I did watch a bit of the Petraeus-and-Crocker show on C-SPAN this afternoon. Oh how handy for the administration to have this whole thing happening during the week of September 11, eh?
Today it was a joint hearing of the House Foreign relations and Armed Services Committes. I guess the main thing that struck me was the cock-a-hoop way that Petraeus preened his way around the hearing room, gladhanding everyone like a seasoned politician… Whereas Crocker looked anguished, concerned, and very uncomfortable.
Also, whenever the Congress members asked questions that were not specifically directed to one or other of the two “witnesses”, Petraeus jumped right in and answered them without even seeming to ask Crocker if he wanted to go first. Even when they were on clearly political (as opposed to more military) subjects.
It was alpha-doggist discourse-hogging of the first order. Fairly nauseating, all in all.
A number of the members of Congress who asked “questions” prefaced their orations (that were often light on interrogatory content) with lengthy statements about how they had met Petraeus on trips they’d made Petraeus to Baghdad, or Mosul, or wherever, and how heroic he had seemed to them then.
The US military, of course, has huge budgets for congressional relations, and relatively huge logistical capabilities within Iraq to greet and host visiting Codels (congressional delegations). Whereas the US diplomatic service… ? It’s chronically starved of funds and capabilities by comparison.
The WaPo’s Karen DeYoung had an interesting piece in today’s paper, in which she started off by noting the different way in which the two men had arrived in the US:
- One arrived last week from Baghdad aboard a military aircraft, flanked by a bevy of aides and preceded by a team of advisers assigned a suite of Pentagon offices. The other flew commercial, glad that the flight was long enough to qualify for a business-class government ticket…
Here’s a little excerpt from the current draft of Ch.2 of my in-process book:
- In early 2007, President Bush requested that, in the Financial Year 2008 budget (due to start in October 2007), Congress authorize the spending of $502.2 billion in the regular military budget, along with a “supplemental” sum of $141.7 billion for FY2008 to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan– for a stunning total of $643.9 billion. He meantime asked for just $10 billion for the many non-military activities carried out around the world by the State Department. The disproportion was clear.
The relevant Senate committees did not do any better. The Foreign Relations Committee approved the State Department budget request very quickly. But the Armed Services Committee planned to increase the total FY2008 military spending to $647.5 billion! It also proposed increasing the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps to 525,400 and 189,000, respectively—and once again, these increases were higher than those requested by the administration…
Ah! We so, so sadly need a new paradigm here… This militarism thing is just pathetic. (And very harmful, in so many different ways.)
When describing Iraq, the word “peace” is seldom used. Truth be told, the Americans have restored order to many parts of the county. But Iraq remains fractured, and where new schools are built today, bombs could explode tomorrow.
These words by Ullrich Fichtner from his article Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq published in Der SPIEGEL.
Its gives some clues what’s inside Iraq
Salah
I’m curious. What is your personal position on the Sunni tribal chiefs who are aligning themselves with the occupiers?
“Sunni tribal chiefs who are aligning themselves with the occupiers”
LOOOOOL! Is there really anyone who believes that is really what is happening?
Oh. I guess there is.
Nevermind.
Don’t Ask Me What I Think about the Petraeus Report
Ask the battalion commanders.
By Michael Yon
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmZiYjIyNjQ1MmUxNzJiN2UyMGI5ZjU2MTk5YjdjNDY=
Although Michael Yon Ambiguous independent reporter far fron real truth as he trying to confise us, read what he is saying.
“Watching a legless father go ice-skating with his two kids, among many other such scenes of courage, grit, and determination, restores your faith in humanity in a fashion that few things I have ever seen have ever done. At the same time, watching and listening to the struggles they’ve been forced to undertake all because of the lying, extremism, and incompetence of this administration and the cowardice of its enablers in the media is infuriating beyond words, particularly when you remember that including the Iraqis themselves, these stories need to be multiplied by the hundreds of thousands.”
http://warhistorian.org/wordpress/?p=623
“Sunni tribal chiefs who are aligning themselves with the occupiers…LOOOOOL! Is there really anyone who believes that is really what is happening?
Then find for us a report denying the recent trend of cooperation between the occupiers and certain Sunni Tribal Chiefs.
A quick google of news reports led me to a relevant Guardian report of a week ago…The operative sentence:
Since the surge was put in motion last January, raising the US military presence in Iraq to more than 160,000 troops, US commanders have been able to bring down the violence in Anbar by striking alliances with local Sunni tribal leaders to fight against al-Qaida cells. The tribal chiefs had previously been among the fiercest opponents of the US presence.
Truesdell, I have heard the stories. As I said, is there anyone who believes that is what is REALLY happening?
Truesdell, I have heard the stories. As I said, is there anyone who believes that is what is REALLY happening?
Obviously the author of the article believes it and perhaps also the editorial staff of the Guardian who fact-checked it and approved it for publication. If you have first hand evidence to the contrary, why not cite it? Guffaws are uninformative and disrespectful.
Sure, the tribal leaders are taking weapons and money from the Americans. And sure, they are glad that for the time being they do not have to fight the Americans and can focus more on the Al Qa`eda knock-off groups. But to suggest that they have actually allied themselves with the occupiers is both naive and self-serving in the extreme.
And of course, the claim that I have heard from the Americans that they somehow persuaded the tribal leaders to ally with them against the Al Qa`eda knock-offs borders on delusional. It also overlooks the fact that the Iraqis have been fighting with the takfiris from the beginning. In fact, for years the American propagandists have used this fact off and on as a sign of “progress”.
Oh well, it looks like they’re going to give The Surge™ another Friedman unit or two since it is working so very, very well now – as long as they misrepresent the numbers, anyway.
“Whereas the US diplomatic service… ? It’s chronically starved of funds and capabilities by comparison.”
Mr. Crocker will soon have the use of the new U.S. embassy/colony in Iraq so the diplomats aren’t completely without resources. What does Mr. Crocker and his staff do in Iraq anyway? Is he a diplomat or more of a colonial manager?
Remember, we’re making these terrible sacrifices so that the Iraqis can have freedom and democracy, even though they keep talking about this other Islam thing like it was some kind of way to run a government. The problem is, they haven’t shown the willingness to fight for what we believe in. We told them what the benchmarks were – we made it perfectly clear – but they just keep acting like they aren’t even interested in agreeing on how our oil is going to be delivered to us. How many times do you have to invade a country before they get the idea that you’re there for their own good? Of course, we’re all disappointed in the lack of appreciation for our efforts, but if we pull out while we’re losing, then it will look like we lost, see? So we’ve got to make sure somebody else pulls out while THEY’RE losing, so it will look like THEY lost. And not us.
I’m havin another beer for the troops. GO TROOPS!! Ol’ Petreeass is leadin’ the way. Drop and gimme 50!!! How can we lose with a genuine hero and role model like that in charge? He clearly knows how to counter the counter-insurgency tha will be countering us as soon as the Al Qaeda terrorists are countered by the insurgents – or something like that. GO TROOPS!!
The matter of the alliance with the tribal sheikhs in Anbar has been settled. Abd al-Sattar Abu Risha, the sheikh photographed with Bush, is dead. Bomb under his car. No wonder he didn’t look too happy in the photo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6993211.stm
Any other sheikhs willing to collaborate?
“Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickensh*t” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/12/webb-fallon/
Any other sheikhs willing to collaborate?
Alex, suggesting that Abu Risha actually allied himself with the occupiers is both naive and self-serving in the extreme. Unless any Iraqi who shakes hand with, or receives weapons and aid from the occupier is ipso facto a ‘collaborator.’ Seems like you’re confusing a tragic, illegal political assassination for some kind of patriotic act. I think Iraqis could use a bit less cheerleading for car bombing fiends terrorizing their population.
Abu Risha was a well-known crook. Iraqis fell on the floor laughing when he appeared in that photo with Bush.
Vadim, spare your tears for the currupt crook Abu Risha and keep them for an Iraqi who deserves them – maybe one of the children killed by the regular U.S “surge” bombings in Baghdad.
It’s hard to know, really, whether Abu Risha was killed as a “collaborator” or as a revenge by someone he robbed – or maybe the family of someone who did not kowtow enough to him and got turned in to his new American best pals as an “Al Qa`eda in Iraq” terrorist. Or…..
Of course, the Bushies have a history of allying themselves – or trying to ally themselves – with some of the worst Iraqi elements. Chalabi, `Allawi, Barzani, Talabani, and a host of other thieves, opportunists and wannabe despots. Abu Risha fit right in.
Abu Risha was a well-known crook. Iraqis fell on the floor laughing when he appeared in that photo with Bush.
There’s that trademark compassion. I suspect whoever had him killed found Abu Risha less entertaining.
So, any other collaborators we should know about who might merit assassination?
Vadim, address your remarks to someone who earns them. I have never endorsed assassination of anyone or killing of anyone for any reason. I am categorically opposed to the death penalty at any time for any reason, whether legally or extralegally carried out.
How does laughing at seeing the war criminal Bush grinning like a lunatic while shaking hands with the corrupt crook and wannabe warlord Abu Risha constitute lack or compassion or endorsing assassination, please?
And as I said, please spare your tears for the Iraqi children your military is killing on a daily basis as they bomb Baghdad and other cities.
The incompetent, a corrupt becomes a well known commander giving advices to the elites US officials.
This PhD military guy wrote in his thesis:
committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America’s military forces
http://www.brianbeutler.com/postvietnameramilitary.pdf
President Petraeus?
General Confided White House Ambitions to Iraqi Official
It was while Gen Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command that it failed to notice that the entire Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2 billion had been stolen. “It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history,” said the Iraqi Finance Minister Ali Allawi. “Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/
“your military” eh? Turned in that US passport yet?
Of course, the Bushies have a history of allying themselves – or trying to ally themselves – with some of the worst Iraqi elements.
…as opposed to the type of person who uses a roadside bomb as a means of political expression. Those guys are boy scouts.
a host of other thieves, opportunists and wannabe despots…Abu Risha fit right in…
We’ve seen you’d poo-poo of a lot of Iraqis shameless enough to appear on camera with US officials. Doubtless what Iraqis need is one more American impugning their leaders’ patriotism & ethical standards.
So in your terribly informed judgment, is there a true patriot to be found anywhere in the nation of Iraq or are they all merely scoundrels, jackanapes and poltroons fit for car-bombing? Seriously, since you -an American- speak with great authority about wishes of “the iraqi people”, who do you suppose they’d rather lead?
Actually, whatever Abu Risha’s personal characteristics, I do think this assassination is going to have important political effects, in discrediting the current new Bush policy towards Iraq. It seems to me that it says to politicos in Washington that “bringing over” sheikhs is not going to work, and that the military occupation is going to have to continue. No draw down. Although I am no expert on Washington I would think that is not going to be well received.
Although I appreciate Shirin’s point of view, my feeling is that the assassination is genuinely political and that it is an immediate reaction to Abu Risha appearing in the photos with Bush. Do you remember the merchants in the Baghdad Suq who were killed a couple of days after joining in a photo-shoot and walk-about with (which?) American? The same model.
Also I wouldn’t necessarily agree that it was al-Qa’ida, although I would accept that al-Qa’ida, Salafis, or other Sunni religious extremists are the most probable. I would think that virtually any hardline Sunni, even secular, would have been enraged by Abu Risha posing with Bush.
By the way, if you’re interested, the Abu Rishas are famous in history. This is what I wrote about them 20 years ago. Sorry if it is a rather long quote, but you will not find this on the internet.
“Abu Risha was the hereditary name of the shaikhs of the Mawali. The family had been founded by the legendary Hamad Abu Nu`air in the 15th century. The Mawali, who traced their descent back to an Umayyad prince, at that time were one of the most powerful tribes. The Abu Rishas founded a state which stretched from Qal`at Ja`bar as far as Haditha, with their capital at `Ana. European travellers from Cesare Frederici (1563) and Tavernier (1638) knew of Abu Risha, Amir of Ana, who called himself King of the Arabs.
`Ana was then the meeting point of roads from Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, to Aleppo, Tripoli and Homs. The Abu Rishas maintained a customs station at `Ana. According to Teixeira (1604), the customs charge in `Ana was 5 ducats per camel load for high-value goods such as spices or cloth, and 1 ducat per load for goods of lesser value such as dates. A small proportion of this was paid to the Turks. John Eldred (1583) gives the toll as #40 Sterling for a camel load.
The Ottomans appointed the Abu Risha as Bey of the Sanjaqs of Dair and Rahba (modern-day Deir ez-Zor), Salamiyya, `Ana and Haditha.
In return the Mawali provided military assistance. For the Georgian campaign of 1578, the Serasker obtained 3-4000 camels, forage for horses and other provisions from the Mawali. The reconquest of Baghdad by the Safavids in 1623 led to the installation of a Persian garrison at `Ana, but within two years it had been expelled by the Abu Risha shaikh, Mutlaq. Philip the Carmelite in 1629 saw the town half-ruined as a result. The Ottoman attempt to retake Baghdad in 1629-30 was supported by Abu Risha, but shortly afterwards Mutlaq changed sides, was removed from his position by Khusrau Pasha of Mosul, and replaced by another Abu Risha, Sa`d b. Fayyad. In the final recapture of Baghdad by the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV in 1048/1638-9, Abu Risha sent Bedouin cavalry and a supply train of 10,000 camels.
The inscription on the early Ottoman mausoleum at Jami` al-Mashhad contains a reference to Abu Risha, and has been identified as a mausoleum of the dynasty. The Ottoman period of the Islamic palace at Qal`at `Ana, excavated by the State Organisation for Antiquities and Heritage, may also be their work.
In the second half of the 17th century the Ottomans set up and deposed Abu Risha amirs frequently. When the long-distance trade declined, the Mawali became a robber tribe. In 1720 the Pasha of Raqqa, with help from Karaman and Aleppo, and at the same time the Pasha of Baghdad with support from Diyarbekir, Mosul and Shahrizor, planned to attack the Mawali; but this attack was not undertaken, perhaps because of the Persian war which began in 1723.
The power of the Mawali was broken by the `Anaza in the second half of the 18th century. A delegation of `Anaza were murdered while guests of the Mawali. It was said, Bait al-Mawali bait al-`aib – “The house of the Mawali is the house of shame”. As a result the Mawali were pushed away from `Ana, and moved into northern Syria, where they are to be found today.”
Vadim, your condemnation of those who use roadside bombs “as a means of political expression” – aka a means of resistance of foreign military domination – is duly noted. Now, where is your condemnation of those who use as THEIR means of political expression one ton bombs dropped on urban neighborhoods from thousands of feet in the sky?
please spare your tears for the Iraqi children your military is killing on a daily basis as they bomb Baghdad and other cities.
Two weeks ago in Al-Washash neighbourhood of Mansour district in west, US fighters dropped two 500Tone bombs on residential area at 3AM EARLY MORNING!! When all people a sleep at their homes, US said they targeting terrorists!!!
Very understandable these bombs very smart bombs, targeting and killing who have sign on his head front “Terrorist” “Insurgency” “Resistance” “Mahdi Army” but not targeting Bader brigades not Iranians Militias, and off course not Iraqi’s Civilians…..
Residences reported that many kids killed and some people, also reported saying the explosions are very strong never been heard before that destroyed many house in the area.
Al-Washash Area, poor/Mid class area mid/West Baghdad with homes with sections area 200m2 and the streets are narrow , high density residential area, just keep in mind its not bad as Sader city as in all accounts!!!.
http://news.yahoo.ca/s/afp/iraq_unrest
ارسلنا جيوشنا الاعلامية مدججة بالكاميرات والكمبيوتر والاقلام والاوراق، تمترسنا خلف الجيش الاميركي في مرحلة الاحتلال، ثم نصبنا خيمنا على خطوط العنف (بعد فرار القيادة العراقية السابقة بسرعة البرق) لنصور زجاجة مولوتوف هنا وصاروخا بدائيا هناك، وعمليات انتحارية بالجملة والمفرق ضد عسكريين ومدنيين وابرياء، وحوادث خطف الاجانب والعرب، واعمال العنف الطائفية والمذهبية، وخلافات الفصائل وانهيار سفارات… صار الخبر في العراق متساويا تقريبا كل يوم فيما تفاصيله تختلف عن سابقاتها بعدد القتلى والجرحى وبمكان الجريمة.
http://www.sotaliraq.com/articles-iraq.php?id=61524
There you have it:
Roadside bombs = a means of resistance of foreign military domination
Quoth Shirin the vicarious Iraqi. Bravo.
one ton bombs dropped on urban neighborhoods from thousands of feet in the sky
Were these the source of Iraq’s escalating mortality rate I’d say this question would have some bearing on our conversation. As the Lancet and IBC studies have made clear, most deaths in Iraq are not due to US aerial bombing of civilian centers (which I’m happy to condemn without qualification)
as opposed to the type of person who uses a roadside bomb as a means of political expression.
So what is wrong with assassination as a means of political expression? Israel uses it all the time.
So what is wrong with assassination as a means of political expression? Israel uses it all the time.
Here you’re either excusing Israel’s behavior or using Israel’s misbehavior in a pointless tu quoque.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
note: per the Lancet coalition forces accounted for 26 percent of excess Iraqi deaths in 2006 from all sources including gunfire. The balance is from sectarian killing and car bombs — er “resistance.”
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/
You’d be hard pressed to find many aerial bombing victims here. Roadside bombs, no shortage.
Alex,
I do think this assassination is going to have important political effects, in discrediting the current new Bush policy towards Iraq.
Yes this in your mind and other US citizens who are brainwashed about the reality in Iraq and Iraq war and chaos.
If you think and you believe the case in Iraq it’s a sectarian fighting and this guy may give hope to US to seize the tension with one side of Iraqi society, I thing you are not right in this and you are out of the real picture inside Iraq.
Although Bush poised for political / propagandist photos for media on purpose to influence US citizen to make them believe in what those commanders which they are due to release their hopeless reports and progress in Iraq not worth the paper that written on.
But the reality is still as was before is the Occupations forces are the problem in Iraq before four years and now and in the future, not far from this reality.
To support above read this BBC report:
Baghdad residents protest at wall
Hundreds of Iraqis have staged a protest against the building of a dividing wall between a Shia district of Baghdad and a Sunni area.
You need to think again deep who is spreading the sectarian’s violence?
Hardly pointless, Vadim.
Bernhard at Moon of Alabama has a good line of argument.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/09/the-end-of-th-1.html
Apologies this the link for the above story of BBC “Concert Walls”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6991448.stm
Alex, I agree that the most likely reason for the murder of Abu Risha was his participation in that Bush photo op. My suggestion that it could have been due to some of his less open nefarious activities was mainly a rhetorical device.
Thanks for the interesting historical information.
Just to add to Vadim and the Lancet coalition forces accounted reports, today in Iraq from each FIVE new born Iraqi baby ONE have a chance to live in early three months of birth!.
“In just over a year’s time, Americans will elect a new president. Regardless of whether the victor is a Democrat or a Republican, the last ardent defender of the Iraq war will have left the international stage and the world will look at Iraq through a new lens. The Iraq war, “Bush’s War,” will be over. Iraq the humanitarian crisis will be in the ascendant.
And this is only the beginning. While the departure of U.S. and British troops will undoubtedly remove one aggravating factor, sectarian strife, a humanitarian crisis and a failing state will remain.
Within a year, Iraq will have shifted from a precipitous and ill-executed American invasion and occupation, into an internationalized humanitarian crisis.
And a crisis it is.
According to a recent UN report, there are 1.8 million internally displaced persons and 2 million refugees in neighbouring countries, with an additional 40,000 to 50,000 leaving per month; 54 per cent of the population lives below the extreme poverty line of $1 a day; 43 per cent of children under the age of 5 suffer from malnutrition; inflation is 70 per cent, and in 2006 there were 34,452 recorded civilian deaths and 36,685 recorded civilian injuries.
Compare these numbers to Kosovo and East Timor, and add the regional consequences of a prolonged Iraqi civil war, “
Iraq suddenly appears on Canada’s radar screen
Aug 29, 2007 04:30 AM
David Eaves
and Taylor Owen
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/250785
As a matter of fact, Vadim, bombs and bullets and other means’ of death delivered by the U.S. military ARE one of the sources of Iraq’s escalating death rate. The U.S. has, in particular, multiplied its use of aerial attacks on urban areas by a factor of two or three. Even the U.S. MSM has been reporting some of the deaths caused by aerial attacks on Sadr City, and a week or two ago on the Mansour district in Baghdad.
Iraq Body Count is not a reliable source of accurate mortality numbers. It is a particularly poor source of numbers for Iraqis killed by Americans because those are the least likely to be picked up by the sources used by Iraq Body Count.
You forgot to mention that according to the Johns Hopkins/Al Mustansariya 2006 study (aka the “Lancet report”) the number of Iraqis killed per unit time by American forces has increased every year. And that study was done before The Surge™ was even an evil gleam in anyone’s eye, so it does not take into account the increase in aerial and other deadly attacks by Americans.
Once again, your deep outrage over the deaths of Iraqis killed by roadside bombs, etc. is duly noted. Odd how we don’t hear you expressing similar outrage over the Iraqi babies and children your military is killing every day.
PS Vadim, other aspects of your representation of the so-called “Lancet report” findings is – to be nice about it – misleading. Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to look at the report and show just exactly how and where it is misleading, but will try to get to it later today or this evening.
Shirin, I gave you a link to johns hopkins itself which states the following:
The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition.
You implied most of the deaths in Iraq resulted from US airpower when common sense and every available statistical survey shows they’re the consequence of car bombings (excuse me — “a means of resistance of foreign military domination”) and sectarian warfare.
Here’s another statistic: when polled recently, less than a quarter of Iraqis blame the United States for the violence currently engulfing Iraq. Far larger numbers blame Al Qaeda, militias, sectarian disputes and other factors completely unrelated to the US and its actions. Other poll results are generally hostile to the US presence in Iraq, “surge” etc but then we’re 100% in agreement there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm
Then again, what do they know? They’re only Iraqis, not self-flagellating Americans who confuse blunt, inert military power with responsibility.
those are the least likely to be picked up by the sources used by Iraq Body Count.
completely baseless.
Odd how we don’t hear you expressing similar outrage over the Iraqi babies and children your military is killing every day.
You do hear me expressing outrage. I favor an immediate withdrawal of US troops and (again!) condemn without reservation aerial bombing of civilian centers. You on the other hand, accept car bombing as “a means of resistance of foreign military domination” even though by all measures it accounts for tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, and the fastest growing category thereof.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
note ‘deaths per day from vehicle bombs’
14 per day in 2007!
note ‘deaths per day from vehicle bombs’
14 per day in 2007!
vadim,
The status of choas that created inside Iraq and the invitation of criminals and opportunistics guys from around the world to Iraq and do whatever what they want to without any control all this and that causing the major looses of humans between Iraqis.
While the status of chaos on going probelm this US administration for the last five years what they done to fix the problem, and why?
don’t ask me ask who is in power. US official from GWB down to Paul Bremer exchanging blames for the dismantlement of Iraqi Army and Iraqi forces which no one to be blamed just those US war mongering and chaos mongering
Iraqi reporter: Baghdad ‘100 times worse’ than a year ago
http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Iraqi_Reporter_Situation_100_times_worse_0910.html
Vadim:
You are either not reading what i am writing with any care or thought at all, or you are deliberately making things up.
1. No, I did not in any way imply that most of the deaths result from American air power. I have never implied any such thing.
2. I stated that according to the Hopkins/al Mustansariya study the number of Iraqi deaths per unit time at the hands of U.S. forces has increased every year. The number of deaths is not the same as the percentage of deaths. You cannot counter my statement about the increase in the number of deaths by citing a decrease in the percentage of deaths (which in any case is only large enough to be – maybe – barely statistically significant).
3. I repeat that Iraq Body Count is not a reliable source for complete or accurate Iraqi mortality figures. It is a particularly poor source for a count of deaths caused by “coalition” – i.e. American – occupation forces because the sources it uses do not pick up a lot of those deaths. Further, many of the deaths at the hands of American forces are falsely reported.
4. I never even mentioned car bombings, let alone accept them. I referred specifically to roadside bombs, the great majority of which target the occupation.
5. Calling something what it really is and accepting it are two entirely different things. I have never said anything to indicate that I accept attacks on Iraqi civilians by anyone for any reason.
“This was not what the Bush administration intended for Iraq when it was selected as the model nation for the rest of the Arab world. The occupation had begun with cheerful talk of clean slates and fresh starts. It didn’t take long, however, for the quest for cleanliness to slip into talk into “pulling Islamism up from the root” in Sadr City or Najaf and removing “the cancer of radical Islam” from Fallujah and Ramadi – what was not clean would be scrubbed out by force.
That is what happens with projects to build model societies in other people’s countries. The cleansing campaigns are rarely premeditated. It is only when the people who live on the land refuse to abandon their past that the dream of the clean slate morphs into its doppelgänger, the scorched earth – only then that the dream of total creation morphs into a campaign of total destruction.
The unanticipated violence that now engulfs Iraq is the creation of the lethally optimistic architects of the war – it was preordained in that original seemingly innocuous, even idealistic phrase, “a model for a new Middle East”. The disintegration of Iraq has its roots in the ideology that demanded a tabula rasa on which to write its new story. And when no such pristine tableau presented itself, the supporter of that ideology proceeded to blast and surge and blast again in the hope of reaching that promised land. ”
Extracted from: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein, published by Allen Lane on September 20, priced £25. © Naomi Klein 2007.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2166585,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
“It is only when the people who live on the land refuse to abandon their past that the dream of the clean slate morphs into its doppelgänger, the scorched earth…”
I really like and respect Naomi Klein, but she is way out of touch with this very obnoxious and insulting statement. The problem is not that the Iraqi people refused to abandon their past – anything but. The problem is that they had the reaction any human being has to being invaded and bombed into compliance with a program a foreign entity ahs tried impose on them in its own self-interest.
It is also not, as we keep hearing ad nauseum from people who should know better, a matter of Iraq being a Muslim land, and Americans being viewed as “infidels”. It is a much more fundamental and general human matter, and to insist that “it’s a Muslim vs ‘infidel’ invasion thing” is to deny that Iraqis in particular and Muslims in general are, at their core, human beings like all other human beings, and that they react to being invaded, bombed, and treated badly by intruders the same way all other humans react.
Human beings do not like being bombed. Human beings do not like being treated with violence. Human beings do not like having violent intruders reshaping their lives by force. Human beings do not like having strangers violently taking away any and all power they have over their own lives. Human beings do not like having their lives turned upside down and inside out. Human beings generally react to these experiences by getting angry, refusing to cooperate, and fighting back violently.
I is not that Iraqis refuse to abandon their past, it is that Iraqis refuse to accept the present and the future the neocons had in mind for them, but rather want to decide for themselves what their present and their future will be. I am deeply disappointed that Naomi Klein does not understand this.
And speaking of Petraeus…
Has anyone ever wondered why his actions seem to be more political than military? I have suspected for some time, and now, here it is.
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad, according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.
Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser at Iraq’s Interior Ministry, says General Petraeus discussed with him his ambition when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-05.
“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said, ‘No, that would be too soon’,” Mr Khadim, who now lives in London, said.
I rather doubt that Petraeus’ future presidential prospects are any better than General Westmoreland’s were in 1976.
محنة أطفال العراق- “عبّودي”
أدرت وجهي لاتوجه نحو الفندق وإذا ذات الطفل ، عبودي ، يقف أمامي رافعا نحوي رأسه الصغير والشمس الحارقة تضرب كل صفحات وجهه الجميل الاسمر اللون. سالته:”شنو إسمك حبيبي؟” إرتسمت فجأة ابتسامة كبيرة على وجهه. لربما لم يحتضن أحدٌ قلب هذا الطفل المحروم ليملأه حبا وحنانا ودفئا. كان يرتدي قميصا قطنيا يميل إلى السواد من شدة وساخته وقد كان لونه أصفرَ حين ارتداه أولَ مرة. ربما كان هدية من أحد أقربائه او أمه او صدقة من الجامع أو من الحسينية !! لقد كان ممزقا من الكتف. ربما كان هذا التمزق ناتج عن مشاجرة مع احد المتسولين الاكبر منه سنا…كانت ساقاه مغطاتين بقطعة بنية اللون شبيهة بالبنطلون. وبسبب تلف ووساخة البنطلون اصبح الامر صعب علي َّ تشخيصه. كان الطفل حافي القدمين. أجابني و بصوت تملأه البراءة:” إسمي عبودي خالة”.
“هل هذا اسم الدلع ام إسمك الحقيقي؟”
أجابني:”لا خالة ، امي تسميني عبودي …آني عبد الله”
“واين امك الان؟”
أجابني:”أمي بالبيت يم إخواني”
“ولِمَ انت وحدك في هذه الظهيرة في الشارع؟”
أجابني:”ما كسبتُ شيئاً بعدُ . ..”
دهشت لهذا الجواب وسألته: “ماذا يعني ذلك؟ لم أفهم”
أجابني:”أمي ما تخليني ارجع للبيت إلا وآني بيدي فلوس”
لم اكن اعلم بان الام العراقية اصبحت قاسية لهذه الدرجة بحيث لا تسمح لطفل صغير بالعودة إلى بيته لتناول على الاقل وجبة من الطعام. عندما كنت منشغلة في تفكيري أكمل عبودي قصته قائلا:
“خالة احنة 6 اخوان تلاثة منهم اصغر مني، ابوية مات لانه كان مريض وامي ما تشتغل لذلك آني واخواني الاكبر مني لازم نشتغل ونساعد امنا وإذا ما نشتغل ما نعرف من شنو نعيش..آني لازم كل يوم اجيب فلوس مثل اخواني حتى امي تروح للسوق وتشتري أكل النا. آني وصديقي رضا نغسل سيارات ونحصل شكم فلس. احنا ما نطلب فلوس من احد ، اللي ينطوه النا احنة نكول الحمد لله والشكر…لكن إذا ما اكسب شي ما اكدر ارجع للبيت امي تضربني. لذلك آني لي هسة بالشارع….خالة, اغسللكم سيارتكم؟”
أحزنتني قصة عبودي كثيرا ولكن في نفس الوقت شعرت بأني أكنُّ له كل الاحترام ، هذا الانسان الشجاع المكافح الباسل الذي لم يقبل ممارسة مهنة مهينة اخرى كشحاذ او نشال. إنه يعمل ليجمع المال الكافي لاطعام امه واخوته. ويعتمد قوته على سطلة ماء وقطع من القماش واسفنجة. إنه مثل شجرة الكالبتوز صبور قنوع ومقاوم.
أعطيت كلا من عبودي وصديقه رضا عشرة دولارات وأمرتهما بالعودة إلى بيوتهم. “من أية منطقة أنتما؟ سألتهما ” أجابني عبودي:”إحنة من مدينة الصدر خالة…آني عمري صار ست سنوات واريد هاية السنة ادخل الصف الاول .. لكن امي ما تخليني تريدني اشتغل واعيش اخواني”.
http://alwitwity.friendsofdemocracy.net/default.asp?item=273546
Iraq oil reserves estimated 250-300 billion.
Iraq produces 1.5-2Million Barrel/Day during the invasion till now.
Iraq was producing 2.5-3Millions before the sanction, although most the money misused by old regime but Iraqis were much better after what happened now.
in early 1980’s Iraq announced, planning and were capable in 1985 to produce 5.0 Millions Barrel/Day , and had build or start to built the infrastructures to cope with that gaol at that time.
Khomeini regime and his problematic interference in Iraq/ Arabian gulf sparked the war of Iraq/Iran lasted 8 years which made many Iraqi major projects been cancelled OIL Boosting Production and associated infrastructures one of many thing were cancelled.
Shirin,
I is not that Iraqis refuse to abandon their past,
Shirin this is the sort of talks and statements which quite formal by many western writers reporters bloggers, most of the western media full with these sort of statements which make me sick and disgusting as if they try to colour their talk with the truth and it’s far form the truth or the reality in Iraq.
What we see now with “War on Terror” its never been seen in the history before so vague term and words used like these to destroys two nations and killing millions of peoples and affecting tens of millions life turned to a disastrous life for them no one of any western people can imagined who setting in his comfort home or office producing these sort of statements, even those who went to Iraq and marked as bravery they are out of touch of real life of Iraqis, there attention is to grape the opportunity of fame.
See that Kuwaiti writer what he wrote (Arabic Text) it’s the real sense what’s those who report from Iraq and what were focused on and what they sent the media of their views but they forgot in this carnage that there were human, millions of them are dieing and killing in a horrendous crimes and in an ugly way ever human can see in name of Operation Iraqi Liberation “OIL”
it is that Iraqis refuse to accept the present and the future the neocons had in mind for them
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070912/capt.sge.tpk78.120907113735.photo00.photo.default-512×347.jpg?x=380&y=257&sig=NgCWPbBan3KWbNGbPICxRA–
“An Iraqi boy flashes an anti-US slogan as US soldiers watch a protest in Baghdad. Hundreds of Shiites and Sunnis marched in protest at the building by US troops of a tall concrete wall separating their northwest Baghdad”
Truesdell, Petraeus’s prospects are not the point. His ambitions are the point, and more to the point is the obvious fact that his actions are driven by above all else his personal ambitions.
Apparently that was clear to at least some people from his Westpoint days. He has been described by one of his Westpoint classmates as the kind of guy who would marry the commandant’s daughter to get ahead.
Given his record of consistent failure in Iraq, he is a master of self-promotion.
I referred specifically to roadside bombs, the great majority of which target the occupation.
Roadside bombs are war crimes by definition regardless of who they target. I can’t imagine why “choice of target” excuses their use –they’re bombs detonated in civilian thoroughfares, resulting in mass civilian casualties — what else matters?
I have never said anything to indicate that I accept attacks on Iraqi civilians by anyone for any reason.
You’ve also said that roadside bombs don’t target Iraqi civilians. Am I wrong to assume that you accept the use of roadside bombs in some context?
Even those undercounted roadside bombs documented by Iraq Body Count have killed more Iraqi civilians than US soldiers, and the responsibility for these deaths lies 100% with the people who set and detonated them. It certainly isn’t your place to sanitize, explain or excuse them as “a means of resistance of foreign military domination.”
I’m glad we agree that American air power is responsible for a small proportion of violent death in Iraq. I’ve acknowledged many times that IBC figures are incomplete; I’m sure they undercount deaths from all sources including car and roadside bombs.
Here you show the weirdness of your understanding of “war crime” as you have earlier shown the strangeness of your ideas of “aggression” , “collective punishment” etc. Although you claim it is beyond your understanding, what the target is is one of the most important elements in deciding whether something is a war crime or not. If a bomb or any other violent mean targets legitimate military targets, e.g. US soldiers, and intentionally succeeds, even relatively, in avoiding killing civilians, etc it is not a “war crime by definition.” You have to examine each incident case by case. All of your idiosyncratic misunderstandings of well understood terms have the common factor of sounding superficially, rhetorically, fair and humanitarian. But compared to the usual meaning, they result in more criticism of those who are at the wrong end of the big guns and less of those with the big guns, who are generally the ones who worship, rely on, and start wars. 100% is rather high. There’s a well known quote about the supreme crime of aggression, and it carrying the guilt of all the consequences, like the roadside bombs in Iraq. The US launched a war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, and committed innumerable and deliberate violations of the Geneva Conventions in the course of its occupation. Thus it bears a great responsibility for all the consequences, including those killed even illegally by its opponents.
Although you claim it is beyond your understanding, what the target is is one of the most important elements in deciding whether something is a war crime or not.
Thanks John, but surely it’s not ‘beyond my understanding’ – as we know intention is often used by “hasbarista” types to distinguish US and Israeli tactical bombing from terrorism that targets civilians. But there are other principles involved -proportionality, whether an attack is indiscriminate, whether an attack endangers a civilian target. If you’d like I can go through the text of the fourth geneva convention, the hague convention and the rome statute and spell out for you exactly which articles are violated by the use of roadside IEDs, and in fact why their use qualifies unequivocally as a ‘grave war crime.’ Would this help?
There’s a well known quote about the supreme crime of aggression, and it carrying the guilt of all the consequences
What’s the quote? Seems like a pretty silly line of reasoning. And of course it can and has been used to justify all kinds of war crimes. Including the detonation of roadside bombs, resulting directly in the death of thousands of civilian Iraqis (at least ten Iraqis for every one US soldier killed.)
Aggressors can always punt responsibility toward some antecedent aggressor. More importantly, your idea of “responsibility” doesn’t have much to do with ending the aggression of the moment, which Iraqis understand not to be of US origin, even if you don’t.
I promised John R I’d dig up the statutes explaining why setting off bombs on busy city streets constitutes a blatant war crime. Never thought this idea would be considered “high weirdness” in a forum like this but then very little surprises me here. So here goes. Ahem:
Article 8 of the Rome Statute:.
2a, iv describes as a grave breach ” [e]xtensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”
more importantly, 2b, iv prohibits [i]ntentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated
Not conclusive enough? Ok.
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH790.txt
PROTOCOL ON PROHIBITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MINES, BOOBY TRAPS AND OTHER DEVICES (PROTOCOL II)
3. The indiscriminate use of weapons to which this Article applies is
prohibited. Indiscriminate use is any placement of such weapons:…
…c) which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life,
injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination
thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct
military advantage anticipated.
So John, do you think a roadside bomb, detonated remotely on a busy Baghdad street might be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life? What “concrete and direct military advantage” is conferred by anonymous IED attacks, which have killed 10 times as many Iraqis as US soldiers?
More generally, suppose you and I get our wish and the US leaves Iraq tomorrow… do you really imagine for a second the IEDs and car bombs are going to go away? Maybe your idea of “accepting responsibility” is more about allocating blame and punishment, and has nothing to do with, you know, ending the violence?
“suppose you and I get our wish and the US leaves Iraq tomorrow…”
You mean quit? Cut ‘n run? Let the terrorists win? What about our oil? What about Iran? Exactly how far do you think bin Laden is from takin over freekin Pakistan and gettin them nukes? If the USofA can’t stand up to these evildoers, who’s gonna keep em from takin over the world? Israel? With what army?
Oh, maybe you mean leave Iraq so we can move on to Iran, is that it? Maybe you figure we busted up Iraq enough they’re gonna be eatin dirt and drinkin sewage for decades as long as they can’t get any help from the evil empire next door, huh? OK, you maybe onto somethin there. Awright, yeah, let’s “leave Iraq!” 😉
“This is an unprecedented situation. Bush always had another trick up his sleeve, another milestone to point to, another winning tactic to propose. But he has run out of tricks. The thing he dreaded most has come to pass: He is now completely at the mercy of events in Iraq.”
“Of course, Bush was always hostage to the harsh reality of Iraq. But he was able to counter that reality by invoking his master narrative about how Iraq was the front line of the war on terror, a battle of good vs. evil, a crucial battle on which the fate of the West depended. Even though Americans increasingly rejected that narrative, it had enough resonance to perform its function. At least Bush came across as consistent. ”
“We need to commit ourselves to working with the Iraqis, whom we have so terribly wronged, and with the rest of the world to ensure that our departure will not cause Iraq’s people to suffer even more. We need to remember that war is not normal, that it is the worst thing in the world, to be undertaken only in extreme need. And we need to remember that a nation that does not rise up when arrogant and foolish leaders sacrifice its less privileged members is in danger of becoming a nation in name only.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/09/18/iraq_stalemate/