By Mary MacElveen
April 13, 2007
What would you say if a known terrorist was about to be freed on $350 thousand bail? Would it anger you? Of course it would if this country truly believes in capturing and punishing terrorists.
What would be your reaction if this was the last recorded message made by a pilot of a downed air plane, “We have an explosion aboard, we are descending immediately! ... We have fire on board! We are requesting immediate landing! We have a total emergency!"... just before all on board perished.”?
Read on.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Iraq & the Logic of Timetables
By Robert Parry
April 12, 2007
It has become a standard part of George W. Bush’s litany for why he will veto a congressional plan for setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq: “Why would you say to the enemy, ‘Here’s a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?’”
Well, there’s a logical answer to Bush’s rhetorical question. If a timetable encourages Iraqi insurgents to silence their guns and to stop planting roadside bombs – even temporarily to wait the Americans out – Iraq might get the breathing space it needs to begin healing its sectarian divisions.
Read on.
April 12, 2007
It has become a standard part of George W. Bush’s litany for why he will veto a congressional plan for setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq: “Why would you say to the enemy, ‘Here’s a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out?’”
Well, there’s a logical answer to Bush’s rhetorical question. If a timetable encourages Iraqi insurgents to silence their guns and to stop planting roadside bombs – even temporarily to wait the Americans out – Iraq might get the breathing space it needs to begin healing its sectarian divisions.
Read on.
Exploding the Clinton-Did-It Defense
By Jerry Sanford
April 12, 2007
It isn't surprising that the right wing resurrected the "Bill Clinton did it too" rationale to bail the Bush administration out of the recent United States attorneys scandal. But as the trail of lies leads deeper into the White House and the Justice Department, that comparison fades to black.
The egregious firing of eight United States attorneys last December was accomplished by using a little-known provision in a 2006 amendment to the Patriot Act that gave President Bush the authority to by-pass the traditional advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
Read on.
April 12, 2007
It isn't surprising that the right wing resurrected the "Bill Clinton did it too" rationale to bail the Bush administration out of the recent United States attorneys scandal. But as the trail of lies leads deeper into the White House and the Justice Department, that comparison fades to black.
The egregious firing of eight United States attorneys last December was accomplished by using a little-known provision in a 2006 amendment to the Patriot Act that gave President Bush the authority to by-pass the traditional advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
Read on.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
'Surge' Architect Rejects 'War Czar' Job
By Robert Parry
April 11, 2007
The widespread doubts within U.S. military and intelligence circles that George W. Bush’s Iraq War “surge” can succeed were underscored when one of the plan’s architects, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, was one of three generals to rebuff a White House offer of a new job dubbed “war czar.”
In December, Keane and neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan promoted the idea of a U.S. military escalation in Iraq as an alternative to the growing consensus in favor of a phased withdrawal of Amercan combat forces.
Read on.
April 11, 2007
The widespread doubts within U.S. military and intelligence circles that George W. Bush’s Iraq War “surge” can succeed were underscored when one of the plan’s architects, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, was one of three generals to rebuff a White House offer of a new job dubbed “war czar.”
In December, Keane and neoconservative scholar Frederick Kagan promoted the idea of a U.S. military escalation in Iraq as an alternative to the growing consensus in favor of a phased withdrawal of Amercan combat forces.
Read on.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
U.S.-Made Mess in Somalia
By Ivan Eland
April 10, 2007
The media often report overseas developments, but don’t always explore their underlying causes, which, in many cases, conveniently lets the U.S. government off the hook. The recent internecine violence in Somalia provides a classic example.
The U.S. media have focused to date almost exclusively on the rising Islamist movement in Somalia and U.S. “covert” assistance to the Ethiopian invasion that supported Somalia’s transitional government against the stronger Islamists. The media should be focusing on one of the major causes of the Somali mess: U.S. government meddling.
Read on.
April 10, 2007
The media often report overseas developments, but don’t always explore their underlying causes, which, in many cases, conveniently lets the U.S. government off the hook. The recent internecine violence in Somalia provides a classic example.
The U.S. media have focused to date almost exclusively on the rising Islamist movement in Somalia and U.S. “covert” assistance to the Ethiopian invasion that supported Somalia’s transitional government against the stronger Islamists. The media should be focusing on one of the major causes of the Somali mess: U.S. government meddling.
Read on.
Anniversary Demonstrations Denounce U.S. Occupation
Protests were carried out in Iraq yesterday to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein, and of course, the fourth anniversary of the U.S. occupation. The demonstrations reflected the strange nature of the Iraq war, a war in which the "enemy" is essentially the people of Iraq, 82 percent of whom reject the presence of coalition forces in their country, according to a 2005 British MoD survey.
The largest of the demonstrations appears to have taken place in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, where hundreds of thousands protested the occupation.
As al-Jazeera reported today,
What yesterday’s mass demonstration, well, demonstrated, is that despite the resources the U.S. has spent in pacifying Najaf, the city is no more under U.S. control than it was three years ago. The mission of destroying Sadr’s militia also appears to have failed miserably. Rather than “absolutely destroy it,” as Col. Pritchard promised three years ago, instead it seems that the U.S.’s heavy-handed tactics have strengthened it.
Just over the weekend, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting against the militia, just outside of Baghdad, where a “surge” of U.S. troops is attempting to impose some level of security on the capital city.
As the BBC reported,
The weekend was one of the costliest in terms of U.S. casualties for quite a while, with ten soldiers reported killed. But the violence may get even worse in the coming weeks. Some press reports noted that the Najaf demonstration and some of fiery rhetoric from al-Sadr may be an indication of a coming offensive against U.S. forces. As the Kansas City Star is reporting today,
The deteriorating situation should not be a surprise to anyone who has even loosely followed the Iraq war for the past four years. Every single one of Bush’s promises of “turning the corner” has turned out to be empty, and every single development that was supposed to bring security to the country – whether elections, Saddam’s capture, Saddam’s execution, or the new surge – appears to have had the opposite effect.
As Bush’s Democratic opponents may blame a “failed strategy” for the mess, the reality may be instead that the situation simply reflects the nature of guerrilla war. In any war of attrition, the advantage is with the fighters who are indigenous to the country in which it’s being fought. This reality was explained by an Iraqi militia fighter in the earliest days of the insurgency. As Newsday quoted the guerrilla in July 2003,
The largest of the demonstrations appears to have taken place in the holy Shiite city of Najaf, where hundreds of thousands protested the occupation.
As al-Jazeera reported today,
Hundreds of banners saying "Down with Bush, Down with America" were carried by protesters as Iraqi police and soldiers guarded checkpoints in and around Najaf and Kufa. Many people, draped in Iraqi flags, set US flags ablaze and some trampled on and struck US and Israeli flags painted on the ground with their shoes, an act considered one of the worst insults in Arab culture.Indeed, the people of Najaf have rejected the occupation and have been demanding U.S. withdrawal for years. The city has been a thorn in the side of the occupying forces despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly Shiite, and the Shiites gained the most from the fall of Saddam Hussein. In April of 2004, following the first anniversary of Hussein’s ouster, U.S. Marines were sent to Najaf to put down an uprising led by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. As WSWS reported at the time,
"In four years of occupation, our sons have been killed and women made widows," cried Ahmed al-Mayahie, 39, a Shia from the southern city of Basra.
"The occupier raised slogans saying Iraq is free, Iraq is liberated. What freedom? What liberation? There is nothing but destruction. We do not want their liberation and their presence. We tell them to get out of our land."
Falah Hassan Shanshil, an MP from al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, said: "This crowd has come to reject the American occupation and demand its withdrawal."
American and coalition troops have checkpoints blocking all the main roads into the city. Leaflets are being distributed denouncing Sadr for the murder of a moderate Shia cleric at a Najaf mosque in April 2003. As many as 6,000 fighters loyal to Sadr are believed to be ready to resist any US attack. Local people are said to be stock-piling food, water and oil, and shop-keepers are piling sandbags around their stores, in anticipation of weeks of street-to-street fighting.The subsequent violence was captured on video and made available by the Najaf Project:
Colonel Dana Pritchard of the Third Brigade, First Infantry Division, summed up the mentality of the US forces. He told the Los Angeles Times at the beginning of the week: “My intent is to destroy Sadr’s militia, absolutely destroy it, and then to capture or kill Sadr. That’s our mission. We’re just waiting to be unleashed.”
What yesterday’s mass demonstration, well, demonstrated, is that despite the resources the U.S. has spent in pacifying Najaf, the city is no more under U.S. control than it was three years ago. The mission of destroying Sadr’s militia also appears to have failed miserably. Rather than “absolutely destroy it,” as Col. Pritchard promised three years ago, instead it seems that the U.S.’s heavy-handed tactics have strengthened it.
Just over the weekend, the U.S. was engaged in heavy fighting against the militia, just outside of Baghdad, where a “surge” of U.S. troops is attempting to impose some level of security on the capital city.
As the BBC reported,
US and Iraqi troops have been engaged in a second day of fierce fighting with Shia militias they are trying to oust from the central city of Diwaniya.
The fighting is part of an operation to extend the recent security drive beyond Baghdad to other parts of the country.
Jets and tanks have been supporting ground troops in the offensive against militiamen loyal to radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The weekend was one of the costliest in terms of U.S. casualties for quite a while, with ten soldiers reported killed. But the violence may get even worse in the coming weeks. Some press reports noted that the Najaf demonstration and some of fiery rhetoric from al-Sadr may be an indication of a coming offensive against U.S. forces. As the Kansas City Star is reporting today,
There were ominous signs afterward that al-Sadr’s enormous Mahdi Army militia may be preparing for renewed violence in Baghdad.
Monday evening, as protesters returned in trucks and buses to Baghdad’s sprawling Shiite slum of Sadr City, a McClatchy Newspapers reporter saw men in several buses carrying pistols and AK-47s, a violation of new security laws. One man who identified himself as a Mahdi Army member bragged that weapons were being taken from Najaf to Baghdad hidden in truck beds. Najaf is about 100 miles south of Baghdad.
The rhetoric at the rally was menacing at times. “The occupation and the people connected to it will vanish,” the demonstration’s organizers said in a statement, “and Iraq will stay for Iraqis and the country for its sons.”
The deteriorating situation should not be a surprise to anyone who has even loosely followed the Iraq war for the past four years. Every single one of Bush’s promises of “turning the corner” has turned out to be empty, and every single development that was supposed to bring security to the country – whether elections, Saddam’s capture, Saddam’s execution, or the new surge – appears to have had the opposite effect.
As Bush’s Democratic opponents may blame a “failed strategy” for the mess, the reality may be instead that the situation simply reflects the nature of guerrilla war. In any war of attrition, the advantage is with the fighters who are indigenous to the country in which it’s being fought. This reality was explained by an Iraqi militia fighter in the earliest days of the insurgency. As Newsday quoted the guerrilla in July 2003,
"We have many more people and we’re a lot better organized than the Americans realize. We have been preparing for this for a long time, and we’re much more patient than the Americans. We have nowhere else to go."That simple reality has not changed. The Iraqis have nowhere else to go, and as long as unwelcome occupiers remain in their country, they will continue to resist.
Monday, April 09, 2007
'Surging' Toward Failure in Iraq
By Robert Parry
April 10, 2007
The Washington pundits and the press are all atwitter wondering how successful George W. Bush’s Iraq “surge” strategy will be and how fast the Democrats will crumble in a showdown with the steely-eyed President over his demand for $100 billion more for the war with no strings attached.
But the underlying military reality is that the United States has long since “lost” the war in Iraq. It is un-winnable in any normal sense of the word. The “surge” of sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq only guarantees that the final body count will be higher and the piles of IOUs bigger.
Read on.
April 10, 2007
The Washington pundits and the press are all atwitter wondering how successful George W. Bush’s Iraq “surge” strategy will be and how fast the Democrats will crumble in a showdown with the steely-eyed President over his demand for $100 billion more for the war with no strings attached.
But the underlying military reality is that the United States has long since “lost” the war in Iraq. It is un-winnable in any normal sense of the word. The “surge” of sending tens of thousands more U.S. troops into Iraq only guarantees that the final body count will be higher and the piles of IOUs bigger.
Read on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)