at a real tragedy, say Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and manages to frame large scale military intervention as the only possible intervention. While we end up justly arguing against the military intervention, we are unable advance any arguments about what should actually be done because, well, they've corrupted and dismantled all the other options and because we too have been largely ignoring the issue until the rulers pushed it on the agenda.

For example, running up to the Iraq war, the United States dismantled efforts to bring in Iraq under a chemical weapons convention, and further random, independent inspections, because it would have taken away an excuse to go to war -- they even fired Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because he was so successful and determined to try to help eliminate a whole category of weapons of mass destruction. Then they turned around and ran a successful propaganda campaign claiming that there were no other solution to problems of WMD proliferation besides regime change implemented by the U.S. armed forces.

But, I digress. I think, in the case of the Sudan, what's necessary is political pressure, first and foremost on the central government and perhaps at some of the rebel groups to provide an environment that aid groups can operate in. A global campaign, a pouring of resources, a concentrated political, diplomatic and material aid campaign... In a sane world, these would be the issues that dominate the news every morning and every night.

We need to work on this issue now, and not just frantically try to respond when they decide it's time for them to pick it up and use it as an excuse to invade, distract or otherwise mislead. For one thing, that's a recipe for political defeat. And more importantly, there are hundreds of thousands of people who may well be dead by then.

Posted by zeynep at 10:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Onward, Moral Values

We're not necessarily segregationists. We just don't want to do anything about underfunded public schools, really.

That's the great argument from the opponents of the ballot measure that would "erase segregation-era wording requiring separate schools for 'white and colored children' and to eliminate references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks.

Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools.

Underfunded public schools. Anybody want to venture a guess about racial and ethnic breakdown of those?

The measure was defeated so the racist language remains on the books.

A lot of papers reporting the story used headlines such as "Alabama Vote Opens Old Racial Wounds". Don't these people they read their own stories before coming up with a title? How is a wound old, and presumably closed, when, more than 41 years after George Wallace blocked the doors of the Foster Auditorium to prevent Vivian Malone and James Hood from enrolling in the University of Alabama, the majority of the voters in the state are not willing to strike language from their state constitution about keeping apart "white and colored children"?

"Gov. George Wallace blocks the doorway to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, June 11, 1963."

Posted by zeynep at 12:43 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 28, 2004

"Don't Reopen the Wounds", Recommend the Wound-Inflicters

Chile acknowledges torture was official policy used to crush left-wing dissidents, and moves to compensate victims:

Chilean President Ricardo Lagos has announced compensation payments to thousands of victims, saying illegal imprisonment and torture were a state policy during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet. ...

"How can we explain such horror?" Lagos asked. "I do not have an answer."

Pinochet's right-wing dictatorship fiercely suppressed leftists, dissidents and others perceived as opponents, imprisoning, exiling, torturing and killing thousands. Many of them simply disappeared.

It's the least that should be done but the damage to Chile is done. No compensation, acknowledgement or apology can make that whole.

I do have two questions. Will any newspaper reporting on this topic even mention the central role played by the U.S. government and U.S. corporations in instigating and supporting Pinochet's coup and the subsequent regime of torture and terror? And will anyone refer to torture by Pinochet's regime as "abuse"-- as they do when the same acts are committed by U.S. troops?

And here's the comical quote. Pinochet's spokesman objected to the report because it would "reopen wounds in our society."

... retired Gen. Guillermo Garin, the former dictator's spokesman, said the report would "reopen wounds in our society."

Ok, first you shoot the victim. Then you torture them for a while. Then you dump the body from a helicopter. If anyone asks you what happened, you answer "don't reopen the wounds"? Such concern. Such sensitivity.

Posted by zeynep at 10:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 26, 2004

Sudan? Not Much Oil? Black People? *world yawns*

This is all too sad.

The World Food Program said Thursday that renewed fighting in Sudan's Darfur region has forced the U.N. agency to suspend a large part of its relief operations there, leaving 300,000 refugees without aid. The suspension comes as demand for emergency food in the region increases because no crops were planted in the last season.

This is Zubeida, living in a refuge camp in Chad's border with Sudan. Does she have a chance to grow up? Is she still alive?

What needs to happen is that the world should pressure the government of Sudan, and the rebels as necessary. All the money in the world to buy food will not do good if aid agencies cannot operate -- not that there is enough money for that but we're not even there yet. Pressuring the Sudanese government requires political will, not just donations. And political will requires a public willing to exert pressure, even if just a bit.

I'm sorry, I know I should have talked about the great bargains at the mall. This is the biggest shopping day of the year, after all. All those leftovers to eat, all those gifts to buy. Didn't mean to add to the stress of the holidays.

Posted by zeynep at 12:10 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

November 25, 2004

Wounded? Congrats, Here's a Purple Heart. Now Please Hand Over the Signing Bonus.

In the middle of a short piece about wounded soldiers, Newsweek mentions that the army tried to make Lt. Tyson Johnson pay back his signing bonus because he didn't complete his tour of duty ... due to the serious injuries he received, for which he got a Purple Heart.

Insult upon injury, [Tyson Johnson] got a bonus for joining, and they wanted to take the signing bonus back because he didn't fulfill his contract because he was wounded ... [Editor’s note: The Army has since abandoned its efforts to collect Tyson Johnson's signing bonus.]

How gracious of them to have stopped their collection efforts. The amount, if you are curious, was $2999. Giving up on that must have blown a big hole in Pentagon's $400 billion budget. Maybe Lt. Johnson should do the right thing and return the money anyway -- perhaps by putting up that Purple Heart for sale on Ebay. If a grilled cheese sandwich with the "image" of "Virgin Mary," who apparently has nothing better to do than help people increase their gambling winnings, can sell for $28,000...

Posted by zeynep at 03:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 24, 2004

Hardening of Arteries -- or Hearts?

Mother of soldier dies shortly after viewing the remains of her son:

Karen Unruh-Wahrer, 45, had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, more commonly known as hardening of the arteries, which led to her October 2 heart attack, said Dr. Bruce Parks, Pima County's chief medical examiner.

Unruh-Wahrer was said to be inconsolable after the death of her 25-year-old son, Army Spc. Robert Oliver Unruh, who was killed September 25 by enemy fire near Baghdad.

She died shortly after seeing his remains for the first time. Her family attributed the death to a broken heart, but Parks said hardening of the arteries generally develops slowly over a long period of time and often goes unnoticed by the victim.

I'm sure the doctor is right about the hardening of the arteries and atherosclerotis in the case of this unfortunate mother. But I believe the correct national diagnosis which led to death of her son, as well as tens of thousands Iraqis, is called hardening of hearts. Most people seem to not care one bit about Iraqi lives -- and barely care about American lives despite loud performances to the contrary on appropriate ceremonial occassions and campaign ads.

Posted by zeynep at 09:19 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 23, 2004

What's Wrong With These People?

Hundreds of thousands of people around Ukraine seem determined not to acccept "Central Election Commission's announcement that Kremlin-backed Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych had narrowly won Sunday's runoff vote." Their excuse? Exit polls showing the presidential challenger Viktor Yushchenko leading and reports of significant fraud, intimidation and media bias in favour of the official victor.

Jeez, what's the big deal? Why can't they go shopping instead? Isn't there a game on tonight? What's with this 200,000 people camping out in the streets in sub-zero temperatures -- now in their third day?

Let me be clear that there is no doubt that the United States is also trying to illegitimately meddle in this election. I don't know enough to judge what kind of a politician Yushchenko will turn out to be. I don't know if he will be a disappointment to these people who are trying so hard to see him as their next president. That's certainly a possibility.

Here's what's important, though. The people of Ukraine are providing a striking example of what happens when people actually care about democracy, about their right to vote. This is what happens when there is a popular will to actually challenge possibly fraudulent election results.

Posted by zeynep at 04:20 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

November 22, 2004

Roger That, Sir

This from Kevin Site's blog -- the cameraman who shot the famous video of the killing of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi inside a mosque:

We hear gunshots from what seems to be coming from inside the mosque. A Marine from my squad yells, "Are there Marines in here?"

When we arrive at the front entrance, we see that another squad has already entered before us.

The lieutenant asks them, "Are there people inside?"

One of the Marines raises his hand signaling five.

"Did you shoot them," the lieutenant asks?

"Roger that, sir, " the same Marine responds.

"Were they armed?" The Marine just shrugs and we all move inside.

Immediately after going in, I see the same black plastic body bags spread around the mosque. The dead from the day before. But more surprising, I see the same five men that were wounded from Friday as well. It appears that one of them is now dead and three are bleeding to death from new gunshot wounds. The fifth is partially covered by a blanket and is in the same place and condition he was in on Friday, near a column. He has not been shot again. I look closely at both the dead and the wounded. There don't appear to be any weapons anywhere.

"These were the same wounded from yesterday," I say to the lieutenant. He takes a look around and goes outside the mosque with his radio operator to call in the situation to Battalion Forward HQ.

I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.

While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.

Then I hear him say this about one of the men:

"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging.

However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.

Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.

"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.

I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket.

But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk.

For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here.

At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.

The wounded man then tries again to talk to me in Arabic.

He says, "Yesterday I was shot... please... yesterday I was shot over there -- and talked to all of you on camera -- I am one of the guys from this whole group. I gave you information. Do you speak Arabic? I want to give you information."

Once again, what strikes me about both the video and Kevin Site's description of the event is the utter, banal ordinariness of it all. It's clear that it's just one more day and a few more dead. The only difference is that this was captured on camera.

Posted by zeynep at 11:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 21, 2004

The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein...

A new study shows that acute malnutrition among Iraqi children has jumped dramatically to 7.7 percent. The conditions are now worse than they were before the invasion under Saddam Hussein, during sanctions. No small feat.

Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.
...

By one count, 60 percent of rural residents and 20 percent of urban dwellers have access only to contaminated water. The country's sewer systems are in disarray.

The whole article is here.

The big problem in Iraq isn't lack of available calories per se, although that too can be an issue among the poor. It's the contaminated water, which causes chronic diarrhea, which leads to malnourishment. Plus, many families are subsisting on low-quality foods, especially without adequate amounts of protein. That leads to a generally weakened immune system...

All of this could be addressed by repairing the infrastructure devastated by decades of war and suffocating sanctions, by providing widespread employment, by expanding preventive health-care -- in others words a government responsive to the needs of people of Iraq.

Oops, sorry, what am I writing. Government, responsive, needs of people. What silliness. Back to planet Earth. I mean children of Iraq will continue to live and die under appalling conditions which we have helped create and are now helping worsen. Good thing "moral values" "swung" the "election."

Posted by zeynep at 01:31 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Dear Fallujans, Congratulations. Your City Has Been Saved. Destroyed. Reconstructed. Whatever.

The State department is already putting out releases claiming how it will rebuild Fallujah:

Coalition forces in Iraq are turning their attention to the task of rebuilding Fallujah as the military campaign to oust the city's insurgents winds down. Together, the United States and the Iraqi government have earmarked as much as $100 million for the reconstruction effort, according to Ambassador Bill Taylor of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.

"We have a commitment to the people of Fallujah -- indeed, to the people of Iraq -- to help them reconstruct their city and their country. We take that commitment very seriously," Taylor told reporters during a November 19 briefing from Baghdad.

And mainstream newspapers spread the good news, with headlines like "Fallujah Reconstruction Team Opens its Doors"

For one thing, it's obvious the city is basically uninhabitable. It's not clear when or if anyone will return there, especially if the Marines refuse to leave, as they have already signalled.

Another thing is that how many times have we been through this? Promises of reconstruction, big spending, etc. followed by nothing? Here's the status of the infamous $18 billion allocated by Congress to be spent on reconstruction:

Of the $18.4 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds allocated by Congress last year, only $1.7 billion has been spent, Hess said, an increase of about $400 million from six weeks ago. He said 873 construction projects have been started, up from 703 six weeks ago. The goal is to have 1,000 started by year's end.

(To put it in context let me remind readers that we have spent billions of Dollars of Iraqi money --some on no-bid contracts to Halliburton-- while spending less than 10 percent of what Congress has already allocated for Iraqi reconstruction -- and much of it going to big American firms and mercenary organizations.)

And last, but not least, this is obviously propaganda aimed at the American, not the Iraqi, public. It's hard to believe that anyone in their right mind really thinks that any "reconstruction" project is going to reconstruct Sahar Muhammad Abdullah's life.

It seems that we are now committed to crushing at least the Sunni minority, and crushing it for the long-haul. The fate of the Shi'a probably depends on how favorable they will be to our permanent occupation of their country.

Posted by zeynep at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 19, 2004

Let's Play Raid-A-Mosque

So now they raid the Abu Hanifa mosque, probably the most important Sunni mosque in Iraq --named after founder of one of the biggest schools of Islamic thought-- during Friday prayers, killing at least four people.

Here's most of Dahr Jamail's report from Iraq. Dahr talked to someone inside the mosque via his cell phone during the raid. It's a chilling read:

U.S. soldiers raided the Abu Hanifa mosque in Baghdad during Friday prayers, killing at least four and wounding up to 20 worshippers.

At 12:30 pm local time, just after Imam Shaikh Muayid al-Adhami concluded his talk, about 50 U.S. soldiers with 20 Iraqi National Guardsmen (ING) entered the mosque, a witness reported.

”Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying INGs entered,” Abu Talat told IPS on phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. ”Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!”

Talat said he was among a crowd of worshippers being held back at gunpoint by U.S. soldiers. Loud chanting of 'Allahu Akbar' could be heard in the background during his call. Women and children were sobbing, he said.

”They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying,” he said in a panicked voice. ”At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation.”
Talat gave his account over short phone calls. He said he was witnessing a horrific scene.

”We were here praying and now there are 50 here with their guns on us,” he said. ”They are holding our heads to the ground, and everyone is in chaos. This is the worst situation possible. They cannot see me talking to you. They are roughing up a blind man now.” He evidently could talk no further then.

The soldiers later released women and children along with men who were related to them. Abu Talat was released because a boy told him to pretend to be his father.

...

”One Iraqi National Guardsmen held his gun on people and yelled, 'I will kill you if you don't shut up',” said Rana Aziz, a mother who had been trapped in the mosque.. ”So they made everyone lie down, then people got quiet, and they took the women and children out.”

She said someone asked the soldiers if they would be made hostages. A soldier used foul language and asked everyone to shut up, she said. Suddenly, she laughed amid her tears. ”The Americans have learnt how to say shut up in Arabic, 'Inchev'.”

Soldiers denied Iraqi Red Crescent ambulances and medical teams access to the mosque. As doctors negotiated with U.S. soldiers outside, more gunfire was heard from inside.

About 30 men were led out with hoods over their heads and their hands tied behind them. Soldiers loaded them into a military vehicle and took them away around 3.15 pm.

A doctor with the Iraqi Red Crescent confirmed four dead and nine wounded worshippers. Pieces of brain were splattered on one of the walls inside the mosque while large blood stains covered carpets at several places.

A U.S. military spokesperson in Baghdad did not respond to requests for information on the raid.

I think all the indications are clear. The U.S. occupation and the Allawi government are bent on silencing the Sunni minority by using overwhelming force. Arrest of the vice president the of National Assembly, the Fallujah onslaught, the mosque raid. They are hoping, I suppose that the Sunnis will either boycott the elections in disgust, will be too afraid to vote, or will have nobody they want to vote for because most of their leaders will have been banned, arrested or otherwise eliminated from the process.

And this administration is slowly succeeding in establishing the idea that elections --any elections, no matter how fraudulent, restricted and ridiculously undemocratic-- are enough to proclaim democracy in Iraq. Have you been to a voting booth? Check. Do we like the outcome? Check. Mission accomplished.

Posted by zeynep at 10:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 18, 2004

You Know You're Sovereign When

You know you're sovereign when the occupying army snatches the deputy head of your national assembly after he criticizes the actions of the occupying army, and nobody can even find out what the charges against him are.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's provisional parliament urged U.S.-led forces to free national assembly deputy head Naseer Ayef on Wednesday, a day after he was detained in a dawn raid on his house. "We call for his release and for the matter to be referred to the National Assembly which will investigate and take a legal position," it said in a statement.

...

U.S. forces detained Ayef, a senior member of the influential Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party on Tuesday. U.S. officials would not comment on the arrest.

The party pulled out of Iraq's U.S.-backed interim government a week ago in protest at an offensive to retake the rebel-held city of Falluja.

And why is this referred to as an "arrest"? Arrest is a legal procedure, it involves, laws, judges, charges... Not this: "The Americans took Naseer Ayef from his house at dawn, ... They shot one of his guards in the stomach and searched his house. We don't know why he was detained."

Posted by zeynep at 08:57 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Insurgents? Not Giving Up. Marines? Not Leaving.

The word is already out --can you say du-uh-- that turning Fallujah into rubble may just have stoked the resistance and will not achieve any of its stated goals:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The recapture of Fallujah has not broken the insurgents' will to fight and may not pay the big dividend U.S. planners had hoped — to improve security enough to hold national elections in Sunni Muslim areas of central Iraq, according to U.S. and Iraqi assessments.

Instead, the battle for control of the Sunni city 40 miles west of Baghdad has sharpened divisions among Iraq's major ethnic and religious groups, fueled anti-American sentiment and stoked the 18-month-old Sunni insurgency.

Here's what to watch out for, though, from the very next paragraph:

Those grim assessments, expressed privately by some U.S. military officials and by some private experts on Iraq, raise doubts as to whether the January election will produce a government with sufficient legitimacy, especially in the eyes of the country's powerful Sunni Muslim minority.

Leaving aside the Kurds, every indication is that each brutal assault by the U.S. military strengthens Sunni-Shia unity:

On the fourth day of the ground attack on Falluja, last Friday, joint Shia-Sunni prayers were held in the four mosques in Baghdad, and were massively well attended. Inter-communal prayers were the hallmark of the 1920 revolution, revived early this year by the Iraqi National Foundation Congress, a loose umbrella organisation of academics, cross-sectarian clerics and veteran political leaders.

And the other claim, that elections must be delayed, cancelled or limited because of the security situation is a bogus pretext that we will hear much more of as the January deadline nears. For one thing, all our actions are making the situation less tenable. Here's how it works. First we flatten Fallujah, claiming that, otherwise, elections cannot be held. Then the claim becomes elections cannot be held because people are too upset over Fallujah being flattenned.

The second obvious point is made by Hussain al-Shahristani, a scientist who was tortured in Saddam's Abu Ghraib for refusing to work on his weapons program:

"I don't understand how delaying elections will improve the security situation," Hussain al-Shahristani, a Shiite scientist who is close to al-Sistani. "I believe that the most important reason for the deteriorating security situation in the country is the postponement of elections."

It's very clear what the occupation and their puppet Allawi will move to cancel elections unless they are assured of being able to control the outcome. That's democracy for you, imperial style.

I understand the security situation is a real issue but the immediate step to take is obvious: withdraw the American forces, especially from the Sunni triangle. Their presence is probably the number one security problem. And how do airstrikes, tanks, and massive firepower improve the security situation?

But, the Marines seem to have no intention of withdrawing even from Fallujah:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Senior Marine intelligence officers in Iraq are warning that if American troop levels in the Falluja area are significantly reduced during reconstruction there, as has been planned, insurgents in the region will rebound from their defeat. The rebels could thwart the retraining of Iraqi security forces, intimidate the local population and derail elections set for January, the officers say.

They have further advised that despite taking heavy casualties in the weeklong battle, the insurgents will continue to grow in number, wage guerrilla attacks and try to foment unrest among Falluja's returning residents, emphasizing that expectations for improved conditions have not been met.

It is quite amazing what kind of outrageous propaganda gets reported on as serious news these days. Does anyone --any journalist who's actually there, these Marine officers, anyone-- actually doubt that every man, women and child in Fallujah would like the Marines to leave? Especially given the destruction unleashed upon their city? Yet the Marines insist they must stay, otherwise, elections "will be derailed" in January -- when it's clear that if the Marines stay either people will not return at all or, if they return, there will be constant attacks on the U.S. forces -- at which point we will declare the area too unsafe to hold elections, of course.

Posted by zeynep at 08:31 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Collective Punishment

There is a very good piece in the Guardian by Haifa Zangana, an Iraqi-born novelist, painter and former prisoner of the Saddam regime. She correctly names what's happenning to many Iraqi cities: "collective punishment."

The plight of the people of Falluja is not unique. Since the nominal handover of sovereignty on June 30, we have witnessed an escalation of Israeli-style collective punishment of Iraqi cities. Civilian carnage, coupled with enormous damage to homes and infrastructure, has became our daily reality.

In Tall Afar, in the north, US troops cut off water for three days last month and blocked food supplies to 150,000 refugees. Then in Samarra, residents cowered in their homes as tanks and warplanes pounded the city. Bodies were strewn in the streets but could not be collected for fear of American snipers. Of the 130 Iraqis killed, most were civilians. Hospital access was denied to the injured. And Qasim Daoud hailed the massacre as a "very clean" operation.

Every day of occupation brings fresh atrocities. But the architects of that occupation claim that it is Iraqis themselves who are beyond the reach of democracy. They are "militants" and "insurgents", bent on terror ising their own people and destroying hopes of reconstruction. Why can't they get involved in the peaceful democratic political process?

But they did, and they continue to do so. Over the last 19 months there have been protests, appeals, initiatives to set up a reasonable programme for elections, the opening of human rights centres, lecturing at universities, even poetry writing. This torrent of activism is still being practised by a broad variety of political parties, groups and individuals who oppose the foreign occupation. And they have been ignored. Newspapers were closed. Editors were arrested. Demonstrators were shot at, arrested, abused and tortured.

Posted by zeynep at 07:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 17, 2004

The Plot Unfolds as Predicted

Here's a little AP snippet that sums up where we are after the predictable military victory:

No one expects the capture of the former Sunni Muslim stronghold to halt the insurgency even within the city itself. One military official said Fallujah would probably wind up like Baghdad, a city under ineffective government control where insurgents have little problem mounting attacks.

By any account, the United States and Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, will have a tough time making friends among Fallujah's surviving residents.

The brutal assault has crushed homes and mosques and ground much of the southern neighborhoods into rubble. Survivors are hungry and aid convoys have been unable to reach them.

Reports of civilian suffering, expected to spread after the Americans loosens its grip on the city, could transform Fallujah into a shrine to Muslim warriors killed in the fighting.

Already the fatal shooting of a wounded and apparently unarmed man in a Fallujah mosque by a Marine has incensed Sunni Muslims, complicating efforts by Iraqi authorities seeking to contain a Sunni backlash to the invasion. Many Sunnis saw the Fallujah assault as a plot by the Americans and the Shiites against religious Sunnis and Saturday's shooting strengthened that view, intensifying the hostility there, as elsewhere, to U.S. troops.

As factual events morph into legend, the battle could become a key tool for guerrilla recruiters, already adept at running information campaigns, who want to replace the 1,600 or so fighters killed.

Fallujah remains home to many in the insurgent recruiting pool, including unemployed soldiers from of Iraq's disbanded military. And the city is a key stopping point on the guerrillas' route into Baghdad.

Outside Fallujah, the vast and tough Anbar province, which lacks any credible Iraqi security force or government control, seethes with Sunni discontent and growing poverty.

Is there anything here that wasn't completely predictable and predicted by many? No. Unfortunately, it looks like it's just going to get worse from here on.

I can visualize remembering this moment two or three years down the line, when people are arguing whether it was the first or second assault on Fallujah that was the turning point towards whatever disastrous consequences we will be experiencing then. Remembering that everything was done while many, many people trying to shout how wrong it all was, not just morally and legally, but pragmatically.

Posted by zeynep at 01:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Margaret Hassan

The reports are that Margaret Hassan may have been murdered. Watch the very politicians that spent their lives killing the people she tried desparately to save weep crocodile tears for her, as they read eulogies from teleprompters.

I believe this picture of her that's been making the rounds dates from the sanctions era -- those cruel, punishing U.S.-U.K led sanctions that lasted a decade at a great cost to Iraq's population, especially the most vulnerable sections.

There is a lot of talk these days about how much Saddam Hussein might have stolen from the people of Iraq via the Oil-For-Food program. I don't know. He was a evil, brutal tyrant capable of anything. As opponents of the sanctions at the time, we kept pointing out the sanctions were not harming Saddam Hussein but the people of Iraq. Nobody cared. Just as nobody now talks about that decade of cruelty that killed as much as 5,000 children under the age of five, every month, year after year.

Hassan opposed those sanctions vociferously -- don't expect either Bush nor Blair, who supported those sanctions to mention that fact.

Posted by zeynep at 12:58 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Number of Civilians Killed: 800 (says the Red Cross); Number of non-American Foreign Fighters among the detaines: 10-20 (says Colonel Regner); Eviscerating the Geneva Conventions: Priceless

Here's the a bit from the interview with the Red Cross official via invaluable Dahr Jamail:

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of U.S. military reprisal, a high-ranking official with the Red Cross in Baghdad told IPS that ”at least 800 civilians” have been killed in Fallujah so far.

His estimate is based on reports from Red Crescent aid workers stationed around the embattled city, from residents within the city and from refugees, he said.

Here's American Leftist crunching the numbers on the "foreign fighters" from information gleaned from a Pentagon briefing:

During an "operational update" on Fallujah today, Colonel Michael Regner accidentally broke with the standard practice of military spokespeople ... He indirectly gave us an estimate on the number of Fallujah's mythical foreign fighters. ...

[The number of] our detainees not too long ago this afternoon was right about 1,052. ... But at this time, out of 1,052 most likely about 1,040 -- or 1,030 are Iraqis.

So 1,030 and 1,040 are approximately 98% and 99% of 1,052, meaning 1% or 2% were non-Iraqis. If we assume that Fallujan prisoners of war are representative of the Fallujan insurgents as a whole, which the Pentagon numbered at 2,000 to 3,000, that gives us a range of between 20 and 60 foreign fighters present in Fallujah during the run-up to the assault. I guess 20 to 60 guys can qualify as "hordes"?

Anyway, enough with this facts and numbers business. Chief of CIA Porter J. Goss has just told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to "support the administration and its policies in our work. ... As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies." Our job is to silently watch it all happen and not ask too many questions. What else?

Posted by zeynep at 12:09 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 16, 2004

How Stupid Is This Going to Get?

So, the Democrats have chosen Harry Reid of Nevada as the Senate minority leader:

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada won election as leader of the shrunken Democratic minority on Tuesday and said he stands ready to cooperate with Republicans or confront them as he deems necessary.

...
Seconding [Reid's] nomination was Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who occasionally vexed Daschle by crossing party lines. "I said he will lead this caucus into a new era and oppose where necessary, compromise where possible and avoid the obstructionist label," Nelson said of his closed-door remarks.

With the exception of abortion rights and gun control, both of which he opposes, Reid's recent voting record on major issues puts him in the mainstream of Senate Democrats.

The Democrats are still worried about the "obstructionist" label? They pick this absolutely uninspiring, anti-gun control Senator whose only talent seems to be back-room dealings? When it's abundantly clear that the Republicans will not deal? Don't they understand that the obstructionist label will be there no matter what the they do or don't do? Remember how a triple-amputee vet got turned into a Saddam Hussein supporter? (Or, was it an Bin Ladin supporter? Hard to keep up with the smear-machine.)

They've already indicated that they will roll the red carpet for Gonzales who had declared the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and non-binding on the U.S., and the U.S. constitution non-binding on Texas. Rice will presumably breeze through after a few obligatory questions about "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside the United States" memo, which she claimed did not warn that Bin Ladin was determined to attack inside the United States. I mean, it's one thing to lose but it's another to act like total, absolute losers.

Posted by zeynep at 04:06 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Blue Fairy Redux

A lot of people responded to the picture I posted of U.S. soldiers resting on the "plush red carpets" in a damaged mosque in Fallujah as if I cared more about the carpets. Frankly, I was simply pointing out how inflammatory the image was -- and how revealing it was of the level of competence with which this war was being waged. And a lot of the comments I got were so hateful, so racist --including someone who referred to the kids on picture on top of this page as "turd world children-- that I think I should just compile them and post them on the main page. That kind of virulent racism is integral to the reality of this world although we rarely look at it directly.

And being offended by desecration of places of worship is obviously not limited to Muslims, but it is a trait shared by many faiths. That's just a fact of the way the world -- and personally, I think that's quite unfortunate. I find our obsession with things over life, our culture of death, to be sad, dangerous and, well, very unholy to say the least.

Let me take this opportunity to reproduce here a piece I had written leading up to the invasion of Iraq, after I had read yet another concerned statement about the archeological treasures of Iraq that would be in danger.

***

Urgent Request to the Blue Fairy: Please Turn these Children into Stone

November, 8, 2002

Fairy tales often have a universal appeal and draw children of all nations into their magical world. Pinocchio is no exception where the Blue Fairy rewards moral behavior and grants a puppet flesh-and-blood status.

I do doubt, however, that children in Iraq or Afghanistan could understand why an inanimate, man-made object would ever want to be a child of the flesh and blood kind. In their world, the flesh of children is there for the maiming and the blood for flowing --unlike those beautiful, sacrosanct objects of art which must be preserved and doted on.

As the British Independent reports, "an international band of curators and historians anxious not to repeat the damage inflicted on Iraqi treasures during the Gulf War 11 years ago are appealing to the American government to take the historic sites into account."

A similar surge of concern was observed when, about six months before the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan made a brief appearance in the news. The world was outraged then, but not because hundreds of thousands children's lives were flickering away in refugee camps where lack of education, food, and opportunities stole away their childhood and diseases and lack of medical care made sure many never grow into adults. The world was not outraged because the Taliban regime was denying medical care to women (and children) by not allowing women healthcare workers to work and men to take care of women. The outrage was not that the United States had pushed the U.N. to slap economic sanctions on the country -because of its refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden- that made things worse for the worst off, the poorest, the most vulnerable in the country (according to some estimates, the sanctions increased the price of basic medicines up to 50%) without providing leverage or means to make things better.

It was the 1,400-year-old Buddha statues carved into the mountainside at Bamiyan that triggered the heart-rending cries of concern. The New York Times (03/19/01) reported that Taliban envoy Rahmatullah Hashimi explained that the decision was made after an international NGO offered money to restore the statues but refused to allow the money to be used in refugee camps -- where 300 children had just died. Hashimi recounted that the NGO was asked that “instead of spending money on statues, why didn't they help our children who are dying of malnutrition?” Upon being told that “this money is only for statues”, they decided to destroy them.

Germany, Malaysia and Japan joined Russia, India, United States, Egypt and others to decry the barbarity. Offers poured in: money to restore the statues, money to remove the statues for safekeeping somewhere else, money to change the rulers' minds. Money that had not been pouring in for the refugee camps, for food, for clean water.

Now the world's archeologists and curators are afraid a similar outrage will occur to the historical artifacts in Iraq. The Independent quotes Helen McDonald, of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, based at Cambridge University, who explained that last time the Iraqis had tried to move a great deal of their most important objects out into storage in the countryside and that they have already begun to do so again.

"But some things are immovable, such as huge stones. If a bomb hits a museum or something, that would be it," she said.

Sure enough, she notes, "The British School of Archaeology in Iraq has written [about this]. They wrote to the Foreign Office during the Gulf War to express concern, not just on the humanitarian grounds but the effects that it would have on the culture."

Bombing of stones isn't the only potential cause of horrors, according to Charles Tripp, of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. He warns that in the wake of the Gulf War, sanctions had inadvertently caused as much damage to the archaeological sites of Iraq as direct attack. Trip notes: "The conditions of poverty had led to much looting of archaeological sites and site museums, which often contained significant finds even after the best items were removed to Baghdad. Numerous finds have turned up on the art market in the West." Dr Tripp observes that "there is a lot of temptation in a destitute country to rip something out that has a saleable value in the West."

Yes, especially since UNICEF reports that at least half a million children have died due to those sanctions. I can imagine parents looting and prying loose every single stone, rock, tablet, gem or otherwise inanimate object in that country to try to obtain food or simple medicines.

It has been reported that when a journalist asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought about Western Civilization, he replied, "it would be a good idea."

Indeed, it would be a good idea; unfortunately, it's unlikely we'll be able to muster that up in short order so we need a more serious, urgent and miraculous intervention.

We need the Blue Fairy who turned Pinocchio into flesh to perform a reverse miracle.

So here goes.

Please, Blue Fairy, turn the children of Iraq into stone. The older the stone better. Stone with cracks and signs of aging and weather damage would be perfect. Hopefully, that will evoke some protective reflexes and caring in their direction.

And, Blue Fairly, while you are at it, please do the same for the children of Afghanistan which is once again facing famine since the investment required and promised has not been delivered, and the children of Southern Africa which is in the midst of a progressing famine due to the drought which might have been triggered partly by global warming, and the children in Central America which is now threatened by famine thanks to the crisis in the coffee industry which never paid farmers more than a pittance of their enormous profit.

If Blue Fairy does not come through, I encourage the Iraqis to start their own make-a-wish foundation, which grants wishes to children with terminal illnesses. Of course, in Iraq, because of the sanctions, easily curable diseases like cholera and treatable childhood problems like leukemia are often terminaland then there are the congenital birth defects in the depleted-uranium-polluted south.

That make-a-wish foundation should take those children, whose childhood we have collectively destroyed, to the precious museums and let them play with all those precious stones and tablets. The children should paint them with indelible ink. They should throw them to the ground from high buildings to see from which floor they pulverize most easily. They should be encouraged to play team games and see which team can hammer a tablet into dust fastest.

Maybe, just maybe, what must surely be the collective wish of all those children and their families will come true. Maybe, amidst the predictable outrage over crushed stone, the world will notice them.

And maybe, just maybe, the biggest miracle of all will happen without the Blue Fairy -- our hearts of stone will turn into flesh and blood.

Posted by zeynep at 10:42 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

If You Are Breathing, You are an Insurgent

By now, you've probably seen or heard of the incident, captured on camera, where marines go into a mosque where there prisoners, three of whom had been already shot in the head and, at least one, was wounded, still alive, and unarmed. One of the marines notices the man is breathing, shoots him in the head at point blank range and says "Well, he's dead now."

I know there will be an investigation. But here's what struck me: the other marines in the scene obviously didn't care. In other words, this would not have been a noteworthy incident had it not been captured on camera. This is just the way it works.

And why would we be surprised? Even the lowest estimates acknowledge at least 25,000 Fallujah residents were trapped in the city. The U.S. military urged them to stay in their houses during the fighting. Yet, the troops assumed that if you were alive, i.e. generating body heat, you were an insurgent, fair game:

But since US radio messages and leaflets urged Fallujans to remain in their houses during the assault, it is unclear how many were at home but lying low. Troops with thermal sights often assumed that if there was a "hot spot" inside a house -- indicating body heat -- the people inside were insurgents.

Another thing that's striking about looking at footage from the city is the level of destruction. Many, many houses seem flattened. Will we ever know how many "hot spots" were killed? Who they were?

Here's the thing, you can tell yourself a million excuses. (And you've heard them before: the insurgents were hiding behind women and children; we had to destroy the city so they could vote; we had to take revenge for what was done to the Blackwater mercenaries). The excuses only add to the the moral decay we're undergoing. But, also, the fact of the matter is that our excuses only fool ourselves. The whole world knows we don't care about Iraqi lives. And somehow, that's supposed to make us safer?

Posted by zeynep at 09:49 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 15, 2004

Mafia Administers Pension Funds Better than Wall Street

It turns out, at least in the case of Teamsters, the Mafia was better than Wall Street at administering the pension fund. Great to hear, isn't it? Especially since the Bush administration is trying hard to turn over our Social Security savings to these Wall Street fund managers.

Since 1982, under a consent decree with the federal government, the [teamster pension]fund has been run by prominent Wall Street firms and monitored by a federal court and the Labor Department. There have been no more shadowy investments, no more loans to crime bosses. Yet in these expert hands, the aging fund has fallen into greater financial peril than when James R. Hoffa, who built the Teamsters into a national power, used it as a slush fund.

Why? Well, for one thing, Wall Street managers want to make money for themselves, now. By the time you retire, the money managers that are making decisions now on how to invest "your" money have long retired themselves, and will not be accountable for their decisions. As things stand, they have an interest in "churning" -- carrying out many transactions, each of which generate a fee for the manager, regardless of the benefit to your account. They also take actions that make them look good now and hide problems. Results are predictably disastrous:

But the kinds of investments that make sense for such a fund - like long-term bonds that will mature as members enter retirement - are not attractive to most money managers, because they generate few fees. Consequently, very few pension funds use such strategies today.

...

Money managers promised pension funds big returns, and to get the big returns they began to add riskier assets to pension portfolios than pension funds had used before. Sleepy bond portfolios were livened up with stocks. Venture capital, junk bonds, securities of companies in developing countries and other exotica began to appear in pension funds.

That said, I think the most important reason the Bush administration wants to privatize Social Security is not these hefty fees and profits they will generate for their corporate backers. The real goal is ideological misdirection through the creation of a large number of households who hold some of their savings in stocks, and thus believe their interests to be congruent with the interests of corporations and "the stock market" when, in reality, it is more of a see-saw -- they rise as we fall.

Posted by zeynep at 05:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

No Longer Bothering with Cover, the Administration Dispenses with Powell

So, Powell resigns as expected. In any case, his misson is done. From the time he was sent to cover up My Lai, Powell has been just that: a cover. He was employed to muddy the waters when the administration was clearly bent on invading Iraq. He was purposely deployed at liberals who find it hard to criticize a black man.

This administration no longer needs him because it is no longer covering up; we are now at the brazen, in-your-face, "mandate" phase. Thus Powell can be discarded to take his shameful place in history, and be replaced by someone who will be even worse.

Here's an excerpt from a brief biography of Colin Powell from his lesser known activities in Vietnam, Panama and the first Gulf War. I especially like the part where he threatens to kill all four million residents of Baghdad.

VIETNAM:

In his memoirs, An American Journey on page 140 Gen. Powell writes, about the Vietnam war:

If a helo [helicopter] spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM [military age male] the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so.

Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1949 to which the United States is a signatory, states that:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

In his memoirs, General Powell also defends the U.S. practice of forcibly displacing peasants and destroying their homes, part of the "strategic hamlet" program – in fact, Gen. Powell's first "combat" assignment was in that program.

In 1968, he was charged with responding to a letter by Tom Glen, a soldier in the Americal division. The letter charged American soldiers with indiscriminately shooting into people’s homes and with severe beatings and torture of civilians. Without interviewing Glen, Powell wrote a response denying the allegations, claiming that "relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." (The New Republic, 4/17/95). Given his involvement in the "strategic hamlet" program and the knowledge expressed in his memoirs of the brutal practices of American soldiers in Vietnam, he had to know his report was false. The report came out shortly after the My Lai massacre, in which hundreds of unarmed men, women and children were murdered and many women raped (Four Hours in My Lai: Penguin, 1993) – an atrocity committed by that same Americal division.

PANAMA:

Gen. Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the invasion of Panama. In his memoirs he states that he recommended the invasion to President Bush (Also see, Bob Woodward, The Commanders, 1993). Previously, the U.S. had supported the then dictator of Panama, Gen. Noriega. -- he was on the CIA’s payroll (Buckley, Panama: The Whole Story, 1991; George Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, 1993). In terms of international law, there is no difference between the invasion of Panama by the U.S. and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq -- both are illegal. The number of civilian deaths caused by the invasion in Panama have been estimated to be between 1000 to 4000, greater than the number killed in Kuwait by the invasion of Iraq. The Central American Human Rights commission [CODEHUCA] studied the invasion and reached the following conclusions:

1) The U.S. Army used highly sophisticated and experimental weapons against unarmed civilian populations;

2) Estimates of the number of non- combatants killed run from as few as 2200 to as high as 4000 Many of the mostly black victims were residents of the El Chorrillos slum which was next to the Panamanian military headquarters and was razed to the ground in the attack;

3) U.S. efforts to obscure the actual death toll included massive incineration of corpses prior to identification, burial in mass graves prior to identification, and U.S. military control of administrative offices of hospitals and morgues;

4) "A thorough, well-planned propaganda campaign has been implemented by U.S. authorities to... deny the brutality and extensive human and material costs of the invasion." (CODEHUCA report submitted to Americas Watch 6/5/90)

US Ambassador to Panama Ambler Moss said his "gut instinct is that there is an awful lot of parties around there that have an interest in covering up numbers" (New York Times, 1/10/90) Catholic priest Diego Caffley, claimed that the invasion killed 3,000 people and that the main obstacle to learning the full number was the US Army Southern Command (La Republica, Costa Rica, 11/01/90) Washington Post Columnist Colman McCarthy commented on Powell's actions in Panama:

Of the victims of the one-sided, sure-thing massacre, Powell says the "loss of innocent life was tragic." Of course. Tut tut. This superficial expression of grief was a run-up comment to Powell's telling of "the lessons I absorbed from Panama": "Use all the force necessary, and do not apologize for going in big if that is what it takes." For sure. In the name of peace, kill as many women and children as get in the way of U.S. policies. (Washington Post, 10/3/1995)

GULF WAR
Colin Powell was the highest ranking military officer, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during the Gulf War. He was thus directly involved in decision making at all levels. In his memoirs, Gen. Powell recounts drafting a warning to Saddam one day before the beginning of the fighting, on Jan. 15, 1991.

If driven to it, I wrote, we would destroy the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and flood Baghdad, with horrendous consequences. (Powell, 1995; p.491)

The city of Baghdad that Gen Powell threatened to flood is home to 4 million civilians who are also victims of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
...

Powell will now go back to collecting many, many pieces of silver for speaking engagements. I suggest that he team up with Kissinger and a few others for a "War Criminals All-Star Tour."

Posted by zeynep at 01:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Allawi Government Hints at "Delaying" "Elections"; World Gasps in Disbelief and Shock

We are all shocked, shocked:

Iraq's deputy prime minister has indicated for the first time that the much-heralded elections due in January could be derailed by the country's violent insurgency.

CORRECTION: It was deputy prime minister of Allawi, not Allawi himself who suggested that the vote could be delayed -- my headline was misleading. Thanks to Eli.

Posted by zeynep at 12:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Give 'em a Zipcode!

Here's USPS mail being "loaded on a truck for Marines inside Fallujah." Fallujah should obviously have its own zipcode, if it already doesn't:

Just one "Public Relations" note though. Maybe they should first let these Red Crescent aid trucks go in, which the U.S. military is still not allowing into the city, before delivering the mail. I know, I know, rain, sleet or snow...

Posted by zeynep at 12:28 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

At this rate, not a heart or mind will be left unshot at

Here's what President Bush would like you to believe has happened:

Bush Paints Rosy Picture of Iraq Situation AP, November 14, 2004

President Bush painted a rosy picture of the situation in Iraq, claiming significant progress Saturday in the U.S. military's battle in an insurgent stronghold.

In his weekly radio address, Bush praised the assault on Fallujah, west of Baghdad. About 80 percent of the city was said to be under U.S. control, with insurgents pushed into a narrow corner.
...
He said "support continues to grow" internationally for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, even though the multinational force will see some reductions in the coming months.

Here's a snapshot of what actually happened, from an AP photographer who had stayed behind in order to capture images -- it also tells you a good deal about why we don't have much details: everything that moved was shot at.

The 33-year-old Associated Press photographer [Bilal Hussein] stayed behind to capture insider images during the siege of the former insurgent stronghold.

...

In the hours and days that followed, heavy bombing raids and thunderous artillery shelling turned Hussein's northern Jolan neighborhood into a zone of rubble and death. The walls of his house were pockmarked by coalition fire.

"Destruction was everywhere. I saw people lying dead in the streets, wounded were bleeding and there was no one to come and help them. Even the civilians who stayed in Fallujah were too afraid to go out," he said.

"There was no medicine, water, no electricity nor food for days."

By Tuesday afternoon, as U.S. forces and Iraqi rebels engaged in fierce clashes in the heart of his neighborhood, Hussein snapped.

"U.S. soldiers began to open fire on the houses, so I decided that it was very dangerous to stay in my house," he said.

Hussein said he panicked, seizing on a plan to escape across the Euphrates River, which flows on the western side of the city

"I wasn't really thinking," he said. "Suddenly, I just had to get out. I didn't think there was any other choice."

In the rush, Hussein left behind his camera lens and a satellite telephone for transmitting his images. His lens, marked with the distinctive AP logo, was discovered two days later by U.S. Marines next to a dead man's body in a house in Jolan.

AP colleagues in the Baghdad bureau, who by then had not heard from Hussein in 48 hours, became even more worried.

Hussein moved from house to house dodging gunfire and reached the river.

"I decided to swim ... but I changed my mind after seeing U.S. helicopters firing on and killing people who tried to cross the river."

He watched horrified as a family of five was shot dead as they tried to cross. Then, he "helped bury a man by the river bank, with my own hands."

"I kept walking along the river for two hours and I could still see some U.S. snipers ready to shoot anyone who might swim. I quit the idea of crossing the river and walked for about five hours through orchards."

He met a peasant family, who gave him refuge in their house for two days. Hussein knew a driver in the region and sent a message to another AP colleague, Ali Ahmed, in nearby Ramadi.

At this rate, not a heart or mind will be left unshot at.

Posted by zeynep at 12:09 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 14, 2004

Fallujah as an Operation versus Fallujah as a Town

All men between the ages of 15 to 55 are being separated from refugee convoys and their families and turned back into the city:

As [the military]believes many of Fallujah's men are guerrilla fighters, it has instructed U.S. troops to turn back all males aged 15 to 55.

"We assume they'll go home and just wait out the storm or find a place that's safe," one 1st Cavalry Division officer, who declined to be named, said Thursday.

Army Col. Michael Formica, who leads forces isolating Fallujah, admits the rule sounds "callous." But he insists it's is key to the mission's success.

"Tell them 'Stay in your houses, stay away from windows and stay off the roof and you'll live through Fallujah,'" Formica, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade, told his battalion commanders in a radio conference call Wednesday night.

Most of what you need to understand the nature of this war is right there when Army Col. Michael Formica advises Fallujans how to "live through Fallujah".

To this Army Col., Fallujah is not a place or a town but an operation to be lived through. It's a phase, a thing to be done and gotten over and through with. These people, on the other hand, live in Fallujah.

There's another thing about turning back men. It's a war crime.

Human rights experts said Friday that American soldiers might have committed a war crime on Thursday when they sent fleeing Iraqi civilians back into Fallujah.

Citing several articles of the Geneva Conventions, the experts said recognized laws of war require military forces to protect civilians as refugees and forbid returning them to a combat zone.

"This is highly problematical conduct in terms of exposing people to grave danger by returning them to an area where fighting is going on," said Jordan Paust, a law professor at the University of Houston and a former Army prosecutor.

James Ross, senior legal adviser to Human Rights Watch, said, "If that's what happened, it would be a war crime."

A stream of refugees, about 300 men, women and children, were detained by American soldiers as they left southern Fallujah by car and on foot. The women and children were allowed to proceed. The men were tested for any residues left by the handling of explosives. All tested negative, but they were sent back.

Note that these men tested negative for handling explosives. They weren't detained. They weren't charged. They were simply sent back into the war zone for the crime of being the rightful resident of a city that we are pounding into rubble.

A lot of people ask, well, why didn't they leave earlier? Forget the legality of everything we are doing and why people should have to leave their homes so we can flatten a city -- the effect of which will be to simply spread the "insurgents" around the country, as many experts have already pointed out. Forget the experts, that much is obvious if you think about it for more than ten seconds.

Remember this rule has been in effect since the cordon began. Men have been trapped in that city for sometime. Would you leave your 15 year old son, your husband, uncle, all your male relatives behind and go? Obviously, many people stayed with their families because, well, that's what families tend to do: they don't listen to your instructions to abandon their men. Of course, this "family values" administration neither understands or nor cares about such humanitarian concerns.

And so far, these families are stuck without water or electricity in a war zone, and aid agencies have been barred from entering the town:

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) -- An Iraqi Red Crescent aid convoy waiting at the edge of Falluja will not be allowed to enter the city center on Sunday, a U.S. Marine officer said.

"They will not be allowed to cross the bridge today," Capt. Adam Collier told Reuters at Falluja hospital, where the convoy is waiting to cross the Euphrates River into the main part of the embattled Iraqi city. He cited security reasons.

The Iraqi Red Crescent sent seven trucks and ambulances to Falluja on Saturday, hoping to get food, blankets, water purification tablets and medicine to hundreds of families trapped inside the city during the past six days of fighting.

To enter the city proper, the convoy will have to pass over one of two bridges spanning the Euphrates. U.S. forces have said that those bridges remain unsafe, even though the military has said it has taken almost full control of Falluja.

"We don't know when the bridge will be open for civilian traffic," Collier said.

Red Crescent officials, who are also trying to get aid to thousands of families who fled Falluja ahead of the offensive and are now sheltering in nearby towns and villages, said they would wait in Falluja's hospital until they can go in.

"We will wait for permission and we will stay here tonight," Jamal al-Karbouli, the leader of the convoy, said.

Those trapped inside the city, whose population was put at about 300,000 before the offensive but has fallen to around 60,000 according to some estimates, say they are reaching a point of desperation.

"Our situation is very hard," said one resident contacted by telephone in the central Hay al-Dubat neighborhood. "We don't have food or water. My seven children all have severe diarrhea.

"One of my sons was wounded by shrapnel last night and he's bleeding, but I can't do anything to help him," he told Reuters.

In fact, Empire Notes has a very compelling post why it may not be possible to "live through Fallujah." The rules of engagement have been changed so that "the Geneva Convention has been overtly and specifically abandoned, not just in the treatment of prisoners, but also in the conduct of military assaults." Anything that moves is a target. Any building that is under any suspicion is simply flattenned by air-strikes, sometimes using "bunker-buster"s.

Now, Centcom always tells us it was insurgents, but, seriously, not only do we not know that's the case, we know that Centcom doesn't know that's the case. Think about it: how could anyone know anything if we go around reducing buildings to rubble, bar all aid agencies from entering, make it impossible for anyone to go around by shooting at anything that moves? Empire Notes has a depressingly convincing round-up of evidence of our blatantly illegal rules of engagement. It's bleak, but it's a must-read.

And there's a simple reason it's illegal to shell and flatten any and all houses like that. In one case in a house in the heavily-shelled district, the reason was named Mustafa Adnan:

Reuters caption: An Iraqi nurse treats 2-year-old child Mustafa Adnan, at a Baghdad hospital, who lost a leg when his house in Falluja's Jolan district was shelled during fighting between U.S. forces and insurgents in the war-torn city November 14, 2004.

All this for what? To anyone willing to think for a minute, rather
than turn off their brain and swallow the official propaganda, this whole "blow to the insurgents" story obviously does not make sense. The argument that we had to do this so we could hold elections in Fallujah is even more laughable. There's barely a town left; Sunni groups are moving to boycott the elections; Allawi has declared martial-law -- and elections under military occupation and martial-law, well, usually aren't elections.

What's going on is revenge, plain and simple. Fallujah is being destroyed out of vindictiveness; as revenge for the four mercenaries who were killed and mutilated last spring:

And, along the Euphrates River, which runs through the city, The Associated Press reported Sunday that Marines were expected to reopen a Falluja bridge where -- on March 31 -- insurgents hanged the bodies of two American contractors who were killed and mutilated by militants. The attack on the contractors of Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., sparked the first major U.S. military operation in Falluja, in April.

"This is a big event for us," the AP quoted Maj. Todd Des Grosseilliers, 41, from Auburn, Maine. "It's symbolic because the insurgents closed the bridge and we are going to reopen it."

AP caption: A US Marine of the 1st Division writes the words 'Dark Horse' on a beam of the bridge western Fallujah, Iraq, where the bodies of two American contractors killed by militants were strung up in March, sparking the earlier U.S. siege, Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004. An earlier message left by soldiers reads: 'This is for the Americans of Blackwater that were murdered here in 2004, Semper Fidelis 3/5.'

And remember, the anger in Fallujah that led to that horrible incident goes back to the year before that. On April 28 of 2003, right after the initial invasion, people of Fallujah, many of whom had opposed Saddam Hussein's tyranny and did not fight for him, held a demonstration. Who knows, maybe they watched too many Hollywood movies and thought that's the way to express a demand to the Americans. Charming notions, these primitives have. The U.S. military opened fire on the crowd, killing seventeen and wounding more than seventy. The military claimed that they had been fired upon from a school but a subsequent Human Rights Watch investigation found no evidence that was the case. All calls for an impartial investigation, accountability on the issue, an apology, compensation to the victims, something to show the people of Fallujah we weren't just a bunch of trigger-happy occupier army that viewed their lives as unimportant, disposable nuisances were unheeded -- and the incident, and the town, was ignored by U.S. public until those four mercenaries from Halliburton drove through town on March 31, 2004.

Posted by zeynep at 11:30 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 13, 2004

Six-Year-Old Wielding a Piece of Glass? 50,000 Volts It Is. Handcuffed Nine-Year-Old? Same.

What do you do when an agitated six year old is wielding a piece of broken glass? A first-grader? A little kid?

Shock him 50,000 volts, of course. What else?

MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- Police used a stun gun on a 6-year-old boy in his principal's office because he was wielding a piece of glass and threatening to hurt himself, officials said Thursday.

The boy, who was not identified, was shocked with 50,000 volts on October 20 at Kelsey Pharr Elementary School.

Principal Maria Mason called 911 after the child broke a picture frame in her office and waved a piece of glass, holding a security guard back.

When two Miami-Dade County police officers and a school officer arrived, the boy had already cut himself under his eye and on his hand.

The officers talked to the boy without success. When the boy cut his own leg, one officer shocked him with a Taser and another grabbed him to prevent him from falling, police said.

I've written about Tasers before -- these are the supposedly-safe "stun guns" that have killed 50-odd people, and are banned in many other countries. Tasers are rapidy spreading among police departments around the country. This is not the first time they've been used on children. In fact, there are many instances of these potentially lethal devices being used on children, including a handcuffed 9-year-old girl:

A handcuffed 9-year-old girl subdued with a Taser by South Tucson police is among a growing group of toddlers and youngsters the device has been used on nationally. Still, few local agencies or national oversight groups have age-specific guidelines for the use of the stun-gun device, though they advise officers to use caution with it and avoid firing at pregnant women and compliant suspects. A spokesman for the Scottsdale-based manufacturer of the device said Tasers do no more harm to children than adults and often results in less-serious injuries. ... There have been other kids hit by Tasers, though. Records kept by Taser International of Scottsdale show that as of six months ago, two 1-year-olds, one 2-year-old, two 3-year-olds, two 4-year-olds, one 5-year-old, one 6-year-old and one 7-year-old had been hit with Tasers, though most of the toddlers were hit inadvertently. Slightly older children also have been hit, including a 13-year-old Wisconsin girl wielding a samurai sword, another 13-year-old girl in Washington who fought with officers, and another 13-year-old girl in Chandler who also fought.

The manufacturer assures us it's safe, even on children. You trust them on that, don't you? Even with your child's life:

Phoenix-based Taser International, which supplies Miami-Dade police with stun guns, released a statement to The Herald in response to questions about the use of their guns on children.

Testing has shown a significant safety margin when using Tasers on ''subjects with body weight as low as 60 pounds,'' said Steve Tuttle, director of communications, in an e-mail.

There, feel better? Just ignore those pesky pediatric cardiologists:

Zapping a 6-year-old with 50,000 volts of electricity could cause permanent damage to the heart depending on the size of the child and other genetic factors, an expert in pediatric cardiology said.

''It is clear that certain electrical shocks in a susceptible child at the right dose can certainly cause the death and damage of heart muscle cells,'' said Dr. Steven Lipshultz, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Miami School of Medicine. ``But it really varies from child to child and dose to dose of electricity.''

He said he didn't have enough information to comment on police use of Tasers on children. He was not aware of any case of a Taser doing permanent harm to a child.

But, he said, the destruction of heart muscle cells from electrical current can have long-term implications for some children.

''If you destroy a heart muscle cell, it doesn't grow back,'' Lipshultz said. ``If a child lost enough heart muscle . . . when they grow up, it could put them at risk.''

Lipshultz added that if a 50,000-volt shock hits a child's heart in the wrong spot, it could cause an abnormal rhythm and kill the child.

And, of course, given that reassurance, what's the problem with shocking a 12 year old girl, unarmed and running away, for the crime of playing hooky from school?

A Miami-Dade police officer used a Taser to stop an unarmed, 12-year-old girl who was running away from him after she was caught skipping school, police acknowledged Friday night.

...

Officer William Nelson responded to an anonymous complaint that some kids were swimming in a West Kendall pool, drinking alcohol and smoking cigars about 11 a.m.

Nelson said he noticed the girl was intoxicated and told her to get dressed so he could take her back to school.

''While walking [the girl] to the police car, [she] took off running through the parking lot,'' Nelson wrote in his report.

Nelson, 38, a 15-year veteran, said he chased her and yelled several times for her to stop. Nelson said he pulled out the Taser and fired when the girl began to run into traffic.

The electric probes hit the girl in the neck and lower back, immobilizing her with 50,000 volts.

Nelson said he fired ''for my safety along with [the girl's] safety.'' He could not be reached for comment.

As you can guess, there are many reports of stun guns being used with impunity in prisons -- not so surprising given the sorry state of concern for prisoner's rights. But this isn't confined to prisons, other institutions are picking up the habit of shocking their residents, especially if they house vulnerable groups like the elderly or the mentally-ill. Earlier, a Los Angeles hospital was finally forced to ban using Tasers on patients with mental illnesses after federal health officials threatened to pull the plug on funding after many patients were shocked with the devices. Some of the children who were shocked with these weapons also suffered from mental illnesses, which often means that these are kids who were abused, neglected and traumatized -- in other words, the very children who have already been gravely betrayed by the adult world, and need the most compassion, patience and love we can muster.

So we're using these weapons on the ill, the young, the imprisoned -- the most vulnerable among us. Hmm, that rings a bell... Let me think... Values, moral values. Somebody whose name gets invoked a lot by politicans.

Wait, I know!

'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' [