Getting real

Just go read this. One of the best editorials I've read in a while.

From his lips to their ears

This weekend hasn't been a good one for US soldiers - or westerners in general - in Iraq. In the span of 12 hours, 3 soldiers were killed in Baghdad.

Insurgents threw a homemade bomb at a U.S. convoy in northern Baghdad early Monday, killing a soldier, said Sgt. Patrick Compton, a spokesman for the military.

Late Sunday, two assailants fired on another U.S. military convoy killing another soldier. Troops returned fire, killing one of the attackers and wounding the other, Compton said. The wounded suspect was taken into custody.

In the third fatal attack, an assailant shot a U.S. soldier in the head at close range as he waited to buy a soft drink at Baghdad University at midday Sunday.

In a similar incident, a British reporter was killed outside the Baghdad museum recently. At the time, he had nothing on or about him to indicate he was a reporter. A gunman came up to him, fired a bullet into the base of his skull and escaped into the crowd. As with the soldier killed at Baghdad University, and the one roughly a week ago where a soldier was killed while trying to buy DVD's, none of the witnesses or bystanders attempted to capture the killer as he took off.

There is now some growing concern that it may not be just US soldiers who are targets of Iraqi anger, but westerners in general, as well as Iraqis who are working with or alongside the US.

In another recent incident, 7 Iraqis who had just completed 5 days of training so that they could serve as part of the police force were killed, and many others injured, when a bomb exploded in the middle of their group while they were marching away from the building where their training had been held. People in the area said that the recruits had been warned against helping the Americans.

Our leaders keep trying to reassure everyone that these are just angry individuals, loyal to Saddam and desparate to try and return him to power, and that they're not part of any organized resistance or guerilla force. Somehow, I don't think it really matters, though, if they're organized or not, or if their goal is to bring Saddam back or just to get us out of there. When we have so little support that killers can walk up to westerners on the street, shoot them in broad daylight in areas that aren't exactly isolated, and then "escape into the crowd", the situation is decidedly grim.

What 'Bring[ing] Them On' looks like in action

From the day after Bush issued his challenge to the Iraqis to "Bring Them On"
Hover on image for description

(Image via Shock and Awe)

Context for 'Bring them on' quote

Just to avoid any questions of context (as are often warranted when isolated quotes are presented and critcized), here is the entire question asked of President Bush at the impromptu news conference he held on July 3, 2003 after announcing Randall Tobias to be the Global AIDS Coordinator, as well as his complete answer. This is taken from the whitehouse.gov site and is part of the official transcript of the press conference. I've bolded the "bring them on" quote itself.

I'll answer a couple of questions here today. Let me start off with Deb.

Q Mr. President, a posse of small nations -- like the Ukraine and Poland -- are materializing to help keep the peace in Iraq. But with the attacks on U.S. forces and the casualty rates rising, what is the administration doing to get larger powers, like France and Germany and Russia, to join the American occupation there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, we'll put together a force structure who meets the threats on the ground. And we've got a lot of forces there, ourselves. And as I said yesterday, anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.

Let me finish. There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. Of course we want other countries to help us -- Great Britain is there, Poland is there, Ukraine is there, you mentioned. Anybody who wants to help, we'll welcome the help. But we've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure. We always welcome help. We're always glad to include others in. But make no mistake about it -- and the enemy shouldn't make any mistake about it -- we will deal with them harshly if they continue to try to bring harm to the Iraqi people.

I also said yesterday an important point, that those who blow up the electricity lines really aren't hurting America, they're hurting the Iraq citizens; their own fellow citizens are being hurt. But we will deal with them harshly, as well.

'Bring them on'

I don't even know where to begin. I can't remember the last time I was this angry about much of anything. In an act of amazing irresponsiblity, arrogance and testosterone, Bush has actually challenged the Iraqis to attack our troops.

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

I don't give a damn if we have "the force necessary to deal with the situation", I don't give a damn if we have three times the "force necessary". You don't get up there on the world stage and tell the people already attacking our troops - who are dying at an average pace of one per day - to 'bring it on'! Did Bush think we needed another look at his balls or something?

The cowboy-in-chief has crossed the line. It was bad enough that the White House and Republican Congress preach at us about "supporting the troops" while refusing to pay families who lose a loved one a reasonable "gratuity", cutting funding for base renovations, capping raises and otherwise shortchanging the men and women who have voluntarily made the decision to risk their lives in the service of our nation, but now this?

We've read in recent days about soldiers who are confused and angry and don't know why we're still in Iraq. We've seen the pictures of a man unsure if he can wear the title of "soldier" with any pride after watching us refuse to treat Iraqi children he tried to help. We've watched as the death toll mounts and our soldiers are targeted for retribution for acts where isn't not clear if they were at fault or not. Does Bush really want to make the job that much harder for them?

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

Oh, and as for the upcoming election -- I hope you're prepared for your opponants to "bring [it] on" (politically) as well, because believe me, Mr. President, we will.

I think maybe people are starting to wake up

The latest CNN/USA Today Gallup poll is out, and it looks like maybe people are starting to wake up a bit.

The news isn't overwhelmingly good, but a couple of statistics jumped out at me as being better than I'd dared hope.

Question: Are you confident that the US will find weapons of mass destruction?

Answers in March:
52% Very Confident
32% Somewhat Confident
15% Not Confident

Answers now:
22% Very Confident
31% Somewhat Confident
45% Not Confident

But I think this one is even better:

Question: Would it matter to you if Bush did mislead public [sic] on Iraqi weapons?

Great deal: 53%
Moderate Amount: 22%
Not Much: 11%
Not At All: 11%

Exporting freedom

In our efforts to bring Iraq 'freedom' and 'demcracy', the US is sure banning a lot of things. So far, we've banned guns, declared we will not accept an Islamic theocracy (even if that turns out to be what the Iraqis want), forbidden people who were in the top four tiers of the Ba'athist party to have government jobs (which are about the only jobs to be had right now), decreed that images of Saddam are not allowed in public places or government office, and even decided that the citizens of Najaf weren't ready to hold elections, despite the fact that they'd already been scheduled and candidates had been campaigning.

And now? Now we've decided that true free speech is a bad thing for the Iraqis, too. Any expression that incites violence against the American troops has been forbidden, and we're going so far as to include raiding newspaper offices if we don't like what the paper is saying.

Last week the US-led coalition authority brought a strong hand down on the hurly-burly collection of new voices that have cluttered Iraqi newsstands, virtually absent of any advertising, since Saddam Hussein fell. The new law bans incitement of violence against American troops or against any religious, ethnic, or gender group, and prohibits any publication that promotes a return of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party.

US officials insist the law applies only to material that undermines civil order that is necessary for a free and democratic Iraq and that it is meant to prevent violence.

''It's not designed to be restrictive,'' said Charles Heatly, a coalition spokesman. ''We welcome the emergence of a free press, and we have no intention of stifling free speech.''

The act, which carries fines and prison sentences, has spawned resentment among members of the new media class, who argue that newspapers restrained from criticizing the American forces hardly constitute a free press.

''Would you agree to be constrained by a decision of President Bush?'' asked Mohammed Abdul Hadi, whose organization, the Supreme Council to Liberate Iraq, helps publish and distribute Sadda-al-Auma. ''Why do you apply these constraints on Iraq when they are not applied on Americans?''

I have no doubt that those in charge of Iraq feel that they are increasing safety for both the US military personnel and the Iraqi civilians; and that they believe they are making the transition to freedom "easier". Yet we should remember from our own history that freedom isn't always pretty, it isn't always safe and it isn't always easy.

Sadly, the Bush administration has already shown it's propensity for repression here in the states, so it's not surprising that they act as though some form of repression or another is the best solution for any problem. The Iraqi people have spent years under the thumb of a cruel, tyrant. We promised them liberation, and those who are trying to retroactively justify the war cite "liberation" as their reasoning. When, exactly, do we plan to let them have it?

A timeline of manipulation

The New Republic has a long, but well-worth-it article on the maniuplation of information by the Bush administration in the lead-up to the war. An excerpt:

Powell cited U.S. intelligence supporting his claim of a reconstituted nuclear weapons program in Iraq, Jacques Baute listened intently. Baute, the head of the IAEA's Iraq inspections unit, had been pestering the U.S. and British governments for months to share their intelligence with his office. Despite repeated assurances of cooperation, TNR has learned that Baute's office received nothing until the day before Powell's presentation, when the U.S. mission in Vienna provided the IAEA with an oral briefing while Baute was en route to New York, leaving no printed material with the nuclear inspectors. As IAEA officials recount, an astonished Baute told his aides, "That won't do. I want the actual documentary evidence." He had to register his complaints through a United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) channel before receiving the documents the day Powell spoke. It was an incident that would characterize America's intelligence-sharing with the IAEA.

After a few weeks of traveling back and forth between Baghdad and Vienna, Baute sat down with the dozen or so pages of U.S. intelligence on Saddam's supposed nuclear procurements--the aluminum tubes, the Niger uranium, and the magnets. In the course of a day, Baute determined, like the ambassador before him, that the Niger document was fraudulent. Though the "president" of Niger made reference to his powers under the constitution of 1965, Baute performed a quick Google search to learn that Niger's latest constitution was drafted in 1999. There were other obvious mistakes--improper letterhead, an obviously forged signature, a letter from a foreign minister who had not been in office for eleven years. Baute also made quick work of the aluminum tubes. He assembled a team of experts--two Americans, two Britons, and a German--with 120 years of collective experience with centrifuges. After reviewing tens of thousands of Iraqi transaction records and inspecting Iraqi front companies and military production facilities with the rest of the IAEA unit, they concluded, according to a senior IAEA official, that "all evidence points to that this is for the rockets"--the same conclusion reached by the State and Energy Departments. As for the magnets, the IAEA cross-referenced Iraq's declarations with intelligence from various member states and determined that nothing in Iraq's magnet procurements "pointed to centrifuge enrichment," in the words of an IAEA official with direct knowledge of the effort. Rather, the magnets were for projects as disparate as telephones and short-range missiles. Baute, who according to a senior IAEA official was in "almost daily" contact with the American diplomatic mission in Vienna, was surprised at the weakness of the U.S. evidence. In one instance, Baute contacted the mission after discovering the Niger document forgeries and asked, as this official described it, "Can your people help me understand if I'm wrong? I'm not ready to close the book on this file. If you've got any other evidence that might be authentic, I need to see it, and I'll follow up." Eventually, a response came: The Americans and the British were not disputing the IAEA's conclusions; no more evidence would be provided.

On March 7, IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei delivered Baute's conclusions to the Security Council. But, although the United States conceded most of the IAEA's inconvenient judgments behind closed doors, Vice President Cheney publicly assaulted the credibility of the organization and its director-general. "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney told Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" on March 16. "I think, if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past." Incredibly, Cheney added, "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Cheney was correct that the IAEA had failed to uncover Iraq's covert uranium-enrichment program prior to the Gulf war. But, before the war, the IAEA was not charged with playing the role of a nuclear Interpol. Rather, until the passage of Resolution 687 in 1991, the IAEA was merely supposed to review the disclosures of member states in the field of nuclear development to ensure compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By contrast, in the '90s, the IAEA mounted more than 1,000 inspections in Iraq, mostly without advance warning; sealed, expropriated, or destroyed tons of nuclear material; and destroyed thousands of square feet of nuclear facilities. In fact, its activities formed the baseline for virtually every intelligence assessment regarding Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Something it would have been nice to know

Much has been made, lately, of the Bush administration's selective release of information while trying to build its case to go to war. It turns out that - in all liklihood, prior to the start of the campaign to go to war - and definately before the war started - the administration had intelligence from one, and probably two, top al-Qaeda operatives saying that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam Hussein.

Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation.

In his debriefing, Mr. Zubaydah said Mr. bin Laden had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Mr. Hussein, the official said.

Separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Qaeda chief of operations until his capture on March 1 in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that the group did not work with Mr. Hussein, officials said.

The Bush administration has not made these statements public, though it frequently highlighted intelligence reports that supported its assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda as it made its case for war against Iraq.

In an editorial in the NY Times today, Bill Keller writes about the selective use of intelligence in making the case for war.

What the Bush administration did was gild the lily — disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh's investigations leave little doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told American interrogators — one of them well before the war was set in motion — that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration's zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the fanatical war on America.

The motives for the dissembling varied. The hawks hyped the case (profusely) to prove we were justified in going to war, with or without allies. Mr. Powell hyped it (modestly) in the hope that the war, which he knew the president had already decided to wage, would not be a divisive, unilateral exercise. The president either believed what he wanted to believe or was given a stacked deck of information, and it's a close call which of those possibilities is scarier.

The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face.

Just a reminder

Stinging Nettle has posted a copy of an e-mail s/he received from a friend working at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, and who has seen some of our more seriously wounded soldiers from Iraq as they are brought in for treatment. The entire e-mail is very touching, and I recommend reading it. Here's an exceprt from the closing comments:

First, just because the coverage of the war is subsiding, don't forget these guys are out there risking their lives every day (whether you agree with the war or not, I guarantee you that these men and women are motivated by the true belief that they are fighting for the security and freedom of our country and for the Iraqi people). Second, next time you think you're having a bad day at work, or annoyed at something little, remember how good we all have it. And one of the reasons we have it so good is because there has always been (and hopefully always will be)courageous young men and women like Private L______ willing to die to protect us and our way of life.

Means and Ends

I keep reading and hearing people say that it doesn't matter if we don't find any WMD in Iraq - or even why we can't - because Saddam was such a bad, bad man and getting rid of him was good. In other words, the ends justify the means.

The problem is, of course, if we decide that the ends justify our means, then we have to be willing to accept that others will likewise claim their own deeds are justified by the outcome. I don't think it's in our best interest to do that.

Just as an example, we know that our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia during and after the first Gulf War is part of what made Osama bin Laden and his al-Qeada members so angry at us to begin with. They wanted our Western butts out of their country and off of their Holy Lands. To achieve this goal, they used terrorism, killing thousands around the world, in hopes that they would push us to withdraw our troops. The longer we refused to budge, the angerier they became so that now, the issues are much larger than just that. But, it has still been a long term goal of theirs to get us out of Saudi Arabia, and every terrorist act they've committed has had, at it's core, that goal as part of it's justification.

Every terrorist act. Including the big one - September 11, 2001.

Following the 9/11 attacks, our government decided that they wanted to get Saddam out of office. In his interview with Vanity Fair, and in the DOD transcript of that interview, Paul Wolfowitz acknowledges that, at least in part, the stratigic considerations regarding Saudi Arabia and our troops being there were part of why we decided we needed to take Saddam out.

Once the war in Iraq was "concluded" (such as it is), we announced that we would be removing our troops from Saudi Arabia - helping Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda meet one of their primary goals.

Now, to them, getting us out of Saudi Arabia is a very, very good thing - just as to us, getting Saddam Hussein out of power is a very, very good thing. I am sure there are many Muslims around the world who are overjoyed that we are removing our troops, but I also have no doubt that a great number of them disagree with the tactics al-Qaeda used to achieve that goal. These people don't condone terrorism, they don't condone the 9/11 attacks, or the fomenting of hatred against the US that bin Laden has engaged in. Do we want to give them the message that the end result of finally getting us out of Saudi Arabia - remember, they think it's a very good thing - actually justifies all the lives that were taken in getting us to this point?

I know that I, personally, do not want to send that message. I don't believe that the ends do justify the means. Now I'm sure some of you will say that al-Qaeda's killing of innocent civilians in their terrorist attacks in no where near comperable to Bush or the PNAC crowd lying about WMD or any of the other deceptions they used to get us into the war. But it is also the war, itself, that so many supported based on the claims made by the government, that is part of those "means" that we used to topple Saddam Hussein.

When people say that it doesn't matter if we find WMD in Iraq because the war was justified for other reasons - in particular getting Saddam out of office - they're not trying to justify the end goal (the removal of Saddam), they're trying to justify the war - and are saying that regardless of why we fought the war, the end result of it makes all of the rest - including all the innocent Iraqi citizens we killed or wounded, all the soldiers that have died - and continue to die, even though the war is "over", all of the destruction, all of the looting, all of it - the whole big, ugly, ball of wax, is just hunky-dory because Saddam's gone.

The American people would not have supported the war had we not been told by our leaders that they knew, for a fact, beyond any shadow of doubt, that Saddam had lethal weapons of mass destruction that he could give to terrorists or use against us himself. If we had been told that we needed to depose him because he was an evil dictator who treated his people cruelly (the main reason we are being given now), there would not have been as much support for the war as there was, simply because that description fits too many other dictators, and we're not, as a nation, about to start taking all of them out. Even if we wanted to, we simply can't - we haven't the money or the manpower.

So, the government told us how dangerous the WMD Saddam had were, and we went to war. If that turns out to have been a lie, we can't sit back and just say "oh well, it's ok", because it's simply not. The ends don't justify the means. If we are to do good in this world, we have to do it the right way, or we lose all moral authority to take a stand against anyone else trying to achieve what many might consider a positive goal through negative means. It's bad enough that we've now legitimized pre-emptive wars. We don't need to open this Pandora's Box as well.

Wolfowitz: It was the oil

Paul Wolfowitz has been speaking rather plainly lately about the reasons for the Iraq war. In a interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair (a complete transcript of which is available at the DOD website), Wolfowitz noted that, while there were three main reasons for invading Iraq - WMD, support for terrorism and "criminal treatment of the Iraqi people", for "bureaucratic" reasons, they chose to focus on the WMD, as it was the only one of the three that everyone could agree on - presumably as being the best reason to justify the war.

Today's Guardian is now reporting that Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt are quoting Wolfowitz as saying that our reason for invading Iraq was the oil. According to the article, the comments were made at a security summet held in Singapore over the weekend.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

More on this later if and when I find out more.

Giving bin Laden what he wants

[UPDATE (6/4/2003): I'm leaving the text of this entry the way it was originally written, as many of the points contained are still valid. I wanted to note, however, that after reviewing the actual transcript of the interview conducted by Sam Tannenhaus, I noted that Wolfowitz did not actually say that removing the troops from Saudi Arabia was one of the reasons for invading, but that it's one of the things that is now different because of the war.

[UPDATE TO THE UPDATE: I sent a note about this to Spinsanity, as it is something that appeared to fit the kind of things they usually write about - turns out that, while the Reuters article did not present Wolfowitz' statement as accurately as they could, removing the troops from Saudi Arabia was, in fact, part of the pre-war justifications. Here's a copy of the response I got from Spinsanity:

Thanks for passing this on. I've been following this debate and wanted to let you know that Tannenhaus did follow up on this point
and confirm that the situation in Saudi Arabia was part of the strategic equation going into the decision to go to war, rather than just a post facto benefit. See Josh Marshall's post making this point at talkingpointsmemo.com. It's farther down in the conversation due to an interruption. I do think the Reuters quote is
probably unfair, though, in saying Wolfowitz was specifically calling it
an "unnoticed but huge" reason to go to war. Here's the passage in
question:

Tanenhaus: So this notion then that the strategic question was really a part of the equation, that you were looking at Saudi Arabia --

Wolfowitz: I was. It's one of the reasons why I took a very different view of what the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would destabilize the Middle East. I said on the record, I don't understand how people can really believe that removing this huge source of instability is going to be a cause of instability in the Middle East.

In my post yesterday on the quotes available at Billmon's blog, one of the one's I included was from Paul Wolfowitz. He has stated that the reason the administration chose to focus on the Weapons of Mass Destruction as their justification for the war was because it was the only one "everyone" could agree on, so it worked well from a bureaucratic perspective. He has also, however, cited a second, less-noticed justification: that overthrowing Saddam would allow us to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia. And, as I had noted back on May 3rd, we have announced that we would be doing exactly that.

This is important - especially as it is now being cited as one of our reasons for going to war in the first place - because it was the stationing of those troops in Saudi Arabia that was Osama bin Laden's initial justification for going after us. He felt that having our Western troops there with our Western ways was a violation of the Islamic Holy Land, and was willing to do whatever he felt he had to in order to get us to leave.

Of course, by now, he has several other reasons for continuing to go after us, but what this admission means is that one of the main reasons we went to war - even though it wasn't included in the justifications given to the public - was to do exactly what bin Laden has wanted us to do right from the start - get our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Sadly, in the process we have also done him two other favours as well. Bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein almost as much as we do, and had released tapes encouraging the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam, calling him an infidel. Thanks to us, bin Laden no longer needs to worry about Saddam Hussein. In addition, we've created enough animosity in Iraq - and other areas of the Mideast - to help ensure a long line of al-Qaeda recruits for the foreseeable future. Our actions have made so many over there angry, they are now far more likely to be willing to take up bin Laden's cause as their own.

At some point - hopefully soon - when I have the energy to do the necessary sourcing searches, I'd love to put together a list of our accomplishments so far in this war. I know many will point out that we've liberated the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and that is, without a doubt, a wonderful thing - but beyond that, it's pretty much been a stinking disaster.

We can't find the weapons of mass destruction we said justified an immediate war; we've let nuclear information, materials and possibly the equipment needed to make something of those materials disappear at the hands of unknown looters, winding up who-knows-where; we've agreed to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia - something bin Laden has long wanted - and are now admitting that being able to remove those troops is one of the "quiet" reasons we wanted to topple Saddam in the first place; we've gotten rid of Saddam which is something else bin Laden wanted to see; we've created a climate that is likely to produce many more terrorists over the coming years; we've let looters steal many priceless and historically valuable artifacts from the Iraqi museum; and we've left the Iraqi people in many areas without functional electricity, fresh water or accessible medical care (this last also due, in large part, to the looting we failed to stop) and turned some parts of Iraq into areas so beset by crime that some Iraqis are now afraid to leave their homes.

As I noted before, I don't believe that we should leave our troops in Saudi Arabia just to avoid giving bin Laden what he wants. I just find the whole situation very troubling - especially seeing that, so far, it looks like bin Laden has probably gotten more out of our war in Iraq than either we or the Iraqis have.

Unbelievable

This needs to be explained:

Yahoo! News - No Bunker where U.S. Bombs Targeted Saddam-CBS

The Baghdad bunker which the United States said it bombed on the opening night of the Iraq (news - web sites) war in a bid to kill Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) never existed, CBS Evening News reported Wednesday.

The network quoted a U.S. Army colonel in charge of inspecting key sites in Baghdad as saying no trace of a bunker or of bodies had been found at the site on the southern outskirts of the Iraqi capital, known as Dora Farms.

"When we came out here, the primary thing they were looking for was an underground facility, or bodies, forensics, and basically, what they saw was giant holes created. No underground facilities, no bodies," Col. Tim Madere said.

This goes real well with the WMD that we "knew for a fact" he had but still can't find.

Is our intelligence community that incompetent, or does the administration just not pay a bit of attention to what they actually tell them?

House asking questions about pre-war intelligence

Someone is finally taking notice of - and asking questions about - the difference between the Bush administrations claims of WMD in Iraq prior to the start of the war, and the lack of any evidence of such WMD now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. The House Intelligence Committee has asked CIA director George Tenet "'"to re-evaluate U.S. intelligence' used by the Bush administration before the war to describe Iraq's weapons programs and its links to terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida." In addition, the CIA is also comparing the information they had, and passed along, pre-war, to what is currently being found in Iraq and learned from former Iraqi officials.

The CIA review, coupled with the letter sent to Tenet by the House intelligence panel, follows criticism that the Defense Department, particularly a new Pentagon intelligence office, and other parts of the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq. Some members of Congress and intelligence officials are questioning the accuracy of the intelligence describing Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida.

One official who has read a draft of the CIA study said, "There is no question there was a lot of pressure on analysts to support preconceived judgments." But, he added, "the analysts' record is not bad when you consider you have strong policymakers pushing analysts for information that supports their specific views."

Neither study is intended to show how accurately the administration portrayed the evidence they got, which makes it sound like the CIA may well be being set up to be the fall guy so that the Bush administration can claim they were working in good faith on bad intelligence, and thus can't be blamed for having misled everyone in trying to justify the war.

Still, it's a good thing that there's enough concern, especially among the Republican-dominated House, that they're even considering looking into the matter. Hopefully, this time we'll be allowed to know what some of the answers are, unlike the largely-classified report on the Congressional investigation into 9/11.

Posted by thorswitch at 10:34 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Vandalism by troops and a 'potentially permanent' base

Honestly, I'm not sure which part of this story bothers me more - that US troops have apparently vandalized the ancient ruins of the city of Ur or that the Pentagon is building a "potentially permanent" base near there.

They claim that US forces have spray-painted the remains with graffiti and stolen kiln-baked bricks made millennia ago. As a result, the US military has put the archaeological treasure, which dates back 6,000 years, off-limits to its own troops. Any violations will be punishable in military courts.

[...]

Ur is believed by many to be the birthplace of the prophet Abraham. It was the religious seat of the civilisation of Sumer at the dawn of the line of dynasties which ruled Mesopotamia starting about 4000 BC. Long before the rise of the Egyptian, Greek or Roman empires, it was here that the wheel was invented and the first mathematical system developed. Here, the first poetry was written, notably the epic Gilganesh, a classic of ancient literature.

The most prominent monument is the best preserved ziggurat - stepped pyramid - in the Arab world, initially built by the Sumerians around 4000 BC and restored by Nebuchadnezzar II in the sixth century BC.

The Pentagon has elected to build its massive and potentially permanent base right alongside the site, so that the view from the peak of the ziggurat - more or less unchanged for 6,000 years - will be radically altered.

Is it a 'Bush lie' if no WMD are found?

I've been following the comments over at CalPundit's post that I linked to earlier (and will link to again right here). As part of an interesting comment, one of his readers made the following statement:

Lastly, Kevin, everyone should hold Bush's feet to the fire on his promises and be prepared to criticize his most egregious shortcomings. That said, I fail to see how it constitutes a "Bush lie" that we've yet to uncover WMD thus far. Without a doubt, Saddam had a program to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he continued to fund this program throughout the sanctions period. Bush cannot be called a liar because Iraq failed to produce results.

I posted the following as my reply to him, and decided to post it here as well, since it's a bit long and has a number of references:

Over at Uggabugga, there is a table showing 14 times in October and November, while campaigning to start the war, that Bush said, flat out, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did NOT say that Saddam was attempting to acquire WMD, he said "He's got them". For example, on November 3rd, while speaking in Illinois, he said "I see the world the way it is. Saddam Hussein is a threat to America. He's a threat to our friends. He's a man who said he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, yet he has them," according to the official White House transcript of his speech there.

In addition, during his speech telling Saddam he had 48 hours left, he said "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Since the main part of the fighting ended, the administration has said that it's possible Saddam destroyed the weapons prior to the start of the war, yet less than 48 hours before we started dropping bombs (we started the war early, after all, when the military thought they had a tip on where Saddam might be) Bush was saying that there was no doubt that Saddam "continued to possess" WMDs.

So, yeah, I'd say if no WMD turn up, we can call Bush a liar on that point, or should we prepare for a debate on what the meaning of "has" is?

Also, don't forget that administration officials have admitted that they only emphasized the WMD issue as a way of gaining legal justification for the war, but that it wasn't the true reason Bush wanted this war so badly. The real reason, they noted, was that Bush believed that there needed to be a "new start" in the Middle East following the 9/11 attacks, and that we had to show were weren't afraid to fight terrorism in the Middle East. Flexing muscle, as it were. So even administration officials are acknowledging that the WMD claims were more of a ploy than anything - and that counts as a lie in my book as well.

One thing that doesn't help matters much, in my opinion, is that from the way the "search" for WMD following the toppling of Saddam has been handled, it makes it appear that the administration wasn't that worried about getting to or finding the alleged WMD quickly - which I would think they would be, if they had truly believed that the WMD were there and were as much of a danger (especially if they fell into the wrong hands) as they had implied.

Instead, they refused help from the UN Inspectors who have training and experience in finding hidden weapons and who, presumably, would be better able to locate weapons now that neither Saddam nor any of his associates would be there to run interference. They also refued help from the IAEA in handling the known sites where nuclear materials (ostensibly for power generation) were being handled. The military teams that were to perform the weapons searches weren't immediately dispatched to the sites we considered to be the most likely to house WMDs, and there are now questions about whether any materials had actually been there, and if so, where they are now. There are also 7 nuclear sites that we know have been looted, some of which may have had radiation source material, as well as potential documents on how to use the materials to create nuclear or radiological weapons and equipment. These are sites that the IAEA had sealed prior to the start of the war, which are now open and emptied, largely because no one put guards around it or sent inspectors there in a timely manner, both of which they should have been prepared to do if they believed that there was a genuine threat.

These are clearly not the actions of an administration that is concerned about massive amounts of WMD being in the country and doing whatever they must to keep them from winding up in the hands of our enemies. These are the actions of an administration that is either totally incompetent in handling the aftermath of a war they wanted and created (on questionable grounds) or they're the actions of an administration that knows there are no WMD to be had and therefore aren't worried about it.

Oxymoron of the year

Some excellent opinions on the nomination of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for a Nobel Peace Prize for (here's the oxymoron for you) starting the war with Iraq.

I think I may just have to ponder the amazing stupidity of that for a bit. If they win a peace prize for starting a war, well, I may just have to find a new planet to live on. This one ain't doing too good.

Online Peace Rally

There's a really neat site that's opened up, called Faces For Peace. The concept is that of an online peace rally - where you can post a picture of yourself (or another image to represent you) and post a statement in support of peace in general.

Posts are searchable by location, and are reviewed to make sure they're appropriate before being added to the site. It's a really neat idea, and I suggest you check it out!

Musical justifications and satellites

KOS has a great rant about the ABC News article on the Bush administration'slatest shift in justification for the war.

"Sending a message" may be a legitimate reason to go for war, so why not argue it? If the administration was so sure of itself that it was right, and that such a "message" was necessary, then why not make that argument to the American people and the international community?

Instead, as this administration is wont to do, it obfuscated, misdirected, LIED, and did everything in its power to avoid stating the REAL reasons for the war.

Problem is, the rest of the world saw right through it. We demonize France and Germany for refusing to play along with a pathologically dishonest administration, yet it turns out they were right. The lies were naked, and easily exposed. And now the administration itself (including Bush himself) are now admiting that perhaps there are no WMDs in Iraq.

Bob Harris, filling in today for Tom Tomorrow, also reminds us of Bush's statement at the start of the war that we were to "disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." He also provides a link to an article that tells of our use of satellite technology in the war, including satellites that are "capable of gathering information in Iraq at a resolution 'keen enough to read large newspaper headlines from space'," but which, somehow, couldn't see the WMD being moved, hidden or destroyed.

You know, some days I'm almost scared to start my daily surf through the various news sources and blogs I read each day. I never know what I'm going to find next, and sometimes I'm not sure I want to.

Secular democracy for Iraq

Emphasis Added has an excellent analysis of the problems the US will face trying to help Iraq become a secular democracy, especially in light of the Shi'ite majority's apparent preference for an Islamic theocracy. I strongly recommend checking it out. An excerpt:

If Iraqis are to be free to practice their religion without resort to an Islamic state, then any government cannot be representative of the majority, at least so long as the majority favors theocracy. But if democracy is to succeed, then the population must be secularized to the extent that they acknowledge a separation between religious and civil authority -- a separation which they have never seen as necessary or legitimate.

The irony is that the Administration who must negotiate this delicate balance, while representing a secular democracy, is itself neither democratically elected nor secular in outlook.

The return of Saddam's police

Can someone tell me in what universe this actually makes sense?

It seems that we've now gone and rehired the police who worked for Saddam - yes, the one's who were known for raping and robbing and otherwise abusing the citizenry - and we're having them act as police on our behalf now.

Huh?

As one Iraqi woman put it "We were afraid of them before, why should we not be now?". I'd say that's a pretty good question, and one that Bush, Rumsfeld and anyone else involved in the occupation of Iraq should figure out an answer too pretty quickly.

The police officers are asking people to give them a chance, to show that they can be good public servants.

An officer who would identify himself only as Captain Ali, because of a prohibition against speaking to the media while on rounds, said that slowly they would regain control of the city. He said there were some bad police under Saddam. But he notes that there were many concerned public servants as well. "This is a new beginning for Iraq," he said. "People must begin with trust, and they must have some patience."

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it will be an easy sell, nor does it make it a good idea in the first place. Hopefully, these police officers will recognize that they can't get away with the heinous crimes they committed under Saddam's rule and will prove to the citizens of Iraq - and the world, that they can behave responsibly and fairly.

Smugness and being right

Jonathan Alter has an interestiing article on smugness in this week's Newsweek, pointing out how our smugness about the victory in Iraq may well prove to be our Achille's Heel.  One thing he notes is that apparently, there were suggestions made that we should fly in 3,000 MPs from Europe to help protect the supply lines and maintain order in Baghdad, but that Rumsfeld decided against doing so because the MPs would eventually have to be replaced by reservists, and if reservists had to be called up, it might be considered the same as admitting that we hadn't sent enough troops in the first place.  And Rummy wants us to believe that we didn't "allow" the looting to happen?  We did - and it looks like we did it to save his pride. 

He also talks about how difficult it is for either side in this war debate to admit when they're wrong.  He calls liberals to task for not being willing to admit that the pro-war side was right about the need to liberate the Iraqi people:

Let's be clear about the doves. They never said the United States wouldn’t win militarily; their objection was based on other factors (rejection of “preventive” war, botched diplomacy, etc.). And they may be proved right: history’s jury will be out a long time. Even so, I can’t get over how churlish the left has become. When did the liberals take the “lib” out of liberation? This was a totalitarian regime we’re talking about, with a boot on the face of the Iraqi people. The same folks who led the charge against fascism in Europe; who rightly spoke up against the U.S. government about “disappearances” in El Salvador and Guatemala; who carried high the banner of human rights—now they yawn at revelations of mass graves in Iraq and argue that the Iraqis will be no better off than before. Freedom’s just another word that liberals have figured out how to lose.

Now, so far, I haven't heard any on the anti-war side say that it's a bad thing that the Iraqi people are free - but I also don't recall gaining freedom for the Iraqis being very high on the pro-war side's long list of justifications for the war. Sure, they'd trot it out now and again to try and persuade those in the middle to support the administrations actions, but it was something they used more as a tool for persuasion and not as something they really believed was a significant goal of the war.

As for me, I do think that the Iraqis freedom is a good thing - a very good thing.  But as a justification for going to war, it's problematic.  There are many oppressive regimes around the world that we pay little or no attention to and do nothing about. If we were to start deploying our army to free every repressed people there is, we'd be stretching ourselves extremely thin.  I'm not indifferent to the suffering of people who live in such horrendous conditions, but I'm also a realist when it comes to just how much one country can do.

In any situation like this, there has to be a balancing of the benefits to humanity in general and the potential drawbacks of taking action. We also have to look at what other options are available.  Are there ways we could help the people in a repressed country take control of their own fate and support them as they overthrow their own dictator rather than going in and doing it for them? That's a question we never really asked about Iraq, as far as I know. 

I've never been much in favour of the US going in and overthrowing the governments of other countries.  Just as we can justify considering a government to be so heinous that they deserve to be kicked out, other countries can come with justifications to say that ours does, too.  I seriously doubt that there's any nation out there - or even a group of nations - that could really pose that big of a threat to us, but the principle is what's important.  We have to recognize that everything we say we can do to other countries, they can turn around and try to do to us - and if we keep making enemies at the pace we have been, they just might.

Who's allowed to help?

There have been reports, recently, about non-governmental aid groups trying to gain access to Iraq in order to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqis in the aftermath of the war.  The organization "Save the Children", for example, has a plane loaded with enough medical supplies to treat 40,000 people, as well as emergency feeding kits intended to help malnourished children.  So far, however, they have been denied permission to land in Abril, which is located in northern Iraq.

Part of the dispute is that the US has said that no aid workers will be allowed into the area until we are sure it is safe - but the UN has already made its own declaration that it's safe enough that aid workers should be allowed to start working.

Save the Children's Emergency Program Manager, Rob MacGillivray, noted that in refusing to allow the plane to land, the US may be in breach of the Geneva Conventions.

"The lack of cooperation from the U.S. military is a breach of the Geneva Conventions and its protocols but more importantly the time now being wasted is costing children their lives."

U.S. officials were not immediately available for comment.

Under the Geneva Convention, occupying forces are obliged to protect civilians, restore law and order and open up space for humanitarian relief.

At the same time, another aid group, Samaritan's Purse, is also trying to gain access to Iraq to help with provding emergency supplies and services to Iraqi civillians. There are, however, two important distinctions between Samaritan's Purse and Save the Children.  Save the Children is based in Britian, where as Samaritan's Purse is an American group, and Samaritan's Purse is also an evangelical organization.  They are led by Franklin Graham, son of evangilist Billy Graham, and a close associate of George Bush's.

In addition to distributing aid, Samaritan's Purse wants to attempt to proseltyze to the Iraqi people and lead them from the "very evil and wicked" religion of Islam to Christianity.  This would, of course, be beyond a PR disaster.  Any aid groups allowed into Iraq are going to appear to have the approval - and thus the support - of the American government.  Muslims tend to be very sensitive about people trying to convert them - so much so that in many Islamic countries it is a crime to even attempt it.  And Graham's reputation is well known over there.  His comments disparaging Islam are widely known in the Arab world, and he is very unpopular there.

Yesterday, Graham was invited to conduct a service for Christian employees at the Pentagon.  Ministers from other faiths were invited as well, but many who are familar with how Graham is viewed by Muslims have indicated that allowing him to do the service at the Pentagon may only make problems worse if his organization is allowed into Iraq.

Graham angers Muslims not just because of his inflammatory statements, but because he is close to President Bush and thus has a certain imprimatur that others who have criticized their religion don't necessarily have.

Although the president has been careful not to antagonize Muslims - he has gone out of his way to characterize Islam as "a religion of peace" - Muslims are well aware of the ties between the Bush and Graham clans: Franklin Graham gave the invocation at Bush's inauguration in 2001, and Billy Graham, who has long advised American presidents, was instrumental in Bush's born-again conversion.

"It sends entirely the wrong message," Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said of Bush's ties to Graham. "It seems to offer government endorsement of the bigoted views of Franklin Graham.

There is also a great deal of concern about what message would be sent if Graham and Samaritan's Purse are allowed to enter Iraq - particularly if secular organizations, such as Save the Children" are denied enterance.

The American-Islamic group's Hooper said that even if Samaritan's Purse enters Iraq strictly as a private group not funded by the government, it will be interpreted by Iraqis as a U.S.-sanctioned organization.

"There's no such thing as a private, nongovernmental organization when America controls who gets in," he said. "The atittude now is we're the most powerful country on earth, and we'll do what we want."

Because of Graham's close ties to the President, I doubt that they will be denied enterance to Iraq, and I agree that allowing him to do so will be a huge mistake. While many Iraqis are happy to be free from Saddam Hussein and are expressing their gratitude to American soldiers, there is a great deal of anger - not only because of the war itself, but because of the rioting and looting that has occured in the wake of the war, and the fact that we've done little to stop it.  There is a great deal of resentment over the loss of Iraq's great historical treasures, and many feel that America has little respect for Iraq, it's history, it's culture or it's people.  Allowing an aid group in that is led by a man who has made public statements condemning their religion isn't going to help reduce that resentment one bit, and may serve to turn some of the people who are grateful against us as well.

Presumably the last update on the 'Baths for Baptisms' story

I would like to thank a visitor to this site, Deb Conrad, for posting a copy of a letter she had received from the Office of the Cheif of Chaplains into the comment section of the blog (It's attached to the first story on this matter that I posted several days ago).  Since I have posted several times on the issue of Josh Llano and the report of his using baths as a bribe for giving baptisms, I wanted to go ahead and post the test of that message to the main blog, so that it can be more easily found.  Ms. Conrad also has several other points in the comment she left, and I do suggest reading it in its entirety.

Here is the letter she received:

Based on your earlier inquiry about the report of CH Llano, a US Army Chaplain, I wanted to offer you the following information. Thank you for your concern and interest. I hope this reassures you about the expectations of the Army and work of Army chaplains.

The free exercise of religion is a foundational issue to us in the chaplaincy. In fact, we first became aware of this at about 9:30 pm last Thursday, and by 10:00 pm that night, the Chief of Chaplains requested additional information. The Army respects and actively accommodates the religious practices of all soldiers. In accordance with the practices of many Baptist traditions, the Army provides water for full-body immersion baptisms when it is available.

Based on news reports and questions from members of the media, the Office of the Chief of Chaplains requested additional details on the accuracy of the quotations and the nature of the actions performed by an Army chaplain while in Iraq. There are some factual problems with the article. There have been tens of thousands of water produced each day at the Corps Support Base and readily available to soldiers for all personal hygiene, drinking water, and enough to allot water for a baptismal pool during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army does not condone religious coercion. The chain-of-command, supported by the Chaplain Corps, ensures that soldiers are free to exercise their religious beliefs. The local commander has direct knowledge of the chaplain's action and has very high regard for the work of the chaplain.

Access to water was never used in any way as a bribe for baptism. Chaplain Llano states he did not offer any quotes or statements in response to questions by the reporter. He indicates she overheard conversations he had with another officer and these were presented as quotations. The supervisory chaplain has direct knowledge of the chaplain's actions and indicates the religious activities described by the reporter are attended by the choice of the soldiers. The Joint Force Land Component Commander in Kuwait has received no complaints of religious coercion from soldiers in the field.

The threshold for concern about protecting the free exercise is extremely low. Chaplains have performed their religious rites, sacraments and ordinances representing the faith group which sends them and provide for the religious support of all soldiers. The Chief of Chaplains affirms and commends the chaplains, chaplain assistants and directors of religious education deployed with US soldiers providing religious support at the risk of their lives.

Chaplain (Lt Col) Eric Webster
Office of the Chief of Chaplains

While I must say I'm not happy that the author of the original article (Meg Laughlin at the Miami Herald) apparently used overheard comments and presented them as if they were quotes from an interview, I must say I'm glad to hear that Lt. Llano was not behaving in the manner the article portrayed.  I am also quite glad that the Office of the Chief of Chaplains looked into it and was able to provide a response.  I never have gotten a response to my own message about the situation, but it's good that one has been made.

I know that information about the original article, and, in fact, copies of my own post about it, were passed around the net.  I hope that people will also be willing to pass around copies of this response, so that it can be out there as well - especially given that it appear the intial article did not paint a true picture of what was happening.

Thanks again, Deb, for sharing your thoughts and the response you got!

An excellent suggestion from Tom Paine

This is the text of a new "op-ad" being run by TomPaine.com:

Register For Peace
The Only Peace Demonstration The President Can't Ignore

An irresponsible war of choice, launched by an arrogant administration with shifting justifications and heedless of world opinion, has sparked a new wave of activism in the United States. Millions of Americans hit the streets to protest.

President Bush dismissed them and their concerns.

Would he listen any better if every protestor pledged to vote next year? If everyone who carried a sign, made a speech, sent an email, wrote a letter or lit a candle for peace registered one new voter every month between now and November 2004? If each new voter was called five times before Election Day?

Ballots can keep bullets from flying. Find out how to register to vote and what other groups are doing to educate and activate Americans.

Check out www.TomPaine.com/register

This is one good message to pass along.

...then again, maybe he didn't

Let it never be said that figuring out what the Bush administration is up to is an easy task.  There are times I wonder if any one department knows what any other department is over, and if Bush himself even knows that the departments exist.  Ok, so that last part may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea...

Earlier, I posted about an article in the Guardian that claimed Bush has vetoed the idea of war in Syria.  Tonight, however, Canada.com is reporting that, once again, we're sending out clear signals that war with Syria is pretty much the next item on our agenda. The Canada.com story is dated April 15th and according to Google's news page was updated within roughly the last half-hour, so it would be the more recent of the two articles. I don't know if that makes it the more accurate, but...

At any rate, here's a bit of what they had to say about it:

The White House pointedly refused to rule out an attack on Syria yesterday, a country it accused of being a "rogue nation" and a "terrorist state."

On the same day the United States said major combat operations in Iraq were at an end, Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, fuelled indications Washington would next target Syria, headed by a branch of the same Baath Party that once ruled in Baghdad

[...]

"We always leave options on our tables, but our course of action with Syria is focused on reminding Syria this is a good time to re-examine their support of terrorism, and a good place to begin is with their harbouring of the Iraqi leaders who have fled to Syria," he said. "They should not be allowed to find safe haven there."

Mr. Fleischer then quoted a months-old unclassified Central Intelligence Agency report that charged Syria with having stocks of sarin toxin.

"It's a relevant fact," Mr. Fleischer said when asked why he was only now presenting the report.

At least Bush won't have to memorize a new script for this one...

Bush may have vetoed war on Syria

Let us hope that Bush doesn't change his mind.  If this is true, it may be one of his smartest moves yet:

The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday.

In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon's office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq.

Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could "shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria".

However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the "war on terror" to Syria.

Protecting the oil - update

UPDATE: Found this quote over at Tom Tomorrow's blog.  Not only is the callousness of the marine's response astounding, the overt racism isn't going to help matters, either. 

"Is this your liberation?" one frustrated shopkeeper screamed at the crew of a U.S. tank as a gang of youths helped themselves to everything in his small hardware store and carted booty off in the wheelbarrows that had also been on sale.

"Hell, it ain't my job to stop them," drawled one young marine, lighting a cigarette as he looked on. "Goddamn Iraqis will steal anything if you let them. Look at them."

If it's not a marine's job to try and stop looters, then what exactly is his job?  We promised these people that we would help them after Saddam left power, and while it's true that there is going to be some chaos during the transition period, I consider it unconscionsable that we aren't doing more to prevent some of the looting and other violence that's occuring.  Take some of the marines who are guarding the oil ministry and spread them around a bit. 

And regardless of what Donald Rumsfield might say, we are allowing this to happen - by not taking steps to prevent it from starting or stopping it when it happens, we are allowing it.  We decided it was our reponsiblity to "liberate" the Iraqi people, and we took it upon ourselves to overthrow their government.  We now must take it upon ourselves to take control of this nation and do everything we can to restore order as quickly as possible so the transition to a new, democratic, true Iraqi government can be established, and we can get get out of there (if, of course, we ever have any intention of doing that.... but that's a whole different rant.)

Protecting the oil

We can't spare anyone to protect the rare, irreplacable artifacts housed at the National Museum in Baghdad, keep small-business owners from losing so much merchandise that they can't afford to reopen their businesses, prevent the wholesale theft of hospital equipment, including beds, MRI and CAT scan machines, along with medicines and medical files, but we can spare an entire company of Marines to protect the Oil Ministry?  Uh, guys?  You're priorities are showing!

Some Iraqis, however, question the allocation of U.S. forces around the capital. They note a whole company of Marines, along with at least a half-dozen amphibious assault vehicles, has been assigned to guard the Oil Ministry, while many other ministries -- including trade, information, planning, health and education -- remain unprotected.

"Why just the oil ministry?" Jaf asked. "Is it because they just want our oil?"

Somehow, you'd think that our great and wise leaders would realize that allowing such looting to occur while protecting only those assets that are of importance to us (not the Iraqis), will do nothing to engender good will, and, in fact, can take what gratitude and positive feelings the Iraqis may have towards us for our helping get rid of Saddam and turn it to anger, hatred and a refusal to cooperate for taking their already bad situation and making it significantly worse.

"I tell the United States, 'You wanted to overthrow the government so you should have taken responsibility and put one soldier in front of every government building,' " said Saad Tuema, a portly, middle-aged engineer who claimed not to have slept in three days because he has been hunting looters. "Instead, they just stood by and let it happen."

That is a common perception here. Some attribute the lack of an aggressive U.S. response to a miscalculation. Others ascribe it to underhanded motives.

"They wanted to let these robberies happen so the Iraqi people will be bankrupt and they will need American assistance," said Mehdi Zuemi, a clerk in the Foreign Ministry who observed his office being destroyed today. "They'll use our oil to pay for it."

I swear, nothing about this war has been handled well or made any kind of real sense. And this kind of stuff is just pathetic. I used to think America was better than this.  Now I just hope we can be again one day.

War casualty statistics

MSNBC has posted a list of the soldiers who have died so far duing the Iraqi war along with where they were from and how they died.  The numbers tell a sad story, though.  Of the 31 British soldiers who died, 20 of them died outside of actual combat, either in accidents, from friendly fire or of illness.

The list has the following disclaimer, which should be kept in mind when looking at the totals below:

The casualty figures listed below come from a database maintained by The Associated Press. Names of service members who have died are entered only after their official release by the military. Since names are not always released immediately, the number of names in the database may not correspond to overall numbers of deaths reported by military authorities.

By my count, here are the total, broken down by cause of death and how many were British (of note since their casualty numbers, total, are low, but so many were killed outside of combat).

While every death is tragic, I find it very sad that so many soldiers - US and British - were killed outside of combat.  Certainly, accident will happen - especially in a situation as chaotic as war - but it seems that, proportionally speaking, there were too many this time. 

'Diplomatic' solutions, take two?

Stop me if you've heard any of this before....

The Bush administration said Monday it will consider diplomatic, economic and other steps against Syria, saying it was concerned that Damascus is harboring fleeing Iraqi leaders and developing its chemical weapons capabilities.

Oh, stop there?  Yeah, that does sound a bit familiar -- harbouring people we want to "get" and developing chemical weapons -- I wonder if they have any better proof this time?

"With respect to Syria, of course we will examine possible measures of a diplomatic, economic or other nature as we move forward," Powell said.

Oh.  Of course.  Tell me, will you be sincere in looking to diplomatic solutions this time?  Or will it just be another delaying tactic to get enough soldiers in place to start another war?

The secretary said he had no specifics on who the Iraqi leaders are who have allegedly fled to Syria. "I can't quantify how many might be slipping across the border," Powell said.

At the White House, presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer had a similar message. Fleischer rejected Syria's fresh denials of having a chemical weapons program. "It is well corroborated" that Syria has such a program, Fleischer said.

Ah. Well.  That's good enough for me.  Ari said it.  I believe it.  That ends it.  Right? 

Ugh.  Ok, sorry...  I can't keep that up for any length of time.  If Ari said it, it tends to make me want to question it even more.  Ari - along with President Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and, oh, most of the rest of the administration - isn't very high on my "credibility scale".  The fact that, so far, there's still no evidence of chemical or biological weapons, or the presence of al-Qaeda, doesn't exactly help them any, either.  Sure, they could still find some, and I realize that is a very good possiblity - but as of now, they haven't - and yet they think I'm going to believe them when they start flinging the same basic accusations about another country.  Sorry.  Not gonna happen.

Syria's deputy ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said the administration's flurry of charges was a "campaign of misinformation and disinformation" meant to divert attention from the "human catastrophes" taking place in wartime Iraq.

Hmmm...  Ya think?

I know this whole thing with Syria has been building for the last week or so, but I'm still flabbergasted by it.  It's bad enough when Hollywood takes a popular movie, decides to make a sequal, and takes almost exactly the same set up, but just plugs a few new characters into the forumla - but for our government to do it, and to be so blatantly obvious about it, is just sickening.  I just hope that maybe the way this has come up all of a sudden, with essentially the same charges and same rhetoric, maybe those who supported the Iraq War will at least take a moment to pause and wonder why we're rushing into a replay, but believe me, I'm not holding my breath.

TV priorities?

Can someone explain to me why the Bush administration can ask for $62 million to broadcast prime-time American shows at the Iraqis (and others in the Middle East), but they can't remember to ask for money to help rebuild Afghanistan?

The efforts in Iraq are the most urgent part of a long-range administration plan to blanket the Arab world with programming promoting American ideals, including a future 24-hour satellite station, the Middle East Television Network.

The White House has asked Congress for $62 million for the satellite station, which is scheduled to go on the air by year's end. The station, also overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, will feature news, original Arabic programs and dubbed versions of U.S. prime-time fare. Station officials said they have hired a research firm that began conducting polls and focus groups in Persian Gulf states last month to help shape the programming.

Update on killings in Najaf

From Reuters:

The nephew of an Iraqi cleric hacked to death by a mob in a mosque in Iraq on Thursday said on Friday his killers had killed a total of six people and taken control of the holy city of Najaf.

U.S. forces stationed nearby were doing nothing to restore order, he said, quoting residents of Najaf for his information.

"The Americans are five kilometers (3.1 miles) from Najaf and do not want to interfere." [...]

Arab News, which carried the original story that both Al-Khoei and Al-Khazraji had been killed is reporting that Al-Kohei's death has been confirmed by his family, but Al-Khazraji's death has not.

If Al-Khazraji is still alive, and has the backing of the US in being one of the new Iraqi leaders, this could end up being very interesting - given the accusations against him of being a war criminal and his CIA-aided escape from Denmark.  There's a certain perverse irony in the idea that we overthrew Saddam, justifying it in part by pointing out how he had gassed his own people (even though there have been questions about whether it was him or the Iranians who were truly responsible for that event), and yet are supporting someone accused of the same crime for a leadership role in the "new" Iraq. 

Sadly, whether Al-Kazraji is alive or not, by helping him escape from Denmark, we've once again shown our disregard for the laws of other nations and apparent belief that we can do whatever we want.  It's important to note that Al-Khazraji was only being held on suspicion of war crimes - he had not yet been convicted - but by sneaking him out of Denmark, we have helped him circumvent their laws and the investigations into his actions. Ironically, Denmark is one of our allies in this war.

Chaplain update

Here's the latest update on the 'Baths for Baptisms' story [from the Mercury News]:

The U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains is checking into a report by Knight Ridder Newspapers that an Army chaplain in Iraq withheld clean bathing water from U.S. soldiers who did not first agree to hear a sermon and be baptized.

The allegation against Chaplain Josh Llano, 32, of Houston, has drawn heated responses from religious, civil libertarian and atheist groups who say the practice amounts to religious coercion. Army officials said that so far their investigation hasn't shown that to be true.

[...]

Army Chief of Chaplains Gaylord Gunhus said he believes Llano was simply joking with soldiers of the Army V Corps combat support system at Camp Bushmaster near Najaf.

"I have confidence in my chaplains," Gunhus said from his office at the Pentagon. "It had nothing to do with keeping people from having water or anything at all. Speculation is, he was jesting with a bunch of folks."

[...]

Llano could not be reached for comment on Thursday. But Rudd said Llano told investigators he does not recall making those statements. She said Llano's commanders have denied the water-for-baptism allegations. Knight Ridder reporter Meg Laughlin, who wrote the original story, noted that she was not alone when Llano made the statements.

[...]

Rudd said the investigation would be conducted on an informal basis and would not require input from the Army Office of Inspector General.

I must say I find it amusing that Llano says he "does not recall making those statements" - I'd think most people would remember what they tell a reporter - but I am glad to see that an investigation (even if it's "informal") is underway.

The Flag Flap

ABC News is reporting that the flag that was placed of the face of Saddam Hussein on the statue that was pulled down yesterday morning wasn't just any flag.  It was the flag that had been flying at the Pentagon on 9/11, when it was attacked.

"I was just trying my best to get the chain around his neck and put the flag on his head," Chin told ABCNEWS' Good Morning America. "Pretty much at the moment I was just doing what I was told to do by my commanding officer," he said.

The televised gesture drew mixed reactions around the world and anger from a commentator on the Arab news network al Arabiya.

"That should have been the Iraqi flag," said an al Arabiya announcer.

U.S. military leaders have set boundaries on American flag displays in an effort to avoid provoking Arab emotions over the war in Iraq. U.S. troops have been ordered not to display flags, whether the American flag or those of their military unit, in Iraq.

[...]

"And the flag — it was on the Pentagon when it got hit on 9/11. That was the same flag, and me being from New York, it kind of all goes together a little bit. It was a team effort, which made it even better, you know," he said.

Now, maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but what are the odds that a tank that just happened to be in the right area to assist with tearing down that statue would also just happen to have that particular flag with it?  And given that the troops are supposed to be under ordered to not display flags, why would Cpl. Chin's commanding officer tell him to put it up there?

I've seen some claims that the entire statue-pulling was a "staged" event, done more for PR purposes - to give the Americans the image of cheering crowds of Iraqis greeting their liberation with joy - than any actual spontaneous happening.  Shock and Awe offers some images of the area where the statue had been, showing that the crowd appears to be much smaller than it looked on TV - and suggesting that the TV images were carefully framed to provide the impression that the crowd was larger.  My only problem with that theory is that most of the images were being fed by Abu Dubai, an Arabic news station that seems an unlikely candidate for going along with a US-led PR stunt. 

[UPDATE: CalPundit has an excellent pair of comparison photos - one showing how the demonstration looked on TV and one of a shot taken from a distance giving a better perspective of the size of the crowd.]

The bit about the flag, though, bothers me.  Someone had to make a decision to send that special flag over to Iraq so that it would be available to be used there - in spite of the ban on displaying our flag - and someone had to have put it on that tank, with - at the very least - a good suspicion that the tank would be able to play some kind of a role in a symbolic gesture, during which the 9/11 Pentagon flag could be displayed.  Otherwise, why risk something that is a genuine artifact that should be kept safe as a reminder of what happened that day?

There could have been significant symbolism in the act of placing that flag over Saddam Hussein's face on the statue - given the widespread belief that he may have struck at us on 9/11, but that the flag - and this nation - survived and have now taken him down.  It could even have been powerful symbolism, if there were any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but there isn't, so the gesture was, at best, empty.

[The last paragraph has been edited slightly for clarity (9:28pm CST) -- I was not intending to imply that Saddam actually had struck at us, only that the act of putting the Pentagon flag over his face seemed to be trying to - once again - send the message that he did, even though there is still zero evidence to support that allegation.  The original paragraph is below:

There was significant symbolism in the act of placing that flag over Saddam Hussein's face on the statue - the idea that he may have struck at us on 9/11, but that the flag - and this nation - survived and have now taken him down.  It could be powerful symbolism, if there were any evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but there isn't, so the gesture was, at best, empty. ]

US-backed leaders may have been murdered in Najaf

Note: I am referring to several news sources in this post, most of which seem to have different spellings for the names of the people they are reporting on. Please excuse any confusion this may cause

A very strange story is coming out of Iraq - Arab News is reporting that "[f]ormer Iraqi general Nizar Al-Khazaraji and Islamic scholar Majid Al-Khoi’i have both been executed by Iraqi residents of Najaf," along with an American soldier who was serving as their bodyguard.  The reports indicates that the two men had been supported by the American government as possible leaders for Najaf, and that after they were killed, their bodies were futher mutilated by the crowd.  Reports so far have been somewhat conflicting - particularly in the identity of who was killed. 

In an article published earlier by the Arab News, prior to the murders, the men represented two of the three opposition movements that were vying for control of the city:

According to a well-known Najaf resident, business owner and local leader, who asked that he not be further identified, there are now three different opposition movements vying for control in the city, each under a different leader. He gave an indication of what may lie ahead for Iraq’s disunited people.

According to this source, Nizar Al-Khazraji, a general in Saddam’s Ministry of Defense who defected in the 1990s and has been living in Denmark, is one of them. He is a native of Najaf. He is America’s number one choice. The leader of the second movement is Majid Al-Khoi’i, an Islamic scholar who, after 1991, went to the US after Saddam ordered his death.

Al-Khazraji has a very interesting history, and has been the subject of many stories in the last two months.  Until March 17th, he had been under house arrest in Denmark as the result of alleged war crimes and possible role in the gassing of Kurds. At that point, he simply disappeared, and even his son seemed to have no idea where he might have gone.

The circumstances around former Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji's disappearance were murky and few details were released. He had been under house arrest in his adopted country of Denmark since November.

Prosecutor Birgitte Vestberg is investigating claims that al-Khazraji, a former Iraqi army chief of staff, was responsible for poison gas attacks in northern Iraq in 1988 that killed more than 5,000 Kurds.

[...]

Under the Geneva Conventions, which calls for countries to prosecute or expel war criminals, Denmark is obligated to investigate claims he was involved in the poison gas attack.

On April 2, Reuters reported that Denmark was asking the US for help in locating al-Kazraji:

In a letter to U.S. Ambassador Stuart Bernstein, Justice Minister Lene Espersen cited several Danish newspaper articles suggesting that the Central Intelligence Agency may have been involved.

"Against this background...I kindly ask you to provide me with any information from relevant American authorities on the circumstances under which Khazraji disappeared and his whereabouts since March 17, 2003," she wrote.

Espersen noted in her letter that the disappearance had been the subject of intense debate in Danish media and in parliament. She said she was enclosing a selection of newspaper articles offering theories on what had happened to Khazraji.

Then on the 6th, South Africa's News24.com reported that al-Khazraji had escaped from Denmark with the help of the CIA, because American officials considered him a potential successor to Saddam Hussein.

Former Iraqi General Nizar al-Khazraji, touted as a possible successor to President Saddam Hussein, is now in Kuwait after escaping from Denmark last month with the help of the CIA the Danish daily Politiken reported on Sunday.

Citing a report by the former head of the CIA's counter-terrorism department - a copy of which was obtained by the paper. Apparently the US sees Khazraji as their preferred successor for Saddam in a post-war Iraq, a view that is not shared by the Pentagon.

The ex-CIA official, who completed the confidential report on March 28, said the US intelligence services secretly extracted Khazraji and that he was currently helping US forces in the war against Baghdad.

Oddly -- or perhaps not -- none of this appears to have been covered in any of the major US news sources - at least not that Google News can find. 

The BBC is reporting the death of Abdul Majid al-Khoei:

Assailants armed with knives attacked Abdul Majid al-Khoei inside the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf - one of the holiest sites for Shia Muslims, Fadhel Milani told BBC News Online.

A colleague who had been accompanying Mr Khoei confirmed his murder in a telephone call to the foundation, Dr Milani said.

His murder has been "strongly condemned" by the Bush administration. Spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said it was a reminder of "how dangerous the situation is inside Iraq".[...]

Although Mr Khoei was usually accompanied by coalition forces, the officers do not enter the mosque and so were unable to rescue him, Dr Milani said.

Dr Milani said that he believed Mr Khoei's association with the coalition forces had provoked the attack, saying "certain people did not want him in that role".

He said other colleagues from London would now "think twice" before returning to Iraq.

The Associated Press described the attacks this way.  Note that no mention of Al-Khazraji is made:

Witnesses told reporters that a meeting was being held among leading mullahs about how to control the shrine, which had been under the control of the hated Haider al-Kadar, of Saddam's Ministry of Religion.

In a gesture of reconciliation, al-Kadar was accompanied to the shrine by Abdul Majid al-Khoei, a high-ranking Shiite cleric and son of one of the religion's most prominent ayatollahs, or spiritual leaders. He had just returned a week ago from exile in London to help restore order after the city was liberated by U.S. troops.

When the two men appeared at the shrine, members of another faction loyal to a different mullah, Mohammed Baqer al-Sadr, verbally assailed al-Kadar.

"Al-Kadar was an animal," said Adil Adnan al-Moussawi, 25, who witnessed the confrontation.

Apparently feeling threatened, al-Khoei pulled a gun and fired one or two shots. There were conflicting accounts over whether he fired the bullets into the air, or in the crowd.

Both men were then rushed by the crowd and hacked to death with swords and knives, the witnesses said.

This looks to be a story that will need to be watched - I'll update further when I get more information.  I suspect, however, that both this kind of violence - and note that the reported victims of the killings were both supported by the US - and this kind of confusion is something that, sadly, may become more commonplace as the we go forward from here.

The measure of success

Since the reported fall of Baghdad yesterday, I've seen many people go into a "gloat" mode, bragging about how the war is over, all the anti-war "naysayers" have been proven wrong, and the whole thing has been a great success.  I disagree.  The first phase of the war may be done, but the war - in full - has a ways to go. 

As for saying that those who opposed the war having been "proven wrong", it has to be understood that nothing has truly changed in terms of why we opposed the war in the first place.  Few, if any, of us were against the war because they thought Saddam would win.  There has never been any serious doubt that we would succeed in pushing him from power.  And while freedom for the Iraqi people - if it truly works out to be that - is an incredibly good outcome, this isn't a case of the ends justifying the means. 

The Bush administration promoted the war under false pretenses, claiming they were willing to give diplomacy a chance, when it is clear that they never intended for any diplomatic outcome to succeed.  The rationale for the war kept changing.  We still don't know the real reason Bush wanted this war so badly.  There were options other than armed aggression that would have helped deal with the issues of whether or not Saddam had biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and with achieving the freedom for the Iraqi people.  To date, there has been no solid - or even credible - evidence of any ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, in spite of the many claims to the contrary from Colin Powell and others in the Bush administration.  

The war was sold to us with lies, false 'evidence', insinuations, shifting goals and phoney 'diplomatic' efforts.  These things will not change - they cannot change - and as such, those who opposed the war cannot be "proven" to be wrong.  Whether the war is right or wrong is not a matter of absolute truth - it is a matter of opinion, and opinions can't truly be proven one way or the other.

So, has the war "worked"?  Is it a "success"?  Those are questions that can't be answered right away.  There are still pockets of Fedayeen and Republican guards, who are loyal to Saddam and to his Baath party, who will likely continue fighting, though they will eventually be crushed. Currently, Saddam's regime no longer has control of several areas, including Bahgdad, but it's unclear if his regime has now lost power throughout the entire country (last I heard there was still some fighting going on in various areas).  Even once he has lost total control of the nation, there will still be need for soldiers to help with law enforcement and general peace-keeping for quite a while to come.

Of course, the true measure of whether or not the "liberation" of the Iraqi people has been successful will come when they are able to have their first truly democratic elections, with no interference from us, and are able to establish, run, and maintain their own system of government under a constitution of their choosing, so that it truly reflects their own beliefs, desires, and values.

What happened this week is a step. An important step, but it is certainly not the end of the journey, and it is not a guarantee of success. The Iraqi people must be given the necessary assistance to develop a government and a nation that is appropriate to them, and learn how to run and defend it for themselves. Otherwise, this will never truly be a liberation, rather little more than an occupation.

The other measure of whether or not this war has been a success is something we may not know, in full, for another generation or more. What we have done brings with it the possibility - some would say probability - of having created so much anger and resentment, that it may bring a new generation of soldiers to the al-Qaedas, Hizballas, and Hamases of the world, with their anger focused directly at us.  We may not see that anger right now, but it could be festering beneath the surface, both among Iraqis who have seen their country torn, now, by war, with untold numbers of their friends and families killed - including many who were conscripted - unwillingly - to be soldiers for Saddam and to attack our forces, and among the other Arab nation, who may now be concerned that they will be the next subjects of our bombs.

If things do not go well for the Iraqi people - if we provide them with the same kind of support we've provided to the Afghanis (which is so poor that the Taliban is actually beginning to make a comeback) - the cost will be paid in American blood, and in quantities beyond belief. It was noted, yesterday, that, when the communist governments fell a decade ago, there was great jubulation when the people first realized that they had gained their freedom. But a few months down the road, as the transition to the new governments, the new economies, and the new way of life proved more difficult than many had anticipated, and led to lawlessness and a lack of a sense of security, many wondered if this was truly what freedom was about, and some became a bit nostalgic for the old ways when they at least knew what to expect and felt safer.

Even if we do our best, it is likely that some in Iraq will experience some of these same feelings. They won't necessarily want Saddam's regime back, but they may long for the days when at least they knew what to expect under his control. Those who feel that way are another potential source of soldiers for the terrorists, as they may feel that their old lives were taken from them without their consent.

There are many other costs that we may not be able to see, and, yes, it is possible that things will actually go smoothly, but we don't know that right now. We can't. We're dealing with a situation that is somewhat rare - a people who have lived under great oppression, but who did not throw the shackles of oppression off for themselves; an outside force came in to remove the oppressor - and now these people are faced with an uncertain future being guided by a country that, at many points, had been considered an enemy.

Has the war been a success? Only time will truly tell, and we may not know the answer for many years.

The statue is down

For most of the last hour, I've been watching the Iraqis, with the help of the Marines, tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein.  I'm sure if you watch any news today, you'll get to see at least part of it, as I have a feeling it's going to be repeated often. 

It was interesting to see the whole thing, though.  Starting with a rope noose and a sledge hammer, some of the Iraqis were trying to pull or pound it down.  After a bit, a Marine tank recovery vehicle was brought over.  As the Marines climed up to hook their gear up to the statue, one of them took an American flag up and used it to cover Saddam's face.  Fairly quickly, someone apparently told the Marine to take the American flag down, and shortly thereafter an old Iraqi flag (one without the Arabic writing Saddam had added to it) was taken up and hung from the statue.  They then proceeded to yank the statue down, at which time the Iraqis pounding and jumping on it.   Good for them.

The start of the fall of Baghdad (I hope)

I'm writing this in 'real time' as I'm watching news right now...

MSNBC and CNN are reporting the fall of Baghdad, complete with pictures of jubuliant Iraqis (getting ready to pull down a statue of Saddam) and Kurds.  Given the many reports of the falling of Umm Qasr and Basra (and later retractions), I sincerely hope that this is not premature.  From the pictures on the screen, though, it looks to be real. 

John Seigenthaler and Tim Russert on MSNBC have noted a couple of times now that people should keep in mind that this is not a time for gloating - and to keep in mind that there is still a very long road ahead to establish order and help set up a new democracy with the Iraqi people.

Right now I'm watching a number of Iraqi's trying to topple a statue of Saddam from the heart of Baghdad.  It's a very touching sight, strongly reminiscent of the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe a decade ago.

Tim Russert made another excellent point that I hope people will keep in mind.  Right now, they're celebrating - just as they did when the symbols of Communism fell - but in the former Communist countries, within a few months, the people were unsure if freedom was really such a good thing because of the difficulty of the transition to a new government, including periods of anarchy.  Many felt that, while under the old government, they didn't have as many freedoms, at least there was some sense of order and security.  The Iraqis may also face such a period in their future, and I seriously hope that we will be there to help them get through it.

The war is not done, however.  There are still battles going on in parts of Baghdad, and areas where there are Iraqis - including Fedayeen - who are willing to fight against our troops.

Dick Cheney has just come begun speaking - he is recognizing the soldiers who have died, and speaking also about Michael Kelley and David Bloom.  He also acknowledged the foreign journalists who have died.  (The focus on the journalists makes sense since he is speaking to a group of newspaper editors.)  MSNBC's screen title is now referring to this as a "partial capture" of Baghdad.  Cheney is pointing out that there is still much work to be done.  He also is taking time to point out that the retired generals who were "embedded in TV studios" had criticized the plan but now the "wisdom" of the plan is becoming more and more apparent.   After spending some time talking about all the high tech tools used in this war, he is now providing a comparison between Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In the pictures that they're showing, a large portrait of Saddam is now on fire, and the Iraqis who are trying to pull down the statue have recruited a tank to help them - not having gotten very far with ropes and sledge hammers.

Cheney is reminding everyone that we cannot afford to be overconfident and that we should not underestimate the forces who remain who are loyal to Saddam's regime.  He says that the worst may still be ahead.

Col. Jack Jacobs (US Army, Ret.), speaking on MSNBC, notes that we may not have sufficient force in the Baghdad area to fully control the city, which may be a problem, but he does feel it is a surmountable one.

Watching this, I cannot deny that if we can achieve TRUE freedom for the Iraqi people, that would be a very good thing.  I do not, however, believe that the ends justify the means, and I think that we could have found other ways to achieve the same results without having to kill so many Americans and Iraqis - civilians and soldiers alike.

Index to "Baths to Baptisms" posts

I've noticed that over the last couple of days I've received a number of hits from people looking for information on Lt. Josh Llano, the chaplain who has been offering baths in exchange for baptisms.  I thought to make it easier, since I've written several posts on the subject, I'd make a little index to the different posts:

• Baths for Baptism - My original post and link to the article


• Letter to the Chief of Army Chaplains


• More on the baths for baptisms - Comments on some of the criticisms made about concern over the chaplains actions


• SBC disapproves of "baths for baptism" scheme - A comment from the Southern Baptist Convention's Military Chaplaincy Associate in regards to Chaplain Llano's actions.

Thanks for taking the time to stop by, and I hope you'll find other posts of interest as well :) Please feel free to leave any comments in the comment section - I'm interesting in your thoughts as well!

Taliban making a comeback in Afghanistan?

I don't understand how we can justify the way we've ignored Afghanistan since having overthrowing the Taliban government.  We made promises to the Afghani people - just as we're now making promises to the Iraqis - and yet there are now reports that the Taliban is regrouping and working to be able to take over Afghanistan once again.  An Associated Press article notes that:

The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away."

[...] From safe havens in neighboring Pakistan, aided by militant Muslim groups there, the Taliban launched their revival to coincide with the war in Iraq and capitalize on Muslim anger over the U.S. invasion, say Afghan officials.

Karzai said the Taliban are allied with rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, supported by Pakistan and financed by militant Arabs.

The attacks have targeted foreigners and the threats have been directed toward Afghans working for international organizations.

Abdul Salam is a military commander for the government. Last month he was stopped at a Taliban checkpoint in the Shah Wali Kot district of Kandahar and became a witness to the killing of Munguia, a 39-year-old water engineer from El Salvador.

Last I heard, we still considered Pakistan at least nominally an ally, and yet there is apparent evidence that they are cooperating with the Taliban in their struggle to regain power in Afghanistan. 

I really don't have a lot to say on this one - I'm just flabberghasted that not only did we abandon the Afghanistanis just like we did the Iraqis after Gulf War I, but now we find that the regime we went in to overthrow is not only trying to make comeback, but they're doing it with the help of one of our so-called allies!  And this isn't just any regime, either.  The Taliban was instrumental in helping Osama bin Laden escape after the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks and there's never been any real question that they have supported al-Qaeda. Yet we're putting all of our time and energy into Iraq.

We clearly owe the Afghanistani people our support and protection.  I would have no qualms about sending more troops into Afghanistan to help maintain the peace while the country rebuilds and a new, democratic government gains the strength it needs to stand on its own. I just hope the Bush administration decides to do something before the Taliban can take over again.  That would be a tragedy of inhuman proportions.

SBC disapproves of "baths for baptism" scheme

A LiveJournaler wrote to the Southern Baptist Convention regarding the "baths for baptisms" chaplain, and received a prompt response.  David Mullis, the Military Chaplaincy Associate, responded that "...the practiced described is totally out of line with normal chaplaincy practice as wells [sic] as that of Southern Baptist practice. The practice is neither theologically or ethically sound nor is it taught or expected as a practice to follow."  (A copy of the letter sent to Rev. Mullis and his reponse are both available at the above link.)

While the SBC doesn't necessarily have control over Chaplain Llano or what he does, it is heartening to see the denomination he claims to represent does not support his actions.  (And it's also good to see such a quick reponse from them).  Hopefully, their disapproval of the way he's behaving will help Chaplain Llano see that what he's doing is unethical and he'll stop of his own accord.

More on the baths for baptisms

I've read several posts on other sites about the chaplain offering baths for baptisms.  One frequent criticism of the anger at what he's doing is that he is doing the job of a chaplain - helping convert new souls to Christ, and that he's providing a religous service to those who want it.  And its true that if someone wants to be baptized, he is there to provide it, though chaplains are supposed to provide spiritual aid to all soldiers, regardless of their spiritual path.

I've also seen arguments that the pool is probably intended to be a baptismal pool and not a place for bathing, and it's appropriate to restrict its use to those who are being baptized.  I might be willing to buy that argument, were it not for the fact that the chaplain made it clear that he has no problem offering bribes to get people to agree to baptism, and that he knows the soldiers desire for a bath is a motivation.

One of the first quotes in the article is ''It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized,'' he said.  It doesn't take an special spin to see that he's making the use of the water a quid pro quo for the baptism.   Interestingly, on a message board where my posts below have been quoted, one of the posters interpreted the above statement this way:

MY interpretation of the chaplain's statement:  "I am an Army chaplain, and my job is to offer spiritual guidance and to baptize newly converted Christians out here on the front lines.  If one chooses to become a Christian, one may be baptized here in the Baptismal pool.  AS an Army chaplain, I will baptize newly converted Christians by immersing them in this baptismal pool, as that is the way  Baptisms are performed for newly converted Christians, but I am not running a public bathhouse, and it is NOT my job to provide a bath for every soldier in this here Army, no matter how dirty they are.  I am a cleanser of souls, not dusty bodies." 

That's an interesting sentiment, but a plain reading of the chaplain's own words really doesn't support that.  As he said, it's simple.  He has something they want, and he has a condition upon which he'll give it to them - genuine spiritual desire doesn't appear to factor into it.

This is also supported later in the article, when the chaplain says: ''Regardless of their motives,'' Llano said, ``I get the chance to take them closer to the Lord.''   This seems pretty plain to me - it doesn't matter to him if the soldier is there for a spiritual cleansing or a physical one, as long as he has the chance to try and convert them. 

The part that cinches it for me, though,  that he truly is using the prospect of baths as a bribe to get people to be baptized, and not that he is simply offering the rite of baptism to those who want it, is the way he responded to the reporter's question about what he'll do when the portable showers that are on their way to Iraq arrive.  Keep in mind, the only reason the portable showers should have any impact on what he is doing is if he is, in fact, using the idea of a bath as a lure to get someone into his sermons and baptismal ceremony.  Otherwise, the showers would have no impact whatsoever on what he's doing, since you don't use showers for baptisms.

Earlier this week, word went out that portable showers might be installed here soon, but Llano was undaunted.

''There is no fruit out here, and I have a stash of raisins, juice boxes and fruit rolls to pull out,'' the chaplain said optimistically.

How does he respond?  By listing other items he has available to use as bribes once the prospect of a bath isn't that big of a draw anymore.

Were I still a Christian, I'd be still be outraged by his actions.  He is trivializing the rite of baptism by bestowing it upon people who may well not be sincere in their "acceptance" of Christ and who are just using it as a bargaining chip to get something else they want - be it a bath, raisins, juice or fruit rolls.  It should means something more to the person than that - and the chaplain should want it to mean more than that. The ministry is more than just a numbers game, and to treat it as such takes the focus away from Christ and His relationship with the individual, and puts it on the minister and his "success" in making converts.

All of this, along with his failing in the basic chaplaincy requirement of providing spiritual services to soldiers of all faiths, are why I feel so strongly that what he is doing is wrong and needs to be stopped. 

Letter to the Chief of Army Chaplains

A copy of my letter to Major General Gunhus regarding the "Baths for Baptisms" situation:

Major General Gunhus,

Today I read an article in the Miami Herald [ http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/5554317.htm ] that claims an Army chaplain named Josh Llano has control over a 500 gallon pool, which he allows our soldiers to use for bathing, but only if they first listen to an hour-and-a-half long sermon and then agree to be baptized.  Given the current  conditions of battle, many soldiers are reportedly desperate enough for a bath that they agree to his conditions.

It is my understanding that an Army chaplain is supposed to be "[s]ensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army," according to the requirements for being a chaplain as posted on the Army Chaplian section of the goarmy.com website. [ http://chaplain.goarmy.com/chapl101/chapl02.htm ].  Obviously, if Chaplain Llano is coercing soldiers to undergo a religious conversion to his own personal faith in order to allows them access to a bath, he is not being at all sensitive to religious pluralism or providing for the free exercise of religion.

Admittedly, there are a couple of questions about the story - such as why, in the middle of a water shortage, does a chaplain have access to a 500-gallon pool of water, and how he keeps the water clean after allowing the soldiers to bathe, but I cannot imagine any reason why a reasonably reputable newspaper, such as the Miami Herald, would make up such a story.  If it is true, however, as I suspect it is, this is a complete and intolerable outrage, and chaplain Llano must immediately be ordered to stop using such coercive tactics and allow soldiers free use of his pool, regardless of their religious affiliation.

The freedom to follows one's own conscious in regards to what spiritual path an individual chooses to walk is one of the fundamental freedoms that the country was founded upon. Individual spirituality is more than just an important liberty, however, it is also something that is deeply personal, and upon which a person depends in times of trial and crisis.  I cannot imagine a more trying time for a person than to be involved in a difficult and controversial war in a foreign land with all of the uncertainty which that implies.  Now, more than ever, is a time our soldiers need to be able to rely upon their own personal faith in whatever they've chosen to believe in, and to be able to receive support from the Army's chaplains which meets their needs - not the needs or desires of the chaplain him- or herself. 

It is my hope and my request that you will take IMMEDIATE action to put an end to Chaplain Llano's tactics and remind him of his obligation to the men and women of our Armed Services - to provide spiritual support to them that respects their personal beliefs and right to the free exercise of their chosen spiritual path.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Baths for Baptism

From the requirements for being an Army Chaplain:

1. c. Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.

From the Miami Herald:

CAMP BUSHMASTER, Iraq - In this dry desert world near Najaf, where the Army V Corps combat support system sprawls across miles of scabrous dust, there's an oasis of sorts: a 500-gallon pool of pristine, cool water.

It belongs to Army chaplain Josh Llano of Houston, who sees the water shortage, which has kept thousands of filthy soldiers from bathing for weeks, as an opportunity.

''It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized,'' he said.

[...] First, though, the soldiers have to go to one of Llano's hour-and-a-half sermons in his dirt-floor tent. Then the baptism takes an hour of quoting from the Bible.

''Regardless of their motives,'' Llano said, ``I get the chance to take them closer to the Lord.''

Link via Atrios

If anyone knows how (1) an Army chaplain got a hold of 500 gallons of water during a shortage and (2) how he keeps the water "pristine", I'd love to know.  Despite those questions, however, I tend to believe that this story is true. I can't think of any reason a paper like the Miami Herald, which, in my experience, is a resonably reputable source, would make up something like this, and its not the kind of a story that is going to do much besides engender anger at the specific chaplain involved.  It might be the kind of thing that would anger Muslims if they were to read it, but I'm not sure that many Iraqis have access to the Miami Herald. 

Of course, if this chaplain were of any religion other than Christianity and forcing soldiers to convert before allowing them access to his bathing pool, there would be an uproar of immense proportions and the chaplian would be relieved of duty post haste.

I have to wonder, though, do soldiers who are already Christian have to go through the sermon and baptism as well?  Or does he just not let them get clean since there's no conversion to be had?

If this story is true, this is a complete outrage.  He is taking advantage of our soldiers need for hygine to force them into a religous act. Whether their conversions are genuine or not, the fact that he is using this kind of coersion is intolerable. 

If I can figure out who to contact to express just how intolerable this is, I'll post the information here.  If anyone else knows already, please leave a note in the comments on who to contact and how.  Thanks!

UPDATE:  One of Atrios' readers found the following information for contacting the Army Chief of Chaplains:

Chief of Chaplains
Maj. Gen.Gaylord T. Gunhus
gunhugt@occh-nt.army.mil

Deputy Chief of Chaplains
Brig. Gen. David H. Hicks
hicksd@occh-nt.army.mil

http://134.11.73.3/infoltr/january2001.htm

Toxin/training camp update

Yesterday, I posted an entry about the possbility that toxic chemicals had been found in an Ansar al-Islam training camp, and noted that it was likely that those who support the war would try to claim that this proves that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass distruction.  I also noted that there have been attempts to link Ansar al-Islam to both Saddam Hussein and to al-Qaeda, thus "proving" that Saddam and al-Qaeda are working together. 

Spinsanity has a column about the "Myths and misconceptions about the war in Iraq", part of which addresses this very issue:

Evidence found at the Ansar Al-Islam camp ties Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.

On March 31, coalition forces raided the camp of Ansar Al-Islam, an extremist Islamic group based in Iraqi Kurdistan that is allegedly affiliated with Al Qaeda. After the raid, coalition leaders claimed to have found evidence demonstrating a link between the two groups. However, the Associated Press story about the raid specifically states that "there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained."

Nonetheless, Rush Limbaugh simply asserted that the evidence found demonstrates an Al Qaeda-Iraq link, arguing that the very existence of the group in the Kurdish part of northern Iraq proves that Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda. The fact is, however, that Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq have been outside of Saddam's control since 1991 and that his possible knowledge of activities there is not in itself proof of anything. Rather than even making an argument to this effect, the Union Leader in New Hampshire brazenly headlined the AP story "HAVEN FOR TERROR: U.S.-led raid reveals Saddam's al-Qaida ties," ignoring the contradictory conclusion in the text below.

I had also noted that there had been a discovery of several vials of white powder that some thought might be the elusive chemical and biological weapons that Saddam has been hiding.  Since then, analysis has shown that the powder is a conventional explosive.

A story as clear as mud.

Today's Washington Post is running an article on the rescue of Pfc. Jessica Lynch that states she suffered multiple gunshot wounds and had been stabbed, but still kept firing until she ran out of ammunition and was taken captive.

In contract, ABC News reports that, according to Pfc. Lynch's father, she was neither shot nor stabbed.  He noted that the doctor had not seen any such wounds.

Of course, as the Post said in their article, "[s]everal officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed."

Obviously.

Perspective

The Better Rhetor has put together a very sobering piece, intertwining words from President Bush with an email from an American volunteer there to serve as a witness to what is happening.  Here is an excerpt, but I strongly advise reading the entire thing.

The actions we are taking . . . are making this nation more secure. And the actions that we are taking abroad against the terror network and against the regime in Iraq are removing a grave danger to all free nations. In every case, by acting today we are saving countless lives in the future.

---

An elderly woman, Fatima, had fallen in fear during the bombing and fractured her hip. She had already had surgery for the hip, but her ankle too is in a cast and her knee is wounded. Mohammed her husband said We are not the enemy or against you. We love freedom for everyman, for every human in the world. Bush is not human. He is the enemy against humanity.

War timeline

Reyvan has a very nice Flash presentation on the events leading up to the war - pointing out that Osama bin Laden's goal has been to unite the Islamic counties and peoples against the United States, and noting that the way the Bush administration is prosecuting this war seems to be helping Osama reach his goal.  Even for people familar with the timeline, I would recommend this presentation as a good reminder of what has happened and just what the stakes are.

Sign a note for the troops

The Department of Defense has created a "war news" site.  Now, since it's a mouthpiece for the DoD, I tend to be a bit skeptical of the news posted there, but they do have one nice feature:  A "thank you" note for the troops that you can add your name to.  The message will then be presented to the soldiers.  I don't know if anyone would be interested in participating or not, but I thought I'd mention it, just in case.

Yeesh!

If this isn't an indication of just how incompetent the planning for this war has been.....

Despite the desert conditions of the Iraqi campaign, many American soldiers are sporting deep-green combat fatigues. Why are some troops donning woodland camouflage?

According to published reports, the Pentagon simply goofed by not anticipating the demand for sand-colored desert fatigues... [Slate]

...but you did promise me a rose garden

We frequently hear from the pro-war advocates that protesting the war will demoralize our troops, making it more dangerous for them to be in the middle of the war.  I can see where this might be true - were it not for the effort that anti-war forces have put into assuring our soldiers that our disagreement is with the purpose of the war, not with the men and women who have been sent to fight it. 

I have to wonder, though, if the unreasonably optimistic view painted by the government in the months leading up to the war hasn't had a demoralizing effect of its own?  Granted, it is possible that things may change and show that the predictions made by Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and others weren't overly optimistic at all, but I, for one, doubt that will be the case.  Unless things change, however, our nation's warriors are currently fighting a fierce battle they were told would likely be easy, and facing anger and resistance from people they were told would be welcoming them as joyous throngs throwing flowers in the streets and waiving flags.  What could be more demoralizing than that?  To think that you are going into a battle to free an oppressed people only to find they don't necessarily want your help?

Ari Fleischer is now trying to say that Bush was "upfront" with us about the prospects for the war, and, in that kind of twisted way politicians have, that may well be true.  Bush, himself, said little about how he thought the war might go - he was more insistant on pressing his believe that it simply must go.  Yet others in the administration weren't nearly as cautious.  On the Sunday before the war began, Dick Cheney went on the Sunday talk shows and promoted his belief that the war would be over quickly.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be "weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of complications that you can't anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops." Cheney also predicted the fight would "go relatively quickly, but we can't count on that." That same day on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney said, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Cheney has spoken that way for months.

Cheney, of course, wasn't the only one promoting an optimistic view:

• 
  
  Vice Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf: "The campaign will be unlike any we have ever seen in the history of warfare, with breathtaking precision, almost eye-watering speed, persistence, agility and lethality."
  
  He also noted that the the war as "a short, extremely intense period of combat operations using a full range of U.S. and coalition forces. This phase will eliminate any significant organized resistance to U.S. coalition forces and will end the current regime."
  
  


• 
  
  Richard Perle also had his own comments on the matter, saying that "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder."
  
  Perle also predicted that only 10% of the Iraqi army would be loyal to Saddam and that the war "will be quicker and easier than many people think. He is far weaker than many people realize."

With the President having generally stayed silent on the issue of how long the war might last or how difficult it would be, these optimistic statements were the main "official" words we - and our soldiers - heard from the administration.  A current CBS News poll, 55% of those surveyed feel that we have underestimated the Iraqi forces and their resolve.  On 37% thought our estimation was accurate.

It's bad enough when the government misleads us on the prospects of how a war will go in order to make people more willing to accept the idea (short, quick, easy wars being far easier to sell than a longer, more drawn-out conflict), but when they do so in such a way that leads our soldiers to also believe that they will be welcomed by joyous civilians as "liberators" puts it into an entirely different category. 

Divine Intervention?

"The storm is from God," he said, looking out his trembling window. "Until the aggression started, never in my life did I see a storm like this. We all believe in God, we all have faith in God. And God is setting obstacles against the Americans." [Washington Post]

Our President believes that his divine purpose is to rid the world of Saddam Hussein (and probably anyone else he believes is a terrorist), and that God chose him to lead the nation at this time in history.  He also believes that God is on "our side" in the war. 

Now Iraqis are wondering if maybe God isn't on "their side" - and is now helping them out by sending an intense sandstorm to interfere with our ability to wage this war effectively. 

Maybe one of the embedded reporters will get a chance to find out where God is currently staying and ask him about it. 

Moore on the War

For those who missed it, here is Michael Moore's acceptance speech from the Oscars tonight.  I don't always agree with Moore, and I can't say that I take everything he says or presents in his films at face value, but I did like what he had to say tonight, and wanted to share it.

Whoa. On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this. I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.

Shifting allegiances?

Earlier today, I commented on the shifting list of the "Coalition of the Willing" and asked if we even know who our supposed partners are in this war.  Turns out that might actually be a fair question.  According to Salon, some of the countries we have listed as members of the coalition are speaking out against the war.

Even those nominally included in the coalition are bashing the war, however much President Bush thanks them for their support. Portugal was added to the coalition list on Thursday, but somebody forgot to send the country's president the talking points. "Given that there is no mandate from the United Nations, ... Portugal will not form part of the military coalition which will be built up," Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio said on Wednesday, according to Agence France-Presse. "We will, however, allow our allies transit rights, just as other countries have done, including some which have expressed strong opposition to any military action against Iraq."

On Wednesday, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher had moved Portugal, Singapore and Bulgaria from the column of those that didn't want to be named to those in the Coalition of the Willing. "This is not something one can do an accounting every day," Boucher said. "I'm not inclined to do a chart or a graph or anything or, you know, color-coded countries."

It might serve him well to do so, though, because Portugal isn't the only State Department-labeled "Willing" country having trouble deciding whether or not it's in the coalition. Angolan Radio Ecclesia reported on Wednesday that all 30 members of the Angolan National Assembly spoke against the war; M.P. Joao Melo said that U.S. behavior was "unilateralist" and "imperialist." Angola -- along with the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Iceland, Kuwait, Mongolia, Portugal, Rwanda, Singapore and Uganda, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands -- was added to the list on Thursday.

"We are not having any kind of involvement," a spokesman for the Eritrean Foreign Ministry said to AFP, while backing the U.S. action. Eritrea is also a member of the Coalition of the Willing.

Flags

In comments on my previous post about the inspiring speech given to the troops of the Royal Irish, Dave noted that upon 'liberating' the port city of Umm Qasr, the first thing the soldiers did was to raise the American flag.  ABC World News Tonight was just reporting on that incident.  The soldiers raised both the American and Marine flags, and - thankfully - their commanders ordered the flags removed and replaced with the Iraqi flag in short order, reminding the troops that they are there to liberate the country, not to take it over.

While I'm glad to see that the commanders took action quickly to remove the inappropriate flag, it's sad that our soldiers don't seem to have gotten the concept that we're not invading in order to "conquer" Iraq.  You'd think that is something they should be well aware of.

More on the coalition count

Yesterday, I posted a list of the (then 43) countries that were part of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" in support of the war on Iraq.  Today, there have been reports that we are now up to 44 or 45 countries, but when asked, the State Department indicated they wouldn't be able to keep issuing new lists or giving updated information as things change, so I have no idea who the new countries are).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
1:50 p.m. EST
BRIEFER:  Richard Boucher, Spokesman

[...] MR. BOUCHER: As far as the coalition goes, the coalition for disarmament of Iraq, the numbers, as the President said more that 35 countries have publicly declared their support. That's true. I'm not going to try to give a daily update or create a bar graph of totals. When we have a sort of another solid list, we'll give it out to you, but it's more than 35. It's still growing. Everyday we hear from new countries who are interested in being listed. Some of those are new, some of those are changes from the unlisted -- I think before I told there were at least 45 countries that we felt were cooperating and supporting this effort. It's easily above 50 now, but we'll give you a new list as soon as we -- it looks fairly safe.

QUESTION: Richard, on that, all you need is to give us two or three names to complete the 35, because we had 33 yesterday.

MR. BOUCHER: More than 35.

QUESTION: Okay. What are the others?

QUESTION: And will they actually back up the President with the names of -- I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I just --

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not -- I don't, again, I, this is something that's been changing. It's hard for me everyday to try to put out a new list or put our three or four more. Some of these things are still being checked. The cables come in at different times. I just don't feel comfortable knocking out two or three names today and two or three tomorrow. We'll give you a list as soon as we can.

QUESTION: So there aren't --

QUESTION: Well, then, (inaudible).

MR. BOUCHER: Because there are. Because we read the wires and we look at what other countries say in public and we see themselves declare -- we see them declare themselves. They are in touch with the other governments. They get in touch directly with us. We want to provide you with the best possible information, but if you have any doubts, I suspect that if you read Reuters Wire Service, for example, you could probably find 35 countries that had already declared in public. [...]

I had also noted that government officials are trying to say that this war's coalition is "greater" than the one in 1991.  The Washington Post had an article today that largely debunks that claim. 

The first Persian Gulf War was prosecuted by a 34-nation military force, with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics. (The list is sometimes reported as 31, because four Persian Gulf states provided a combined force.) Dozens of others nations voiced support for the war against Iraq in 1991, meaning that under the standards used by the current Bush administration, the size of the 1991 coalition likely topped 100 countries.

Moreover, the list of 34 countries in 1991 did not include Japan, which pledged $4 billion to fund the multinational force and aid frontline states; the Soviet Union, which supported a United Nations resolution authorizing force; or tiny Luxembourg, which paid the fees of Dutch and Belgian ships passing through the Suez Canal.

Twenty-one of the 34 countries that contributed forces or materiel to the first Persian Gulf War -- such as France, Syria, Pakistan, Canada, Germany and Norway -- have either refused to support the current conflict or have asked not to be identified because of public opposition to U.S. actions. In 1991, for instance, France provided 17,000 troops, 350 tanks, 38 aircraft and 14 ships. Syria provided 19,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and 270 tanks, and Germany provided five minesweepers, three other ships and eight aircraft.

The administration's current list is further padded by including countries that did not exist in 1991. Six countries now listed as supporters were then part of the Soviet Union. Czechoslovakia, which in 1991 provided 200 troops and 150 medics, has now broken into two countries, both listed as supporters of the current war.

The administration has struggled to demonstrate international support for the war since it failed to win passage of a U.N. resolution authorizing military force. The first Gulf war was backed by a U.N. resolution that was opposed by two members of the 15-member Security Council; the administration earlier this week withdrew a resolution when it became clear it could muster only four votes in support of it.

In internal talking points issued earlier in the week, when the administration claimed 30 countries as public supporters, officials were urged to compare the number of current supporters to the size of the military force assembled in 1991. Yesterday, officials announced the number of countries had topped 44.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said countries on the list "may not be providing a specific resource, or they may just be allowing access, overflight or other participation in that way, or they may just have decided they want to be publicly associated with the effort to disarm Iraq."

I have to admit I find it amusing that we can't even get a basic count of who are "coalition partners" are - the State Department briefing starts with 35, and then as the reporters try to nail down who it is, it's suddenly "easily more than 50", while the Washington Post article holds at 44.  I have to wonder if we even know who our reputed partners are...

'We go to liberate not to conquer'

Jan as Secular Blasphemy posted a excerpt from this speech today, and the BBC posted a longer excerpt.  I could just post the links and leave it at that - but reading it touched me very greatly. 

Too often, it seems that honour is dead, especially in times of conflict, where our modern societies seem given to gloating, and I think it is important for reminders of this nature to be spread far and wide, because there is a wisdom here that is all too rare.  I only hope that our own troops are getting the same kind of message from their leaders:

Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins to the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish

"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country.

We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.

As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.

You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.

You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.

Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.

Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

[...] It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.

I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.

If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please. [...]

Baghdad on fire

Image from ABC.com

Image from MSNBC.com

Image from CNN.com

Shock and Awe

They're showing the Shock & Awe attack on ABC right now - the reporter describing the attack sounds like he's about to lose it - it looks like the entire western side of Baghdad is on fire, and the sound of the bombs is terrifying.  I can't even begin to imagine the carnage this is causing.  They say that the bombs are supposed to be "precision guided" and "carefully targeted", and that 90% of the bombs should accurately hit their mark.  As Peter Jennings said "You have to wonder about that other 10%".

May Thor - the protector and defender of the common man - keep His hand around the innocent citizens of Iraq, who have been so badly abused for so many years - and protect them from the horrors their own leader may inflict, as well as the ones inflicted by ours.

May Odin and Frey - the God and Goddess of war - guard and guide our warriors, and return them home to their families and their lives with speed and safety to a nation grateful for their courage, honour and willingness to sacrifice themselves in the service of this land.

May Frigga - the Great Mother - grant comfort and peace to the families and loved ones of our soldiers, that during this time when fear is great, they will know that their sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and friends are in the care of the Gods.

So mote it be.

The 'Coalition of the Willing'

According to a UPI article, 43 countries have agree to be recognized as part of the "Coalition of the Willing" that George Bush has said is joining the US in the war on Iraq.  The article notes that, while Donald Rumsfeld is portraying this as a larger coalition than that during the 1991 war, that perception is only true when looking at the number of countries involved.  We have gotten more countries to agree to "help" us than we did previously.  In terms of supplying troops or contributing money, however, the levels of "assistance" fall greatly.  There are also reports that there are other countries who are "helping" us, but do not wish to be named or acknowledged. 

Now, see, to me, when a country is taking your side in the war, but doesn't want anyone to know about it, that's a pretty big clue that there's something a bit hinky about the whole war thing....

The countries included as part of the coalition are:

• Afghanistan


• Albania


• Angola


• Australia - contributing 2,000 troops


• Azerbaijan


• Bulgaria


• Colombia


• Czech Republic


• Denmark


• Dominican Republic


• El Salvador


• Eritrea


• Estonia


• Ethiopia


• Honduras


• Hungary


• Iceland


• Italy


• Japan


• Kuwait - Allowing us to station troops there and launch attacks from their land


• Latvia


• Lithuania


• Macedonia


• Marshall Islands


• Micronesia


• Mongolia


• Netherlands


• Nicaragua


• Philippines


• Poland


• Portugal


• Romania


• Rwanda


• Singapore


• Slovakia


• Solomon Islands


• Spain


• South Korea


• Turkey


• Uganda


• United Kingdom - contributing 45,000 troops


• Uzbekistan 

Oh, by the way....

We've been hearing for what seems like ages now that this would be a quick war, and the speed of the war would help minimize the potential for civilian casualties.  Now that the conflict is beginning, however, President Bush has decided it's finally time to let us know the reality of the situation: the war may be "longer and more difficult than some predict."

This really isn't news to many who have been against the war - we've always known that this might not be a quick or easy war, but the pro-war forces have kept insisting that it would be.  I can only hope that we - and now President Bush - are wrong and that it is a quick, easy war.

On the positive side, it doesn't appear that they are trying the "Shock and Awe" approach that had previously been described (300 to 400 bombs on Baghdad on each of the first two days, and, as one Pentagon official put it "There will be no safe place in Baghdad").  Of course, there's no guarantee that they won't resort to that at some point, but at least they have restrained themselves thus far.

Yeah, what he said

From Howard Dean's website - his statement on the war:

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

...and so it begins

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Peace

I wish for peace

Supporting our troops

Salon published an article today about how several groups have planned acts of civil disobedience, to be carried out at roughly the same time the war begins, as a way of protesting the war. 

Some anti-war activists say their efforts will demonstrate support for American soldiers, because the best way to help them is to bring them home. But counter-demonstrators say they, not anti-war protesters, will be voicing genuine solidarity with the troops.

When are people going to realize that neither side has a monopoly on supporting the troops?  I seriously doubt that any rational person, whether they are for or against the war, wants to see our soldiers harmed in any way, or demoralized as they go into battle.  There is a great deal of respect for our soldiers and the fact that they are willing to risk their lives for us, even if we don't agree with the war currently being fought.

I know many people have questioned what "support our troops" means - for me it's the basic recognition that these people are willing to risk death in order to protect our country and what it stands for.  They do not choose where they are sent when time comes for war, nor do they choose what war or wars they have to fight in.  My disagreement with the Bush Administration over the war has nothing to do with how I feel about the soldiers who have to fight there - nor do I think it should. 

During the Vietnam era, soldiers who had returned from the war were treated horribly by people who opposed the war - and between the horrors of the war itself and the rejection and ostricization they faced when they got back, Vietnam Vets have suffered some of the worst mental and emotional problems of any returning vets.  Maybe we now go a bit overboard in wanting to make sure the soldiers themselves know that any anger we express about the war is not directed at them specifically, but I also think it's a good thing, becuase they need to know that.  What they're going to have to face will be difficult enough, there shouldn't have to worry about what kind of reaction will await them when they get back home.

Windowlight Protest

From MoveOn.org:

It now appears that a war may be very close. The Bush administration has abandoned the diplomatic process at the United Nations. The United Nations has begun pulling its inspectors out of Iraq. President Bush has given Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war. This is a very sad day.

We must remember in this dark moment that we have come a long way. By working for peace around the globe, millions of people have successfully challenged the justness of this war on a world stage. We have persuaded governments to heed their peoples' call to peace, and helped the United Nations maintain its integrity. We all have been part of a historic mobilization of the citizens of the globe. It will change everything. And in the end, we will win.

We will continue waging peace, even if war comes. We have joined together to articulate a vision of how the world should be -- of how nations should treat each other, of how we can collectively deal with threats to our security.

One simple way to show your continued commitment to this vision is to put a light in your window. It could be a Christmas string or candle, a light bulb, or a lantern. It's an easy way to keep the light of reason and hope burning, to let others know that they are not alone, and to show the way home to the young men and women who are on their way to Iraq.

We'd like to keep a list of the places and people who are joining in this simple act. Please sign up now at: http://www.moveon.org/windowlight/

War justifications as a multiple-guess test

From Eschaton:

Dick Cheney, on Meet the Press. From penalcolony in comments: 1. Saddam will try to get nuclear weapons: "I think that would be the fear here, that even if [Saddam] were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power, we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues, he will be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program." -- Cheney, three or four minutes into Meet the Press, 3/16/03 2. Saddam is now trying to get nuclear weapons: "We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons . . ." -- Cheney, less than two minutes later 3. Saddam has succeeded in getting nuclear weapons: "He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Cheney, less than two minutes later 4. It's only a matter of time until Saddam succeeds in getting nuclear weapons: "We’re now faced with a situation, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, where the threat to the United States is increasing. And over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons." -- Cheney, less than two minutes later

Talk about weaving tangled webs....  At least one, if not more, of those statements must be lies, since there are unresolvable contradictions between them.  I wonder if Cheney even knows which is which...

A view from Baghdad

An excellent rant from "Where is Raed", a blogger living in Baghdad.  Here's a taste - be sure to read the whole thing:

I think that the coming war is not justified (and it is very near now, we hear the war drums loud and clear if you don’t then take those earplugs off!). The excuses for it have been stretched to their limits they will almost snap. A decision has been made sometime ago that “regime change” in Baghdad is needed and excuses for the forceful change have to be made. I do think war could have been avoided, not by running back and forth the last two months, that’s silly. But the whole issue of Iraq should have been dealt with differently since the first day after GW I.

The entities that call themselves “the international community” should have assumed their responsibilities a long time ago, should have thought about what the sanctions they have imposed really meant, should have looked at reports about weapons and human rights abuses a long time before having them thrown in their faces as excuses for war five minutes before midnight.

What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could “support democracy in Iraq” become to mean “bomb the hell out of Iraq”? why did it end up that democracy won’t happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.

Petitioning the UN

This is a letter I sent a short time ago to the members of the United Nations in a last-ditch effort to see if anything can still be done to stop this war.  There is a site called the "Emergency Kit to Stop the War" that offers information on the UN Resolution (377) that authorises them to use UN Peacekeeping troops to stop a permanent Security Council member from being the aggressor in a war.  While a lot of the information cited on the site strikes me as a bit loopy (such as suggesting that people appeal to the UN using ideas such as the Bush families close ties to the Nazis during WWII or that research shows that the attacks at the WTC were an "inside job" in line with the early-60's plans for Operation Northwoods), they DO have a copyable list of e-mail addresses for the UN ambassadors and many English-language media outlets in the US and around the world.  In writing my letter, I chose not to mention the organization that sponsors the page. 

I doubt the UN will even discuss the use of Peacekeeping troops to prevent Bush from going to war, but its one of those things I figured couldn't hurt to at least try - especially if others are trying to send the same message.  There has to be at least a bit of hope up until the bombs start falling.

To the members of the United Nations:

As an American citizen, I am ashamed of the way the American government is handling the situation with Iraq. While I do not, in any way, shape or form, support Saddam Hussein, his regime or the way that he has handled this current crisis, and while I would like to see Iraq be free from his "leadership", I cannot condone or support the way George W. Bush has decided to go about removing him from power.

Since I am neither a diplomat nor a military leader, I don't know how best to resolve this situation, but bombing Baghdad and risking the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and the soldiers sent in to fight this war simply cannot be the best answer there is.  Had Mr. Bush been willing to give diplomacy serious (or any) consideration and to allow the peace process to work, I think a real solution could have been found. 

I understand that under Resolution 377, the General Assembly has the power and ability to call up UN Peacekeeping troops and use them to prevent a permanent member of the Security Council from being the aggressor in a war. While Mr. Bush has attempted to present this as a necessary war to make the United States more secure and to prevent Iraq from being able to attack us, either on their own or by providing aid and weapons to a terrorist organization, I am not convinced that Iraq is a serious threat to the US or, for that matter, to other countries outside the Middle East.  Additionally, at this time, there are no indication that they have any plans or desires to invade or otherwise attack any countries in their immediate vicinity. As such, I do not - and cannot - believe that attack and invasion are justified responses to the concerns about Iraq and its weapons capabilities.

Please understand, I love my country, and I cannot bear to see what it is turning into under this current administration.  I am asking you for help in preventing this great nation from becoming the next international pariah and threat to world peace. I hope that this proposal will be given serious consideration, and that the UN will not allow itself to be intimidated by the new aggressiveness that the US is displaying.  So far, I, and other Americans who, like me, oppose the war, have been unable to get the government to listen.  So have the millions from around the world who have made their opposition to this war known.  It seem that Mr. Bush only speaks the language of violence and considers himself and the US government to be above the rules that govern the rest of the world.  The UN needs to step in and remind him that, even though we may be a large, powerful country, we are still a part of the international community and need to work within that framework, rather than playing the 'lone cowboy' out to be a hero.

The end of the line for diplomacy

IN THE Azores and on Washington talk shows, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made clear that it was too late for Iraq to disarm, too late for further weapons inspections and too late for more diplomacy to get the world to support the U.S. casus belli. Although they are giving the United Nations another day to agree with the American position, Bush and his lieutenants made clear that was mere symbolism. The only means to avoid war, they said, was Hussein’s exile.

“Saddam can leave the country, if he’s interested in peace,” the president said. “He got to decide whether he was going to disarm, and he didn’t. He can decide whether he wants to leave the country.”  [MSNBC]

In other words, within the next few days, we will be at war.  We will be raining bombs on Baghdad.  The men and women in our voluntary armed forces will be at risk - at great risk.  Of course, so will we - the civilian population of the US.  The CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Agency has told us that attacking Iraq will increase the liklihood of terrorist attacks on American targets both here, in the states, and abroad.

Counting down...

One more "last chance":

March 16 — Calling Monday a “moment of truth for the world,” President Bush pressed one last time for Iraq’s disarmament during an emergency summit with the leaders of Spain and Britain in the Azores islands on Sunday. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who just hours before the meeting placed his country on war footing, responded to the allies, saying it is a “great lie” that his country still has banned weapons.

AT A JOINT press conference at the end of the brief meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, Bush said the world must support the “immediate and unconditional” disarmament of Saddam Hussein.

“Tomorrow is the day we will determine if diplomacy can work,” Bush said. “These are his decisions to make and thus far he has made bad decisions.”

How Bush can claim that "tomorrow" they will decide if diplomacy can work, when he obviously determined before any of this really began that it wouldn't, is beyond me - but this is man who seems to be chronically allergic to the truth, so it's certainly no surprise.

Once diplomacy was exhausted, officials said, Bush would address the nation, issuing a final ultimatum to Saddam and giving aid workers and others time to leave Iraq.

Clever

TBOGG has come up with the perfect name for the upcoming war with Iraq:

Operation Inigo Montoya

"My name is George W. Bush.  You tried to kill my father.  Prepare to die."

ROFL

Upcoming global candlelight vigil for peace

I really wish I could participate in this...  if anyone is going, please take an extra candle for me?

As of noon EST today (Friday), there are over 3,000 vigils planned in 100 countries.  Tens of thousands -- if not  hundreds of thousands -- will be participating on Sunday.

 

You can still sign up for a vigil in your area at: http://www.globalvigil.org

 

The Global Vigil is endorsed by Nobel Peace Laureate  Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who recently said:

"On Sunday evening people in every corner of the globe will shine beacons of light throughout the world.  May our candles rekindle the light of reason and hope so that war will be averted in Iraq and peace will prevail in the world."

Please sign up today.

New York City issues resolution opposing war except as last resort

From Newsday.com:

NEW YORK (AP) _ The City Council in the place hit hardest by the Sept. 11 attacks approved a resolution Wednesday opposing war with Iraq except as a last resort.

The 31-17 vote came after months of debate over whether New York should stake out a position.

"If we're going to be looking for a fight, let's fight poverty, let's fight firehouse closures, let's fight racism and sexism," said Yvette Clarke, a Democrat who supported the resolution.

Recent polls show that 75 percent of New Yorkers oppose a war without the support of the United Nations.

Like every other form of protest that has been displayed in this country, this will probably have no effect on Bush's push for a war. It's still heartening, however, to see cities taking a stand to let our erstwhile leaders know what they're thinking.

As the article points out, New York City was the place hardest hit by