From McClatchy:

This is how the residents of Haditha recall that day: U.S. Marines were apparently bent on revenge after a roadside bomb killed one of their own. They killed four unarmed men and an unarmed taxi driver. Then they threw grenades and entered two homes. In the Younes' household, they killed eight people, including two toddlers, a 5-year-old and a mother recovering from an appendectomy.

In an adjacent home, they killed seven people, including a 4-year-old and two women, according to death certificates and one of the children who survived. Across the street, residents of two houses shared by a family were pulled out. The men were separated from the women as the Marines asked them about weapons.

Family members said they had one AK-47 in each house, which Iraqi law allows. The Marines forced the women and children into one house at gunpoint, then took four brothers to a back bedroom and executed them, the family said.

Yousef Aid Ahmed was not at home when the killing occurred. He is now the sole breadwinner for his mother and extended family.

His father became ill after the shootings, and later, the family said, went blind from grief. Ailing, he lingered in a small bedroom where his sons were killed. One was gunned down to the left of the bed, a second to the right. The third man's body wound up inside a closet and the fourth was propped against the wardrobe. Despite a fresh coat of paint, the ceiling still bears grey spots where the men's blood spattered. They were all shot in the head.

The relatives seldom go into this room.

The Marines told a different story. Lt. Col. Paul J. Ware, an investigating officer with the Navy Marine Corps Trial Judiciary gave this account: Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, a Marine who acknowledged killing three of the brothers, told investigators that the four brothers were holed up in a back bedroom where the Marines later found two AK-47s. Ware wrote in the report that the evidence made the Iraqi's story implausible and their accounts were inconsistent.

The report didn't say whether there was any evidence that the AK-47s were fired. The report also implied that the family may have made up their story for the $10,000 in compensation for the deaths of civilians and that their credibility should be questioned because they were women and a teenager.

"Witness accounts are not credible," the report said about the case of one Marine accused of killing three of the brothers. "Although $10,000 does not appear to be a large amount of money...such a sum of money was equal to 4 times the average annual salary of a typical resident of Haditha. Prior to making these claims, no payments were made to the Ahmed family."

Relatives said they accepted the money after authorities told them it would help the case. Now they wish they'd never taken the cash.

"Right now I feel hatred that will not fade," said Yousef Aid Ahmed. "It grows every day."

As the McClatchy article explains, it increasingly appears that nothing will happen to the Marines that participated in the Haditha massacre. Someday, the Iraqis will liberate themselves from the predations of the occupation. One can only hope that it happens sooner rather than later.

Labels: "Support the Troops", American Empire, Haditha, Iraqi Deaths, Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq

The US is seeking to procure the approval of the Iraqi-American security agreement by any means necessary:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq's foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq's funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq's independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new "strategic alliance" with the United States.

As Brecht or Trotsky would say, this is global gangsterism, pure and simple. It is also important to recall that the security agreement, an agreement that would establish permanent American control over Iraq, is just one piece of a larger puzzle. The US is also aggressively pushing the Iraqi government to agree to the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry on terms favorable to transnational oil companies, a proposal vehemently opposed by many Iraqis, including the oil workers union and Moqtada al-Sadr.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Congress passed a bill authorizing continued funding for the war that additionally provided for withdrawing reconstruction funds unless the Iraqi government agreed to the privatization proposal. With the end of the Bush presidency just over the horizon, the endgame , or, more accurately, the conclusion of this stage of the conflict, is now visible. With UN authorization for the occupation of Iraq about to lapse, Bush intends to internationally legitimize by treaty the right of the US to permanently station troops there for any purpose, including offensive military operations outside the country, and the transfer of control over Iraq's most value resource, oil, to foreign investors.

As the recent congressional vote on funding for the war makes clear, don't expect any significant Democratic opposition. Indeed, if Bush succeeds, Democrats may well believe that he will have done them a great favor by taking much of the question of how to deal with Iraq off the table. An incoming President Obama could claim that the Iraqis have voluntarily agreed to a continued US military presence through treaty, leaving him with the relatively minor determination as to the number of troops to be stationed there. Unlike Bush, and probably McCain, Obama would permit the Iraqi government to play act as if it governs independent of the dictates of the US State Department and Pentagon.

There is only one credible reason to condemn violent Iraqi resistance to the US occupation in these circumstances: pacifism. I respect people who attempt to conduct their lives according to the principles of this philosophy, but I must suggest that they have an obligation to the people of Iraq to explain how they can extricate themselves from US dominion non-violently. Oh, by the way, did I mention that a soldier who allegedly ordered the destruction of photographic evidence of the Haditha massacre was found not guilty yesterday? Prosecutors have already declined to bring murder charges against against the killers, relying upon the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter, and the prospect of any convictions appears increasingly unlikely.

Labels: American Empire, Haditha, Iraqi Deaths, Iraqi Resistance, Neoliberalism, Occupation of Iraq

Even on the left, there are people who perceive the violent resistance to the Iraqi occupation as merely nationalistic in nature, raising questions as to the extent to which the resistance is a legitimate expression of the sovereign aspirations of the people of Iraq. It is a subject periodically debated, as has been done here and here.

In fact, the resistance is international in nature, an effort to provide the territory and resources of Iraq from being seized by the US so that they can be used as an instrument to intimidate, and potentially even militarily attack, other countries. Consider this summary of a proposed Iraqi-American security agreement:

A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."

Of course, this has undoubtedly been the goal of the US all along, but the eruption of the resistance in Fallujah on April 28, 2003 has prevented the implementation of it for over five years. If the Iraqis had passively relied upon the efforts of the global peace movement, the agreement would have been approved long ago.

In effect, the agreement renders the occupation of Iraq permanent, as reported by Patrick Cockburn:

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

The Iraqi resistance is seeking to prevent the US from transforming Iraq into an essential outpost of military neoliberalism. One can only hope that the endeavor is ultimately successful. Otherwise, war with Iran is inevitable.

Labels: American Empire, Iraq War, Iraqi Resistance, Neoliberalism, Occupation of Iraq, War with Iran

All in all, quite predictable, another indication of the futility of the US presence:

A U.S. company with a reconstruction contract hires an Iraqi subcontractor to haul supplies along insurgent-ridden roads. The Iraqi contractor sets his price at up to four times the going rate because he'll be forced to give 50 percent or more to gun-toting insurgents who demand cash in exchange for the supply convoys' safe passage.

One Iraqi official said the arrangement makes sense for insurgents. By granting safe passage to a truck loaded with $10,000 in goods, they receive a "protection fee" that can buy more weapons and vehicles. Sometimes the insurgents take the goods, too.

"The violence in Iraq has developed a political economy of its own that sustains it and keeps some of these terrorist groups afloat," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, who recently asked the U.S.-led coalition to match the Iraqi government's pledge of $230 million for Anbar projects.

Despite several devastating U.S. military offensives to rout insurgents, the militants — or, in some cases, tribes with insurgent connections — still control the supply routes of the province, making reconstruction all but impossible without their protection.

One senior Iraqi politician with personal knowledge of the contracting system said the insurgents also use their cuts to pay border police in Syria "to look the other way" as they smuggle weapons and foot soldiers into Iraq.

"Every contractor in Anbar who works for the U.S. military and survives for more than a month is paying the insurgency," the politician said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The contracts are inflated, all of them. The insurgents get half."

One gets the impression that, for prominent figures within both the insurgency and the occupation, the rapid departure of the US is the worst thing that could possibly happen. Someday, perhaps, an Iraqi with the sensibility of an Imamura or Fassbinder will emerge to tell the paradoxical tale.

Labels: Iraqi Resistance, Neoliberalism, Occupation of Iraq, US Military

Last week, Joe published a post that ridiculed Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollock, those purported Brookings Institution critics of the war who discovered that, gosh golly, the surge is really working, and the war is turning in our favor. Joe, unlike the mainstream media, recalled that, in fact, both of them have supported the war since its inception. Amazing what you can learn from a little Internet research when your memory fails.

In an excellent Salon article, Glenn Greenwald mercilessly exposes the role of the mainstream media in perpetuating the fraud that two war critics had changed their mind about the prospects for victory in Iraq (whatever that means). Greenwald also shatters any remaining vestige of credibility in regard to the alleged discoveries of O'Hanlon and Pollack during their trip to Iraq. The mendacity of O'Hanlon and his media enablers is a wonder to behold, the sort of thing you have to do, I guess, if you want to be appointed to a prominent foreign policy position in the next Clinton presidency.

Because, contrary to the public reaction, the purpose here is not to legitimize Bush policy, but rather, to justify the hawkish Iraq views of nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates, with the exception of Kucinich and Richardson. In other words, as bad as Bush has been, the US is on the verge of victory if we just follow the wiser counsel of a Democratic president like Hillary or Obama. Hence, the creation of a phony antiwar advocacy group by MoveON.org and the Service Employees International Union, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, to forestall calls for immediate withdrawal.

As Justin Raimondo said today:

President Hillary Clinton will inherit a war that she intends to fight and win, no matter what she says to the Democratic base. And her "antiwar" cheerleaders at MoveOn and the SEIU will still be "building bridges" to cushy jobs, choice cuts of pork, and their fair share of political perks. Then, with sudden swiftness, we'll be hearing about the progress of labor unions in American-occupied Iraq, and why it's much better and more "humane" to continue a "residual" presence that will, like all such presences, grow of its own accord.

There remains an Alice in Wonderland, or more precisely, a Medea in Wonderland, quality to the exertions required to perpetuate the illusion that Democrats like Hillary intend to extricate US forces from Iraq. Fortunately, as described here yesterday, the Iraqi resistance doesn't rely upon such nonsense as part of their strategy to liberate their country from the predations of the occupation. Instead, the more direct approach of violent attacks upon US forces is clearly more effective.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, Iraqi Resistance, Mainstream Media, MoveON.org, Occupation of Iraq

Like water on rock, the Iraqi resistance is slowly wearing down the forces of the occupation:

Lieutenant Clay Hanna looks sick and white. Like his colleagues he does not seem to sleep. Hanna says he catches up by napping on a cot between operations in the command centre, amid the noise of radio. He is up at 6am and tries to go to sleep by 2am or 3am. But there are operations to go on, planning to be done and after-action reports that need to be written. And war interposes its own deadly agenda that requires his attention and wakes him up.

When he emerges from his naps there is something old and paper-thin about his skin, something sketchy about his movements as the days go by.

The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan - a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad - hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq.

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

The Iraqis, of course, endure far worse, fighting a technologically superior force that does not hesitate to use its weapons indiscriminately. They live in conditions of poverty, without reliable water, power and food. And, yet, they are on the verge of defeating what is commonly described as the world's only remaining superpower, despite the lack of open foreign assistance. Unlike the Vietnamese, the last people to inflict a humiliating defeat upon the US, there are no countries with the economic and military resources of countries like China and Russia to assist them.

The Iraqis are very clear about why they are fighting, they are doing so to expel the Americans. Conversely, US troops aren't so sure. They provide many reasons to gloss over the fact that they have volunteered to kill Iraqis and subjugate them in their own land. Some believe that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs, others that Saddam and al-Qaeda were jointly responsible for 9/11, others that the war is part of a global religious conflict between Christianity and Islam. Cindy Sheehan probably described the most compelling reason, the need for soldiers to stand together, to fight for one another, until the war is over.

None of them are sufficient to overcome the intensity by which Iraqis are fighting to liberate themselves from occupation. While US troops express weariness and demoralization, the resistance exudes assurance. It draws support from across the whole of Iraqi society, with the exception of the Kurds. Tariq Aziz's famous remark, Let our cities be our swamps and our buildings our jungles, ceased to be implausible bravado years ago.

Nor do any of them justify what US and British troops have done to the people of Iraq. Whether this year, next year or sometime thereafter, the US, like the British, will depart. Many around the world will celebrate their victory, in the expectation that it announces a new era, one in which they too will be able to successfully challenge US hegemony. The Venezuelans will do so quite boisterously, in recognition of the debt that they know that they owe the Iraqi resistance for making it impossible for the US to violently intervene in their country. Because, while they may not know it, participants in the Iraqi resistance have been fighting not only to liberate Iraq, but to defend the Bolivarian Revolution as well.

Labels: American Empire, Bolivarian Revolution, Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq, US Military

A material finding:

THE US Government cannot account for 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, says the Government Accountability Office.

According to its July 31 report, the military “cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces”.

The weapons disappeared from records between June 2004 and September 2005, as the military struggled to rebuild the disbanded Iraqi forces from scratch amid increasing attacks from Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Since 2004 the military “has not consistently collected supporting records confirming the dates the equipment was received, the quantities of equipment delivered, or the Iraqi units receiving the items,” the report said.

“Since 2006 the command has placed greater emphasis on collecting the supporting documents. However, GAO's review of the January 2007 property books found continuing problems with missing and incomplete records.”

US commanders often accuse foreign powers such as Iran of supplying arms to illegal militias fighting in Iraq, but the report shows they cannot fully account for the hundreds thousands of weapons they brought in themselves.

One suspects that representatives of the Mahdi Army and the Sunni resistance can clear up the confusion. Selling weapons to the resistance is undoubtedly one of the few growth markets associated with the occupation. Just a part of, as they say here in the US, the underground economy.

Labels: Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq, US Military

Gaius' rejoinder to lenin (and myself) over at Democracy in America. See my original post on the subject from Friday, with extensive comments, here.

Labels: Activism, American Empire, Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq

Recently, Alexander Cockburn and Katha Pollitt, both columnists with The Nation magazine, engaged in a published dispute about the extent, if at all, the antiwar movement should support the Iraqi resistance. Cockburn initiated the debate, with a piece entitled Support Their Troops?, in which he advocated a clear recognition of the right of Iraqis to violently resist the occupation, while Pollitt subsequently responded in a column entitled, 2, 4, 6, 8, This Beheading is Really Great!

Leave it to lenin over at Lenin's Tomb to award Cockburn the clear victory, and quite rightly so:

. . . . A little humility would compel [Pollitt] to recognise that the Iraqi resistance is doing far more to frustrate American imperialism than then American left is. The resistance is supporting us. It is their courageous insistence on combatting an enemy with immense death-dealing power, confronting them in the streets despite years of savage murder, despite the prospect of incineration and shredding, that is causing Bush's unpopularity. This is what caused the House to pass a bill opposing permanent bases in Iraq. It is this which is causing the Pentagon to draw up contingency plans for withdrawal. It wouldn't matter what position American liberals took if the resistance could do it alone, but the antiwar movement is - no matter what the President says - the decider. The articulate antiwar liberals in the media have a unique responsibility to combat racist myths and Pentagon propaganda, not collude in it. Instead of energetically accomodating itself to the beheaders, kidnappers, torturers and murderers in the Democratic Party, the antiwar movement must maintain its political independence. It should stolidly insist that the resistance is largely a necessary response to occupation and not some inexplicable excrescence. Then it will not be caught in the trap of calling for an unprincipled withdrawal which will empower people whom they concede are nothing else but psychopaths, tyrants, theocrats and beheaders. It isn't even necessary for the Nation liberals to ra-ra the resistance: they simply have to stop colluding in lies, recognising old-fashioned colonial mystique for what it is, and let people draw their own conclusions.

I have my own thoughts about this, and if I get some time, I might post about it next week, if not, lenin will have to speak for me.

Labels: Activism, American Empire, Democrats, Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq

Seumas Milne has published an important article about the nature of the Iraqi resistance to the US occupation:

"We are the only resistance movement in modern history that has received no help or support from any other country," Omary declares. "The reason is that we are fighting America." The 1920 Revolution Brigades spokesman is an articulate and sophisticated operator, who - if he survives the counterinsurgency and sectarian onslaught - clearly has the potential to become an influential voice in a future Iraq. "Our position is that there are two kinds of people in Iraq: not Sunni and Shia, Kurdish and Arab, Muslim and Christian, but those who are with the occupation and those who are against it." Anyone who takes part in the institutions set up by the occupation, such as the government and parliament, army or police, are regarded as collaborators. "Our organisation began its operations in the first days after the invasion and wherever you find the occupation, you will find us: from Mosul, Baghdad and Samarra to Basra, Hillah and Kirkuk," continues Omary. "Our group has also carried out attacks on British forces in Basra." They are not a Sunni sectarian organisation, he insists: "The military leader of the Brigades is a Kurd. Iraq is for all Iraqis and we only distinguish between those who cooperate with the occupation and those who do not. If my brother cooperates with the occupation, I will kill him - but the innocent must not be touched."

What makes Iraqis join the resistance? "Many people come to the resistance because of their Islamic background, some because of what has happened to their relatives at the hands of the occupation armies," says Zubeidy. "American forces have committed very big crimes against the Iraqi people. All Iraqis hate the foreign forces and won't forget what they have done. Generally, British forces have acted as a helper to the US and the British government shares the blame for everything that happened to Iraq. But their actions are seen as having been less cruel than the Americans."

At the heart of the new insurgent alliance is a rejection of the murderous sectarianism that has come to grip Iraq - and the role of al-Qaida in particular. Most striking is the case of Zubeidy, whose hardline salafist (purist Islamic) group Ansar al-Sunna recently split in half over the issue (his faction is now called the Legitimate Committee of Ansar al-Sunna - Goure says such splits are endemic in the resistance movement). "We wanted to unite with other resistance forces, but the other group is moving closer to al-Qaida and refused. Al-Qaida has brought benefits and problems," Zubeidy says. "They attack the US occupiers. But every day the problems they bring become greater than the benefits.

"Resistance isn't just about killing Americans without any aims or goals," he continues. "Our people have come to hate al-Qaida, which gives the impression to the outside world that the resistance in Iraq are terrorists. Suicide bombing is not the best way to fight because it kills innocent civilians. We are against indiscriminate killing - fighting should be concentrated only on the enemy. They [al-Qaida] believe that all Shia are kuffar [unbelievers] - and most of the Sunnis as well." They estimate that al-Qaida now carries out between a fifth and a third of all attacks in Iraq.

But they say that it is necessary for the Sunni-based groups to ally with the Shia. "Even though that is not easy," says Zubeidy. "A great gap has opened up between Sunni and Shia under the occupation and al-Qaida has contributed to that - as have the US and Iran. Most of al-Qaida's members are Iraqis but its leaders are mostly foreigners. The Americans magnify their role, even though they are responsible for a minority of resistance operations - remember that the Americans brought al-Qaida to Iraq."

If US troops remain in Iraq because of the threat of al-Qaeda, then the US can work with these people, and, according to some news accounts, has already done so. If the US also remains in Iraq in order to achieve the imperial aims of permanently stationing troops there, while exploiting the country's oil resources on terms favorable to transnationals, then, the violence will persist, if not intensify.

Meanwhile, Moqtada al-Sadr continues to reach out to the Sunni resistance in order to create a coalition that will render the occupation untenable:

Nationalist Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's bid to unite Sunnis and Shiites on the basis of a common demand for withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces, reported last weekend by the Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan, seems likely to get a positive response from Sunni armed resistance.

An account given Pentagon officials by a military officer recently returned from Iraq suggests that Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province, who have generally reflected the views of the Sunni armed resistance there, are open to working with Sadr.

A commander of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Abu Aja Naemi, confirmed to Raghavan that his organization had been in discussions with Sadr's representatives.

According to Raghavan's report on May 20, talks between Sadr's representatives and Sunni leaders, including leaders of Sunni armed resistance factions, first began in April.

Sadr's aides say he was encouraged to launch the new cross-sectarian initiative by the increasingly violent opposition from nationalist Sunni insurgents to the jihadists aligned with al Qaeda. One of his top aides, Ahmed Shaibani, recalled that the George W. Bush administration was arguing that a timetable was unacceptable because of the danger of al Qaeda taking advantage of a withdrawal. Shaibani told Raghavan that sectarian peace could be advanced if both Sadr's Mahdi Army and Sunni insurgent groups could unite to weaken al Qaeda.

Let's sit down for a moment and allow our heads to clear, shall we? While American citizens receive vague warnings about the possibility of domestic terror attacks perpetrated by a purportedly reinvigorated al-Qaeda, it turns out that indigenous Shia and Sunni resistance groups are already independently engaged in armed conflict with it! Furthermore, they are initiating dialogue about how they can work together to become even more effective in eradicating the al-Qaeda presence.

Indeed, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, the Shia and Sunni resistance are striking al-Qaeda in one of its strongholds that could faciliate a domestic terror attack:

We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.

No doubt, the leaders of the Shia and Sunni resistance will soon be receiving counterterrorism grants from the Department of Homeland Security. It will, however, be necessary for them to strictly account for the expenditures of all funds to ensure that the monies are not diverted to anti-occupation operations aimed at US forces. With some good legal and accounting advice, this should not be too difficult.

Labels: "War on Terror", Al Qaeda, Iraqi Resistance, Muqtada al-Sadr, Occupation of Iraq

Recent polls reveal, yet again, what has been obvious since late 2003, that the occupation of Iraq is unsustainable:

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country.

Pretty smart, those Iraqis, aren't they? Congress apparently recognizes the problem as well:

The U.S. Congress this week finalized legislation that bars funding to construct permanent military bases in Iraq, and states definitively that it is the policy of the United States government not to exercise control over Iraq’s petroleum resources.

“The perception that the U.S. military plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely has fueled the insurgency and undermined the stability of the Iraqi government,” said Ruth Flower, legislative director for the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). “This legislation is an important first step in changing the failed U.S. policy in Iraq.”

The 63-year-old Quaker lobby, FCNL, has been working with members of Congress on this policy since January 2005. Reps. Barbara Lee (CA) and Tom Allen (ME) advanced stand-alone bills to bar permanent bases in 2005, and in 2006 the House and the Senate approved similar amendments banning permanent bases as part of an emergency supplemental spending bill and then as part of the military authorization legislation. In both cases, the administration persuaded leaders in the House and Senate to strip out the “no permanent bases” language during conference committee negotiations.

But when similar language was attached to the FY07 military appropriations bill (H.R. 5631) by Rep. John Murtha (PA) in the House and Sen. Joe Biden (DE) in the Senate, negotiators from the House and Senate held firm. The final conference report on the military appropriations bill released September 25 prohibits the Pentagon from spending money to establish military installations or bases in Iraq. The House and Senate are expected to vote on the final version of this legislation later this week.

Of course, one has to wonder whether Bush will comply, as he has already expressed his belief that he has the power to disregard the provisions of laws with which he disagrees, but it would be quite remarkable if he abrogated the power of the purse to himself. I suspect that the answer to this dilemma is a little more prosaic: the US has already built them, as half a billion dollars was apparently allocated for this purpose in 2005.

In any event, such action, after over three years of occupation is far too late, as more than half of Iraqis support attacks on US forces. After episodes like this, is it any wonder why? Brzezinski, clear-eyed as usual, sees the obvious solution that dares not speak its name in either party:

SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap?

Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don't go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.

SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?

Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.

SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.

Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.

SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already.

Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away.

SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence?

Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems.

Such candor presents a remarkable contrast to liberal apologists for the occupation, like David Corn and Marc Cooper, who have gone through peculiar contortions to justify its continuance as good for the Iraqis themselves, despite the opinion of Iraqis to the contrary.

Labels: Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski

The occupation of Iraq has been crystallized in an episode that recalls the coldbloodedness of the Manson Family:

"Never in my mind could I have imagined such a gruesome sight," Abu Firas Janabi said of the day in March when his cousin, Fakhriya Taha Muhsen; her husband, Kasim Hamza Rasheed; and their two daughters were slain and their farmhouse set ablaze.

"Kasim's corpse was in the corner of the room, and his head was smashed into pieces," he said. The 5-year-old daughter, Hadel, was beside her father, and Janabi said he could see that Fakhriya's arms had been broken.

In another room, he found 15-year-old Abeer, naked and burned, with her head smashed in "by a concrete block or a piece of iron."

"There were burns from the bottom of her stomach to the end of her body, except for her feet," he said.

"I did not believe what I was seeing. I tried to fool myself into believing I was in a dream. But the problem was that we were not dreaming. We put a piece of cloth over her body. Then I left the house together with my wife."

Yes, it is that horrible, nauseating case of rape and murder, allegedly perpetrated by 101st Airborne veteran Steven Green and his fellow soldiers, an incident that supplements Abu Ghraib and Haditha as the legacy of the US military presence in Iraq:

According to the court documents, Green was assigned to a traffic control point in Mahmudiyah, in south-central Iraq.

He spent time with comrades on the evening of March 11, drinking, and talking about having sex with a young Iraqi civilian who lived with her family about 200m away, prosecutors alleged.

Then, according to an affidavit which accompanied a warrant for Green's arrest, they changed into dark clothes and burst in on the house.

Green "covered his face with a brown t-shirt" according to one identified soldier who allegedly went to the house with Green and two others and who was cited in the document.

The FBI affidavit claims Green herded an adult male, an adult woman and a female child into a bedroom - before gunshots were heard.

"I just killed them. All are dead," Green is alleged to have told his comrades.

The young woman's terrible final moments can only be surmised from the neutral legalise of the affidavit, which cites photos taken at the crime scene - and appears to hint at an attempt to cover-up the alleged incident.

"These photos also depict the burned body of what appears to be a woman with blankets thrown over her upper torso," the documents alleged.

Three other soldiers allegedly particpated:

A Justice Department affidavit says Green and other soldiers planned to rape a young woman who lived near the checkpoint they manned in Mahmoudiya.

The affidavit says three soldiers allegedly accompanied Green into the house, and another soldier was told to monitor the radio while the assault took place.

The affidavit says Green shot the woman's relatives, including a girl of about 5; raped the young woman; then fatally shot her.

Soldiers are quoted in the affidavit as telling investigators that Green and his companions then set the family's house afire, threw an AK-47 rifle used in the killings into a canal and burned their bloodstained clothing.

The military, in its news release Sunday, wrote that the charges are "merely an accusation. Those accused are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Iraqis are, however, already administering their own form of justice, without awaiting the results of the niceties of procedural due process:

The American soldiers accused of raping an Iraqi girl and then murdering her and her family may have provoked an insurgent revenge plot in which two of their comrades were abducted and beheaded last month, it has been claimed.

Pte Kristian Menchaca, 23, and Pte Thomas Tucker, 25, were snatched from a checkpoint near the town of Yusufiyah on June 16 in what was thought at the time to be random terrorist retaliation for the killing of the al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an American air strike two days earlier.

Now, however, residents of the neighbouring town of Mahmoudiyah have told The Sunday Telegraph that their kidnap was carried out to avenge the attack on a local girl Abeer Qassim Hamza, 15, and her family. They claim that insurgents have vowed to kidnap and kill another eight American troops to exact a 10-to-one revenge for the rape and murder of the girl.

While such vigilantism is deplorable, it becomes more understandable when one remembers the lenient 6 month sentence given to Sergeant Tracy Perkins for drowning Zaidoun Hassoun in Baghdad, a crime that was unsuccessfully concealed by the officers in his unit, much like the recent massacre in Haditha.

And, predictably, there is strong support for such action:

Izzat Humadi, 29, a local taxi driver, said: "They started to bother us by winking at our women and we thought that something bad would happen. Now it has. The mujahideen will get more revenge for us and this small girl. We await the capture of another eight American soldiers."

If Hamadi's comments are not troubling enough, consider this: he seems to have enthusiastically sought to be quoted by name. An incandescent anger is incinerating any remaining fear of US forces in the occupied Iraq of 2006.

As I have frequently posted here in recent months, it is no longer possible to understand the occupation militarily, economically or ideologically, rather, it has degenerated into an opportunity to freely indulge in sadistic violence against a populace paradoxically perceived by turns as abject, yet dangerous, an opportunity to gratify the most unspeakable sexual and emotional desires in an intoxicating atmosphere of peril. Not even the most radical voices on the left imagined that the immunity of US forces from Iraqi jurisdiction could inspire such an appalling creation.

It is the Calaveras County torture chamber of Leonard Lake and Charles Ng, replete with cameras to record their perversity, writ so large that it encompasses an entire country. Meanwhile, the peace movement persists in the misguided fetishization of American death, continuing to call for the recognition of morbid milestones, such as, most recently, the 2500th dead American soldier, politically appealing to our egocentrism as sociopaths run free.

Labels: Iraqi Deaths, Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq, Sadomasochism

Who could forget? Purported leftist Marc Cooper sanctimonously condemning advocates of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq as sacrificing Iraqis to a future of indiscriminate, exponentially increasing violence:

Those who ought to have the best answers, the anti-war movement, have none -- other than a discordant call for U.S. Troops Out Now. I sympathize with the quandary of the peace movement, because I pretend to have no viable answers. I know only that the present course is leading to disaster. And that withdrawal of U.S. troops – who shouldn’t be there in the first place—would bring only more bloodshed.

Read no further than this painfully distorted account of my position by Dennis Perrin to capture the moral tone-deafness of the radical left. Here we go once again withthe same-old primitive reductionism i.e. Opposing Immediate Withdrawal = Supporting Bush’s War.

Rather than face the ugly truth that things could actually get worse in Iraq if the current political vacuum were enlarged by an American withdrawal, it's easier to stand apart and accept an Iraqi apocalypse as satisfying payback for Bush's sins.

I challenge the "Out Now" readers to put themselves in the shoes of an Iraqi tonight as they read Perrin’s piece. Car bombs exploding around you like firecrackers and the streets running red with blood. Do you think that the wholesale murder by the car bombers –intent on rubbing out the tenuous Iraqi government—is going to decrease or increase if the American troops were pulled? Do you think that the people behind the bombs would establish a regime more humane, more democratic or, instead, even more authoritarian than the current U.S.-backed administration? You can keep your answers private, but at least ponder them seriously.

In the end, Perrin throws up his hands, declares that no matter what, the U.S. troops are destined to be bogged down Iraq forever, and that – to top things off—he argues that Iraq is worse than Vietnam.

The second assertion is demonstrably false, if only by the lesser magnitude of death in Iraq…a far lesser magnitude. War is evil. A war that kills 3 million people is more evil than one that kills 100,000. Or am I missing something? The whole formulation is beside the point. (Yet, there is some sort of wondrous political point to be scored by proving, say, that Bush is worse than Nixon. A game, by the way, we don't have the luxury to play).

The first assertion, about an indeterminate stay of the American troops is nevertheless and -- unfortunately -- quite plausible. And more than plausible, perhaps inevitable, especially if the anti-war left can do no better than propose immediate withdrawal. I find it extremely difficult to imagine that being a persuasive counter (at least for those who give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people themselves) to the status quo.

Indeed, it’s a moral forfeit that cedes undue and dangerous credence to the Bush admin’s disastrous stay-the-course strategy.

We need a third position that moves toward an end of the U.S. occupation but does not, in the process, abandon the Iraqi people to car-bomber fascists.

It will be of little consequence to those blown apart by suicide-bound fanatics to stand over their corpses and say: “It’s all Bush’s fault. There was nothing we could do.”

As noted by Perrin in his passionate post, David Corn, perhaps a little more self-confident, and uninterested in establishing himself as the Christopher Hitchens of the West Coast, dealt with the problem more honestly:

All this does not mean it's wrong to call for withdrawing the troops. One can argue that Bush's war - pitched to the public with the phony arguments that Saddam Hussein's regime was loaded with WMDs and in cahoots with al Qaeda – does not deserve the life of one more American soldier, one more Iraqi civilian, or one more emergency spending bill. I'm sympathetic to that case. But those pushing for withdrawal have to acknowledge that a pullout may well come with serious costs. In the short run, those costs might include more violence in Iraq and a more out-in-the-open civil war that yields a terrible outcome.

Before the war, I and others argued that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a situation in which there would be no good options. That prediction has come true. Bush has created a mess that defies an obvious and low-cost solution. Military experts of late have been saying that the insurgency probably will last for years (perhaps decades) and that establishing an effective Iraqi security force could take five years or more. Yet Bush refuses to admit these realities. He has not told the public what his five-year (or fifteen-year) plan is. He has refused to discuss the price the American public will have to bear for his misguided war in Iraq. Withdrawal, though, would come with a price, too. It may be the best of lousy alternatives. But its advocates ought to acknowledge it is not cost-free. Unless they want to risk comparison to the fellow who started the war.

There might have been some surface plausibility to such views in the spring and summer of 2005, despite the fact that many Iraqis have been consistently blaming the presence of US troops for the escalating violence, as they did most recently over the bombing of the Imam Ali Al Hadi shrine in Samarra. But they have become increasing untenable in the face of persistent Iraqi support for resistance attacks on US/UK forces, as disclosed by British Ministry of Defense polling data revealed by the London Telegraph:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

A recent UPI poll confirmed continuing strong Iraqi support for attacks on US/UK forces, while, understandably, reflecting opposition to ones directed at Iraqi governmental institutions and civilians, with Iraqis wanting US/UK troops withdrawn over a period ranging from 6 months to 2 years. One can infer that the Iraqis perceive the attacks as a necessary means of forcing the troops to the leave the country, as they also explicitly said, quite understandably, that they don't believe that the troops will ever depart. Even US troops themselves, in the absence of a stronger military commitment, have expressed approval of a withdrawal within a year.

Such results would appear to partially validate the Cooper/Corn perspective. But someone is paging them over the public address system: Marc Cooper and David Corn, there is a phone call for you, please go to one of the white courtesy phones in the lobby. Turns out Moqtada al-Sadr would like to speak with them to ask this question: to what end shall the troops remain? He's concerned because it doesn't appear that the protection of Iraqis is a priority for them in the future anymore than it has been in the past:

Rumsfeld previously had been reluctant to say what the US military would do in the event of civil war, but in an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee he was pressed on the matter by Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd.

“The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the - from a security standpoint - have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to,” Rumsfeld told the committee.

Not surprisingly, Sadr, a consistent opponent of the occupation, responded angrily:

Sadr also criticised Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who had said last week that Iraqi troops, not U.S. forces, would intervene if civil war broke out in Iraq, JTW said.

"May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere."

Let's repeat that: You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds kinda like what Cooper said back in the spring of 2005: We need a third position that moves toward an end of the U.S. occupation but does not, in the process, abandon the Iraqi people to car-bomber fascists. It will be of little consequence to those blown apart by suicide-bound fanatics to stand over their corpses and say: “It’s all Bush’s fault. There was nothing we could do."

At least, Rumsfeld's hypocrisy has the virtue of brevity. So, Sadr would like to talk with Marc and David about it, and ask them: why are the troops still in Iraq? Once they start talking, I'm sure that Sadr has some even more pointed questions, such as: Why are US troops doing the opposite of what the Iraqi people want, attacking the insurgents, while failing to protect us against suicide bombings? Why are they using drones to call in airstrikes that indiscriminately kill civilians to prevent roadside bombings of US troops without providing basic security for us?

I can imagine that Corn would engage in such a conversation candidly, but it would be difficult for Cooper. It would require him to acknowledge that, contrary to what he wrote in his blog entry, the anti-war movement, especially the left participants in it, have some pretty clear answers to these questions. Unfortunately, they are answers that he probably doesn't want to hear, as they involve references to things like oil, neoliberalism, imperialism and the inescapable relationship between militarism and capitalism, to explain that the presence of US troops in Iraq has never been about the protection of Iraqis.

Labels: Iraqi Resistance, Muqtada al-Sadr, Occupation of Iraq, Withdrawal

UPDATE (11/16/05): 83,000 Detained in the "War on Terror"

INITIAL POST (11/15/05):RAW STORY has an interesting article today, stating that the US military acknowledges approximately 13,514 detainees currently held in prisons inside Iraq. Very few, less than 2%, have been found quilty of any crimes.

Here's the money quote:

This information supports what sources close to the Defense Department have previously expressed concern about to RAW STORY, namely that detainees held and tortured and then released essentially become the enemy army. According to these sources, who declined to go on the record by name, hundreds of detainees are released each month, having been detained for periods of six to twelve months, during which they are subjected to torture or other abuse.

Along these lines, note that there has been no shortage of Iraqis describing this kind of experience to journalists like Dahr Jamail and Robert Fisk. My belief has always been that the public misunderstands the true purpose of our detainee policy. It is not motivated, despite pronouncements to the contrary, by the urgency to preemptively seize potentially dangerous people and indefinitely incarcerate them. Instead, the purpose is one of general intimidation with the emphasis upon casting a broad net that captures a few possible insurgents along with many unconnected with the conflict in any meaningful respect.

One need only look to Guantanamo Bay, where many Afghani detainees claim that they were sold to US forces by tribal leaders. In other words, we deliberately aspire to catch a lot of dolphins, along with some tuna, expecting the dolphins, upon release, to spread the message that resistance to the Americans is futile. Predictably, the enraged dolphins are communicating quite the opposite.

Labels: "War on Terror", American Empire, Iraqi Resistance, Occupation of Iraq