From Dar al-Hayat’s English-language website

I’ve been trying to discuss reproduction rights issues with my editors at Al-Hayat for some time now. (No, that does not mean abortion issues. It means reproduction of the columns I send them.)
Hayat btw is probably the world’s leading Arabic-language daily. It’s published out of London and distributes worldwide. I’ve been contributing regular columns to them since 1993. “Dar” is Arabic for “house”, as in publishing house.
The rights discussions with the editors haven’t really gotten anywhere. But since they have a bunch of my columns up on their English-language website I figured why not link to some of them there?
I have to say their English-language site is (ahem) “not optimally organized”. But by finding the section of their Search capability that actually seemed to work, and by careful selection of the Search terms, I came out with the following list:

    America and the Iraqi Intifada
    2004/05/05
    Helena Cobban – Late March of 2004 will go down in history as the time the Americans made three key mistakes that sparked the Iraqi Intifada. They decided to escalate their challenge to Moqtada Al…
    Dark Horizons
    2004/03/17
    Helena Cobban – How tough is the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories? I was there for a rapid but intense visit in mid-February, and the situation seems to me to be marked by the fol…
    China, The United Nations And Palestine
    2004/01/05
    Helena Cobban – China is the home of one in every five of the people alive in the world today. What role will this massive, rapidly industrializing country play in the conduct of world affairs in …

Continue reading “From Dar al-Hayat’s English-language website”

Yankeedoodle on Taguba

Yankeedoodle gives his own very detailed and clear analysis of the Taguba report in his Today in Iraq blog today. Check it out. It’s toward the bottom of that post.
YD’s a genius.
His conclusion:

    Coupled with the Hersch piece, MG Taguba’s AR 15-6 report and a few other news items I’ve posted recently, it seems to me that there was indeed a blanket policy of coercive interrogation applied to the Iraqi detainees in US custody at Abu Ghraib. The media is missing the story here. The scandal isn’t the lower-ranking MP soldiers we’ve seen in the infamous pictures or their piss-poor leadership– and I’m not defending either of them.
    The issue is a blanket policy of coercive interrogation. Somebody made the decision to apply that policy through Military Intelligence channels. Presumably, the decision-maker made a conscious cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential intelligence value of detainees against the damage that would result if word of the abuse that results from such a policy were made public, especially in light of the administration’s War on Terror.

Continue reading “Yankeedoodle on Taguba”

Hersh on background to Abu Ghraib

Sy Hersh has yet another blockbuster piece on the Iraqi torture issue in the upcoming (May 24) issue of the New Yorker. This one details the institutional background, within the upper reaches of the Pentagon, to the whole “black” (secret) intelligence-gathering program.
Accpording to Hersh, this program had its origins in the Afghanistan-based war against Al-Qaeda. By November 2001, Hersh reports, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld had become so frustrated with the limitations that military-legal people were placing on the ability of Spceial Forces units to undertake kill or capture+interrogate missions against Qaeda suspects that he set up a whole “special-access program” (SAP) inside the Pentagon, separate from existing chains of command and quite secret, to coordinate those kinds of actions.
This SAP, Hersh writes, had a number of code-names. One was Copper Green. He writes:

    Fewer than two hundred operatives and officials, including Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were “completely read into the program,” the former intelligence official said. The goal was to keep the operation protected. “We’re not going to read more people than necessary into our heart of darkness,” he said. “The rules are ‘Grab whom you must. Do what you want.'”
    One Pentagon official who was deeply involved in the program was Stephen Cambone, who was named Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in March, 2003. The office was new; it was created as part of Rumsfeld’s reorganization of the Pentagon. Cambone was unpopular among military and civilian intelligence bureaucrats in the Pentagon… He was known instead for his closeness to Rumsfeld. “Remember Henry II-‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?'” the senior C.I.A. official said to me, with a laugh, last week. “Whatever Rumsfeld whimsically says, Cambone will do ten times that much.”

Cambone’s military assistant was the infamous Gen. Boykin.
Hersh writes that people connected with this SAP played some role during the actual shooting war in Iraq in March and April 2003. But they were not called back to that theater till the fall of 2003…

Continue reading “Hersh on background to Abu Ghraib”

Escaping from ‘terrorism’

The whole Bushite discourse of the US being involved in a “Global War on Terror” is, it seems to me, not only misleading but actually inimical to the best interests of the US citizenry.
GWOT is how “people in the know” like to refer to it. Gee, what the heck are you talking about? is my response to them.
Who was it who, not so long ago, wrote something to the effect that, “Terror is, like blitzkrieg, a tactic that a commander can choose to use or not to use. But who would declare a ‘war on blitzkrieg’? No, ‘terror’ is not in itself a political force that–like Nazism, or Japanism militarism–can be campaigned against and perhaps vanquished…”

    [It was Zbigniew Brzezinski. He put it much more succinctly than I did. The actual quote was posted on the Comment board here by Bill. Check it out. ~HC]

I agree completely with that. I also think that by responding to Al-Qaeda’s intense provocation by declaring and pursuing a ‘Global War on Terror’, the Bush administration lost its ability to focus on and deal effectively with the main threat: that from Al-Qaeda.
Exhibit # 1 in this regard? The invasion of Iraq.
But the damage, it seems to me, goes much further than the mere diversion of effort. There has also developed such a huge degree of conceptual fuzziness around the whole concept of “global terrorism” that the Bushies seem almost unable to disaggregate the campaigns being waged by, for example, the Iraqis or Palestinians against foreign military occupation, or by the Chechens for (as far as I understand it) national independence from Russia, from the still-present threat from Al-Qaeda to US and allied interests around the globe.

Continue reading “Escaping from ‘terrorism’”

CSM column on Iraq

The column I had in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor was on Iraq. It’s titled “A pattern of culpability in Iraq”.
Regular readers of JWN may find quite a few familiar themes in there… Actually, one of the many things I use the blog for is as a way of working out ideas.
At my editors’ urgings, I pulled a few punches in the text. “Many human rights experts consider…” etc etc. As always, we were working right up against deadline. Not sure how I feel about all that caveating. (Or, more to the point, not sure how I feel about being urged to engage in it.)

Continue reading “CSM column on Iraq”

Brutality in the gulag: what for?

This morning, Bill the spouse and I were speculating about what the point of all the officially sanctioned brutality in Abu Ghraib prison was.
Once we accept that this was no “furtive”, rogue operation, we have to understand that someone in the military chain of command–most likely the Military Intel command– was actually, under very difficult operational circumstances, devoting quite a lot of manpower and other resources to running these sessions of organized brutality. This, in a situation where manpower is stretched incredibly thin.
Plus, by the accounts of some of the front-line perpetrators, they were given the cameras by superiors and instructed to take the photos and videos.
So what was it all in aid of?

Continue reading “Brutality in the gulag: what for?”

On brutality in war

I’ve been thinking a lot about the nature of brutality recently. (Haven’t
we all?) Two recent instances have been the videotaped beheading
of U.S. citizen Nick Berg in Iraq, and the reported display by some
of the people of Gaza of the mortal remains of six Israeli soldiers
blown to smithereens on Tuesday when their APC was the target of an explosive
device in the Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun.

News of those incidents comes against the backdrop of continuing revelations
about the depth and extent of the depravities that have been carried out–many
of which are probably still being carried out–within the far-flung reaches
of the United States’ own globe-wide gulag of abuse.

The mainstream media here in the US gives, quite predictably, huge
amounts of coverage to the fate of Berg and the six Israeli soldiers.
I don’t want to underestimate the horror of what happened to those
people. But I do note that Berg, apparently a lone adventurer, voluntarily
traveled into a known war-zone in a distant country, “in search of work”.
Videotaping him while in captivity was already an abuse, as of course–above everything else– was killing him. So, too,
was the videotaping of his decapitation and the subsequent distribution
of both segments of the tape. But Berg was fully clothed throughout
the taping. Of the decapitation, it was reportedly rapid, though it can’t have been painless. His father was
reported

(in the NYT) as saying, “That manner was preferable to a long and torturous
death. But I didn’t want it to become public.”

Of the Israeli soldiers, I note that they were most likely conscripts
in the Israel Defense Forces’ lengthy and as-yet unsuccessful counter-insurgency
operations in Gaza. I ache for their families, and for the families
of all the Israeli conscripts in that war. But it does seem probable
that their deaths were also, like Berg’s, pretty rapid. And though
abuse of human body parts is a ghastly thing to contemplate, I don’t think–either
in that case or that of the US contractors killed in Fallujah in March–that
people should get disproportionately steamed up about that kind of abuse
as compared with the abuses that have been visited (and continue to be
visited) on the bodies and minds of people who are still alive, sentient,
and suffering continuing pain and humiliation.

(I accept that other people may differ with me on this view of abuse
of the mortal remains of people who are already dead versus prolonged abuse
of still-living people.)

But this brings me back to the still central issue of the behavior
of the people running the United States’ global network of mass detention/punishment
centers, and will in short order bring me back to the
need–now, more than ever!–to restate all the norms and practices embodied
in the Geneva Conventions…

Continue reading “On brutality in war”

Passing on the gift

I’ll pass on the Mother’s Day gift that my firstborn, Tarek, gave me today, as he had found it on Alternet
Here is the original, pre-Hallmark, Mother’s Day Proclamation, penned in Boston by Julia Ward Howe in 1870:
Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise all women who have hearts,
Whether your baptism be that of water or of tears
Say firmly:
“We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands shall not come to us reeking of carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We women of one country
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.
From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says, “Disarm, Disarm!”
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice!
Blood does not wipe out dishonor
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war.
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God…

Continue reading “Passing on the gift”

Not in Kansas any more

Well, I’m not in Kansas any more! (I’ve just been waiting till
I could write that. It’s not that I don’t like Kansas– actually,
my two-day visit there has been really wonderful. But still, I couldn’t
resist using a version of that iconic line from “The Wizard of Oz”. Phil
Schrodt, my co-host last night and a 16-year resident of Lawrence, Kansas, told
me that most Kansans actually have a very ambivalent relationship with that
work. “It’s such a tired cliché,” he said. “On the other
hand, often it’s the only thing outsiders even know about Kansas.” Ooops,
sorry Phil!)

Yeah, so anyway, I’m now in a plane flying somewhere over the heartland,
to Pittsburgh, on my way home for Mother’s Day. Will my son Tarek, who
arrived back at our place in Charlottesville from his home in Boston, have
the customary Mother’s Day burned-toast breakfast ready for me as I enter
the house? Let’s hope not. It’ll be about 2:45 p.m. by then…
Ways too late for the burned-toast breakfast.

So the rest of the University of Kansas conference that I was at was as
engaging as the earlier parts that I wrote about yesterday.

I guess in yesterday’s post I had reported on about the first two-thirds
of Saturday-morning sessions on “The Iraq war and the presidential election”
. Notable utterances in the rest of that session included the following:

Continue reading “Not in Kansas any more”

From Kansas, contd.

So I’m still at this conference on Iraq at the University of Kansas. I
want to put down a few more notes about what’s been going on here. I’ll
start with a few notes from what I heard John Cary, the faculty member
from the Fort Leavenworth Army Command and General Staff College say here
yesterday, that I found interesting.

He said the current level of troop deployment in Iraq is quite unsustainable.
He dismissed the idea that NATO might have any role in augmenting the force
levels. He said that maintaining “credibility” alone is not a goal
worth fighting and dying. And, asked a question about possible liberal
bias in the media, he said that in his view “the truth” lies halfway between
“the US administration fact of the day” and “the sensationalism of the Washington
Post”.

(Well, I don’t agree with his evaluation of exactly where “the truth” lies.
But it was interesting to see the broad level of daylight between his
view and that of “the US administration fact of the day”.)

Today (Saturday) at the conference, the emphasis has been on the domestic
dimensions, here in the US, of the whole Iraq war issue. Notable firstly
about this session was the willingness of more than 80 good citizens of Kansas
to turn out at 8:30 on a beautiful Saturday morning to come and take part
in the discussion here. These people– maybe 60 percent of them looking
like retirees– have been really motivated to give up their time to come
and take part.

We started off with an address by George Mason University professor James
Pfiffner
on W’s decision to go to war. Jim, who revealed that
he himself spent a year in the forces in Vietnam, started off reciting two
long lists of names of people in the Bush administration: the first, of officials
who have had no combat experience, but were all “gung-ho” for the
war, and the second, of officials who have had combat experience but
were much more cautious regarding the decision to move towards war.

Continue reading “From Kansas, contd.”