Pat wrote: “…those who stayed behind in Falluja were warned by the Iraqi authorities at the outset…”
Just wanted to insert a small correction of fact. A considerable number of males who tried to flee the city were turned back by the US Army. This was not a voluntary choice, in all cases, to say behind in Falluja.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 19 2004 12:25 utc | 4

sic transit gloria usa
i am in your debt. i am unfortunately not a master of precision – au contraire – i elaborate – when harder more exact words are needed – i thank you for the moral & political strength to say them
my friend, deanander, i’ve known a few great lawyers who have your way with words – though in the last week – i read you nearly always in complement to sic transit gloria
i come here to communicate but more than that – to learn – from you i learn
thank you
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 19 2004 12:50 utc | 6

B – it seems that you beat Kos by more than a few hours…
Maybe you should go post a comment on that thread pointing over here…

Posted by: Jérôme | Nov 19 2004 13:48 utc | 8

“They have been saying that Falluja is the source of and therefore the solution to their problems. The violence in Mosul has shown that to be a crassly stupid thing to say,” said Toby Dodge, an Iraq analyst at Queen Mary University of London.
“Insurgency is a national phenomenon fuelled by alienation. I don’t think this war is winnable because they have alienated the base of support across Iraqi society.”

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 19 2004 14:55 utc | 10

Pat: can there be a jurisdictional disconnect of some kind between, say, the Geneva Convention and an army’s Rules of Engagement? Do the laws require Rules? Do the laws require that Rules be communicated by an army to its opponent–completely, or in a timely fashion? Do the laws require such Rules for an occupation force? Do they come into play in a situation of active resistance, as we have in Iraq? Do you know of a website, or some other reference work, that spells it all out for the layman? (I’ve always assumed that the “Rules of Engagement” are directives passed down from the command level to the field; if so, then the Rules might be subject to some kind of review by an international body, before or after being passed down)….

Posted by: alabama | Nov 19 2004 15:26 utc | 12

Bea: As Billmon would say, welcome to Manchukuo on Tigris.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Nov 19 2004 16:00 utc | 14

with the obsene photographs today showing israeli soldiers copying their comrades in abu ghraib with the caadavers of palestinians would seem to me be a systematic provocation to the arab people
this, in a long line, of such provcative act either reflect on the stupidity & baseness of their rank & file or it is an orchestrated insult in part to desensitise the western (public) to the terrible realities of the occupation in iraq & palestine
in any case, every day & every night we are witnessing crimes of a character that are obscene in any language, dead or living
it seems difficult for me to believe that the publicist of these barbarian armies would allow the coverage – that the coverage is not the ‘reality’ of a free press, it seems to me that these acts – these public acts of defiling the sacred body are publicised with intent. i cannot believe it is otherwise
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 19 2004 16:53 utc | 16

I’ve just got around to starting reading a bit up on Islam, as it’s the only major religion I know nothing about. (Well, except for whatever the Chinese actually believe, but I’m finite and I’ll eventually get around to that as well. Oh, and I have no understanding of that bizarre religion that many Americans label “Christianity”. Anyway.)
My starting point is “Islam: A Short History”, from Karen Armstrong. Any comments on that book from people? Any suggestions for further reading?
I cannot believe how the events in Iraq must sound to any muslim: the US is blowing up and occupying the cities that feature in the earliest history of their religion. They are committing these crimes and atrocities in the heart of the Islamic world. It’s got to grate with even the most moderate, secular Muslim. How could the administration not know this, not understand it, not care about it?

Posted by: Colman | Nov 19 2004 17:17 utc | 18

And one final note: the only remedy for the third problem is a vast increase in the number of US troops in Iraq. And that means a draft in the United States.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 19 2004 17:36 utc | 20

@ colman
Islam – by Fazlur Rahman
Islam and Modernity : Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition – by Fazlur Rahman
Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources – by Martin Lings

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 19 2004 17:47 utc | 22

Pepe Escobar
Sistani knows Shi’ites are anti-occupation: nobody will tolerate a Sistani-blessed government “protected” by an occupying army.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 19 2004 18:45 utc | 24

rememberinggiap,
was it benjamin who encouraged your grains of salt with Adorno? how?

Posted by: Citizen | Nov 19 2004 18:56 utc | 26

Success of US assault on Falluja disputed
Falluja threw US Army sixty years back – Russian military analysis
US battle plans begin to unravel
Turkish security report reveals Israel’s policy in Iraq
Several explosions hit central Baghdad
Smoke in Baghdad Green Zone after mortar fire
Bomber targets Baghdad police, troops raid mosque
Policeman, two civilians killed in Baghdad suicide car bomb
Car bomb kills five Iraqi cops in Baghdad
U.S., ‘Iraqi’ troops storm Baghdad mosque – three people reported killed
Video of the mosque assault
Video of mosque interior
‘Iraqi’, U.S. forces raid mosque in Baghdad, hospital in Mosul
U.S. battles insurgents in Mosul
Zarqawi group claims public killing of two ING officers in Mosul
Insurgents loot thousands of police uniforms
Mosul police desertion raises Iraq election fears
>a href=”http://uk.news.yahoo.com/041119/140/f6yiy.html”>British troops under fierce missile fire In Camp Dogwood
Last Australian aid agency in Iraq pulls out
6 NATO allies refuse to help U.S. in Iraq
US angered by refusal of some in NATO to participate in Iraq mission – official
U.S. lauds NATO role in Iraq
Iraqi parties fail to agree joint election list
The Sunni-Shi’ite power play
ICRC slams ‘utter contempt’ for humanity amid fierce fighting in Iraq

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 19 2004 19:32 utc | 28

@alabama, I am not aware of any disconnection between the rules of engagement developed locally, as it were, and either our own military regulations or international convention, which draw from one another.
Maybe you will find this interesting and useful.
General Telford Taylor, chief prosecutor at Nuremburg and author of Nuremburg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, writes about “War Crimes”:
What is a “war crime”? To say that it is a violation of the laws of war is true, but not very meaningful.
War consists largely of acts that would be criminal if performed in a time of peace – killing, wounding, kidnapping, destroying or carrying off other peoples’ property. Such conduct is not regarded as criminal if it takes place in the course of war, because the state of war lays a blanket of immunity over the warriors. This concept is very ancient; it is clearly stated by the 12th centry compiler of canon law, Gratian: “The soldier who kills a man in obedience to authority is not guilty of murder.”
But the area of immunity is not unlimited, and its boundaries are marked by the laws of war. Unless the conduct in question falls within those boundaries, it does not lose the criminal character it would have should it occur in peaceful circumstances. In a literal sense, therefore, the expression “war crime” is a misnomer, for it means an act that remains criminal even though commmitted in the course of war, because it lies outside the area of immunity prescribed by the laws of war.
What, then, are the “laws of war”? They are of ancient origin, and followed two main streams of development. The first flowed from medieval notions of knightly chivalry. Over the course of the centuries the stream has thinned to a trickle; it had a brief spurt during the days of single-handed aerial combat, and survives today in rules (often violated) prohibiting various deceptions such as the use of the enemy’s uniforms or battle insignia, or the launching of a war without fair warning by formal declaration.
The second and far more important concept is that the ravages of war should be mitigated as far as possible by prohibiting needless cruelties, and other acts that spread death and destruction and are not reasonably related to the conduct of hostilities. The seeds of such a principle must be nearly as old as human society, and ancient literature abounds with condemnation of pillage and massacre. In more recent times, both religious humanitarianism and the opposition of merchants to unnecessary disruptions of commerce have furnished the motivation for restricting customs and understandings. In the seventeenth century these ideas began to find expression in learned writing, especially those of the Dutch jurist-philosopher Hugo Grotius.[…]
[Up to the eighteenth century and the formalization of military organizations] the laws of war had remained largely a matter of unwritten tradition, and it was the United States, during the Civil War, that took the lead in reducing them to systematic, written form…
In the wake of the Crimean War, the Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 there arose, in Europe and America, a tide of sentiment for codification of the laws of war and their embodiement in international agreements. The priciplal fruits of that movement were the series of treaties known today as the Hague and Geneva conventions. For present purposes, the most important of these are the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Prisoner of War, Red Cross, and Protection of Civilian Conventions of 1929 and 1949.
“The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited,” declared Article 22 of the Fourth Hague Convention, and ensuing articles specify a number of limitations: enemy soldiers who surrender must not be killed, and are to be taken prisoner; captured cities and towns must not be pillaged, nor “undefended” places bombarded; poisoned weapons and other arms “calulated to cause unnecessary suffering” are forbidden. Other provisions make it clear that war is not a free-for-all between the populations of the countries at war; only members of the armed forces can claim protection of the laws of war, and if a noncombatant civilian takes hostile action against the enemy he is guilty of a war crime. When an army occupies enemy territory, it must endeavor to restore order, and respect “family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practices.”[…]
[There’s more on the subject, but I’m all typed out for now.]

Posted by: Pat | Nov 19 2004 20:20 utc | 30

Saudi Press Agency:
WASHINGTON, Nov 19, SPA– At least six NATO allies are refusing to send military instructors to help the United States train Iraqi officers, another impediment in the Bush administration’s drive for support for its effort to pacify Iraq.
The six nations _ Germany, France, Belgium, Spain,Luxembourg and Greece _ had refused to contribute troops to
the U.S.-led coalition that overthrew President Saddam Hussein and to the postwar campaign against insurgents.
The administration was hoping to forge a consensus on postwar peacemaking. The project to train Iraqi officers will not involve combat duties and is part of a broader security program.
A State Department official close to the dispute said Friday that all 26 NATO allies voted on Wednesday at alliance headquarters in Brussels for the training program and agreed to help fund it. However, at least six held out
from playing any active role and refused to send officers to NATO staging areas.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 19 2004 21:59 utc | 32

Like the IRA had headquarters?
This is turning into a a sickening sad parody

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 19 2004 22:46 utc | 34

extract
Published on Friday, November 19, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Fallujah: Shock and Awe
by Ken Coates
 
It was on April 26th 1937 that the name of Guernica was immortalized. A little town, home to 7000 people, Guernica was the local market place for a cluster of hill villages. It straddled a valley only ten kilometers from the sea, and thirty from Bilbao. It was a cultural center for the Basque country, with a hallowed oak tree upon which for centuries the public power in Spain has been obliged recurrently to affirm an oath to respect the rights of the Basque people.
April 26th was a Monday, market day. It went ahead peaceably, although the Civil War was raging thirty kilometers away. The air raid was not announced (by an urgent call from the Church bells) until half past four in the afternoon. Ten minutes later Heinkels arrived, scattering their bombs across the town, and then machine gunning the streets. Following the Heinkels came the Junkers. The German Air Force was celebrating a major practice run. When the people ran away, they, too, were machine-gunned. One thousand six hundred and fifty-four people were killed, and eight hundred and eighty-nine were wounded. The town center was destroyed, and Europe received its first baptism of aerial bombardment on a modern scale.
The shock reverberated far beyond the Basque country. Spain was not a remote colony like Iraq, from which news could take an age to travel. Within a week Picasso began his painting, his masterpiece which is at present installed in a special gallery attached to the Prado. In preparation for this, he feverishly prepared a desperately poignant series of sketches and cartoons, one of which we feature on our cover. Picasso gave us a portrait of naked horror. Europe was soon to learn the face of that horror at first hand. It is said that when some German officers visited Picasso in his studio in occupied France, they said of Guernica, drawings from which were hung in the room, “Did you do this?” The master is said to have replied: “No, you did”.
But it was not only the German Air Force which tore away at the fabric of European cities. Coventry and London pale into insignificance when compared with Hamburg and Dresden. It was an American soldier, Kurt Vonnegut, who was to create a memorial to Dresden, in his extraordinary work Slaughterhouse Five. Slaughterhouses, since, we have seen in profusion. Before the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was the massive “conventional” air raid on Tokyo which killed many tens of thousands of people. Then we lived through the Cold War, and the nuclear arms race, until we entered, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, into the age of Full Spectrum Dominance from Washington. Now the center of that domination sits in Iraq, and for the time being the carnage radiates out from the city of Falluja

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 20 2004 0:18 utc | 36

Draining the swamp

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 20 2004 1:19 utc | 38

‘The war is over, but there is no peace … and the killings go on’

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 20 2004 4:23 utc | 40

Sorry, the above should read US, not US Bases, because some are overflight deals with some neighboring countries, but still Iran is in a very uncomfortable situation.

Posted by: Fran | Nov 20 2004 7:41 utc | 42

RGiap wrote:
“it seems difficult for me to believe that the publicist of these barbarian armies would allow the coverage – that the coverage is not the ‘reality’ of a free press, it seems to me that these acts – these public acts of defiling the sacred body are publicised with intent. i cannot believe it is otherwise”
All of us living in “the belly of the carcinogenic beast” are agonizingly aware that we have a totally illegitimate government that plans to reinstate the draft. While American democracy hangs in tatters, if they don’t manufacture consent no one will show up. So………Some Very Seriously Ugly Stuff is now being planned to motivate Americans to sign up….This may be part of the drum roll……At the Very Least it rationalizes increasing press censorhip even further.

Posted by: jj | Nov 20 2004 9:32 utc | 44

This is an excerpt from one of the links by Sic… Only the Dead Have Seen the End of War – Hell is this Thing Called War Reading it, I felt just linking to it is not enough.

To be in war is to be in hell on Earth, captured by lunacy and bewilderment, panic, fear and unmatched levels of stress invading your body. Bullets whizzing by, helicopters flying low, machine gunning anything that moves, fighter jets roaring overhead, explosions everywhere, 500 pound bombs flattening entire city blocks, cluster bombs maiming and killing, the tremors of the ground rattling your conscious, concrete flying everywhere, screams of pain and agony surrounding you, hidden snipers killing indiscriminately, platoons of men caught in hours-long fire-fights, bullets, artillery and rockets flying everywhere, the smell of blood in the air, the odor of sweat and urine festering about, your heart palpitating thunderously, body parts strewn everywhere, pools of fly-infested blood lining the streets, the nauseatingly putrid stench of rotting death omnipresent, hundreds of mutilated bodies thrown about, the ravaged remains of a once vibrant city laying at your feet, your house destroyed, your family huddled in the corner of your most secure room, your children shaking, lying in a fetal position, hunger overcoming you, your belly hurting for food, your tongue and mouth desperate for water, your spirit eager for escape, your instincts telling you to survive, to hug your children and never let go.
Welcome to Hell on Earth, where the devil’s excrement bleeds black and the neocon delusion dwindles into twilight. Welcome to state-sponsored terrorism breeding unending crimes against humanity, where torture has replaced torture, where human evil has replaced human evil and where tyranny has replaced tyranny. Welcome to the American Crusade and Iraq Invasion, where 100,000 innocent civilians have died, in a year and a half, at the hands of the military-industrial-complex and the killing machines it trains to push, aim, fire, direct, guide and launch its weapons of death, carnage, destruction and human misery. Welcome to Fallujah, where bombs and missiles rain down from the heavens above and cold-blooded monsters on a wanton murdering spree roam hellish streets below.
Iraq is where over 1,200 American soldiers have been killed. Iraq is where 15,000 American soldiers have been maimed, burned, shredded, disfigured, physically scarred and mentally devastated, never to find normalcy again and never again to know inner peace, becoming an army of psychologically mutilated energies, joining their physically healthy comrades in arms in a future battle against inner demons never to be fully exorcised from within.
…
The Iraq resistance, however, is already victorious, and once the United States escapes its bubble of infallibility and enters the realm of reality, it will see this, wishing it had never entered the quagmire and debacle known as Iraq, where the world’s only superpower was brought to its knees by yet another “barbarian-filled, savage-infested, primitive-living, third-world of a country.” It seems that along with the ghosts of Vietnam can be added those of Iraq, forever to haunt America for its continued ignorance of history, culture, civilization and the awesome will of the human spirit to live free.
Yet in the Iraq resistance does the world now depend, for its freedom fighters have caused unexpected delays and returns for the zealots in office. In them does humanity seek salvation from a warmongering dictator and a small cabal of deluded Machiavellis whose ideology and insanity threaten the entire security of the globe. For it is their tenacity and unrelenting guerilla campaign of aggression that has prevented further war, destabilization and catastrophe.

Posted by: Fran | Nov 20 2004 11:32 utc | 46

b
have been following dahr jamail – it is starting to emerge like something i could never have imagined
there is such a crudité in their enterprise of empire that i cannot believe it is just immoral stupidité
it seems more to me like a premeditated provocation against the arab people themselves & the secondary factor is to desensitise the west
it would seem as an old friend has sd that to try to teach a real military strategy to the american army is like trying to teach a pig to sing
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 20 2004 14:02 utc | 48

Well, I guess the US has won in Falluja, however….
Baghdad’s spiralling transport costs – Baghdad’s airport route has become a regular target for insurgents – A 15-mile stretch between Baghdad airport and the city centre is said to be the world’s most expensive taxi ride

Small convoys of armoured cars and Western gunmen charge about £2,750 ($5,108) for the perilous journey.
The route, known as the Qadisiyah Expressway, has become the scene of regular attacks and kidnappings by insurgents.
…
The high-speed drive costs four times more than the £670 Royal Jordanian charges for a one-way flight from London to Baghdad via Amman.
It equates to about £183 a mile compared to £4 a mile for the 2,540-mile flight on the only commercial airline flying to Baghdad.
…
“You could jump in an Iraqi taxi with a gun and get there for $20,” said one security contractor, quoted by the UK’s Times newspaper.
But with kidnappings a daily occurrence and Westerners being sold to Islamist militant groups for about £150,000, he advised against it.

Major aid organisation quits Iraq – World Vision has been trying to improve the lot of children in Mosul
One of the few remaining aid agencies in Iraq is pulling out of the country.

World Vision announced it was ending operations, following the murder of its senior manager in Iraq, and attacks on other aid workers.
…
World Vision has been in Iraq for 18 months, and says it has helped about 600,000 people, by improving schools, hospitals, clinics, and water supplies.
Its Iraqi head of operations, Mohammed Hushiar, was shot dead by unknown gunmen in a crowded cafe in the northern city of Mosul on 29 September.
…
“We have realised that you can’t have 24-hour security guards, and even now humanitarian agencies like ours, like Care – even the Red Cross with its studied neutrality for 150 years – are being targeted,” he said.
“Your first priority is always your own staff and it has just become intolerable and too dangerous.”

Posted by: Fran | Nov 20 2004 14:48 utc | 50

The Hidden Cost to Soldiers
From the LA TImes, November 14:
A study by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research found that 15.6% of Marines and 17.1% of soldiers surveyed after they returned from Iraq suffered major depression, generalized anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder — a debilitating, sometimes lifelong change in the brain’s chemistry that can include flashbacks, sleep disorders, panic attacks, violent outbursts, acute anxiety and emotional numbness.
Army and Veterans Administration mental health experts say there is reason to believe the war’s ultimate psychological fallout will worsen. The Army survey of 6,200 soldiers and Marines included only troops willing to report their problems. The study did not look at reservists, who tend to suffer a higher rate of psychological injury than career Marines and soldiers. And the soldiers in the study served in the early months of the war, when tours were shorter and before the Iraqi insurgency took shape.
“The bad news is that the study underestimated the prevalence of what we are going to see down the road,” said Dr. Matthew J. Friedman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Dartmouth Medical School who is executive director of the VA’s National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
Those Unseen Wounds Cut Deep
Then multiply this cost a thousand-fold for the Iraqi civilians who are the targets of this massive onslaught of violence…

Posted by: Bea | Nov 20 2004 15:05 utc | 52

Oops – The last paragraph in the above post was my comment, not an excerpt from the article. It was not meant to be italicized.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 20 2004 15:16 utc | 54

b
your thesis has legs
still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 20 2004 16:08 utc | 56

giap,
It is not only physicians. As I understand it, and I don’t have hard data yet, there is an ongoing campaign of targeted assassination against Iraqi intellectuals as well. If anyone has specific information about this, I would be interested in it.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 20 2004 20:01 utc | 58

@bea and rgiap
assassinating the intelligentsia is a long time-honoured strategy and I think there is more to it than merely getting rid of those who might sympathise with a resistance movement. I suspect it is about destroying the “intellectual capital” of the country (parallel to the destruction of its physical infrastructure) — trying to destroy the reserves of human competence, education, literacy, professional and technical ability and training in key areas, so that the country when it needs those skills and qualities for rebuilding, will have to accept outside “specialists” and have its professional, managerial etc. classes replaced wholesale with foreigners — much as Iraqi companies are being sidelined and US/UK companies are being give the reconstruction contracts, much as the Bahrainis who tried to start up a cell phone service were sidelined and suppressed in favour of US cell phone standards and suppliers.
a commercial elite with an overproduction problem, in search of new markets because existing markets are saturated or overdrawn or both, is as vicious but not nearly so mindless as a cancer. what they need is not new professionals, managers, scientists, etc — we have a glut of those, though arguably of lower quality than in prior decades. what they need is legions of meek consumers to pay the inflated wages of those higher-echelon workers. imho one of the many agendas behind the shameful invasion of Iraq has always been to destroy its offensive self-sufficiency and try to reduce its people to just another captive market for western goods — not merely hard goods like electronics or cars, but goods like textbooks, education, medical technology, telecomms services — to core out and then replace, wholesale, the domestic economies, markets, and high-salary labour force with foreigners and foreign products.
in this sense “cui bono” is every market sector in the tottering financial structures of the west, the colleges churning out “qualified” grads for whom there are no jobs, the technocrats joining the ranks of the white-collar unemployed, the industries facing reduced consumer spending. war, in other words, is marketing by other means. can I get a witness?

Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 20 2004 21:10 utc | 60

Bernhard will love this.
A senior U.S. general, acknowledged it was “too early to say … that the backbone of the insurgency is broken.”

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 20 2004 21:32 utc | 62

questions of legality are of concern to most here.
Perhaps you confuse Law as an end, rather than a means redounding to the interminable favor of U.S. intervention in Iraq?
Better that we view the law positivistically wrt Iraq. The legality of this War would mean something if it was true the Law is moral. But, the Law is not moral. The Law could be, and in truth, U.S. constitutional law, inspite of its slavish devotion to capital, has a rickety ediface built by ‘natural’ theory of social justice. But, to be sure, nothing about this occupation is inspired by such justice.

Posted by: slothrop | Nov 20 2004 21:53 utc | 64

Do you know of a website, or some other reference work, that spells it all out for the layman?
Here are a few places to start anyway. These do not have a US military framework or perspective but rather one of international law. Maybe Pat can provide some sites on US military law in the context of international law.
Laws of War
Brief History
Avalon Project at Yale

Posted by: Bea | Nov 20 2004 22:10 utc | 66

Noah Shachtmans Defense Tech (DT) blog has an interview with the author (JH) of the US Armys new Counterinsurgent Manual:

DT: So what do you see as the big issues ahead as the U.S. fights the Iraq insurgency?
JH: Operationally, there are two issues.
…
Yes, we must still root out the counter-state infrastructure in Fallujah using population resource control. [That’s a] mechanism to collect social and economic intelligence… The Nazi’s Gestapo and the Eastern European communists were the best at this. Without becoming tainted or infected by their methods and attitudes, we have picked up some of their systems and processes.

Can you pick up systems and processes without using the methods and attitudes that enable them?

Posted by: b | Nov 20 2004 22:52 utc | 68

b
took the words out of my mouth

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 20 2004 22:58 utc | 70

Pat, if even the minimum requirements of int’l law were adhered to, there would be no need for such attempts to blame the victim. rather than risk injuring yourself in such an intellectual gymnastics routine to hypocritically filter the rules of international law and the laws of war into a dishonest tit-for-tat, have you really pondered the answer to your own question? what you proffer i find morally reprehensible. can i assume that you are implying that the force exerted by the us marines is in retaliation for the violations of the occupied and opposition? this appeared to be the canard you put forth in thread #2 re evacuation and curfew violations as adequate justification for ones annihilation. this “do as we say, not as we do” routine re war crimes is a joke and those on the recieving end of ariel bombardment, snipers and overwhelming aggression can see right thru it, as Sic transit gloria USA has so lucidly maintained.
laws? rules? what of that of article 25 of the 1907 hague convention, that “attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, dwellings or buildings which are undefenced is prohibited.”? or article 22 of the 1923 hague rules of aerial warfare which declares that “aerial bombardment for purposes of terrorizing the civilian population, or of destroying or damaging private property not of a military character, or of injuring noncombatants is prohibited.”? very straightforward terms and, yes, the “insurgents” have complied. or how about int’l laws against the use of incendiary weapons, like the napalm and white phosphorous air-delivered by the us, and to which it has signed off on previously? what of the us forcing civilians back into a war zone? or sniper attacks on ambulances, medical personnel and hospitals? one would be hardpressed to demonstrate that the agressors & instigators of this illegal war have adhered to any codified humanitarian laws or rules of engagement. the nat’l security strategy itself maintains the us imperative to operation outside such recognized legalities. they have made it very clear that the us is an outlaw. so compare the number of violations of int’l law by each side in this battle, weigh them against their causation, and anything less than an honest admittance that it is the crimes of the instigator that bear the ultimate blame can be read as an endorsement of war crimes. there are no bystanders to war crimes & genocide, only victims & perpetrators.

Posted by: b real | Nov 20 2004 23:07 utc | 72

ANTHONY ARNOVE, editor of the book Iraq Under Siege, provides a guide for decoding the corporate media’s doublespeak about the invasion of Falluja.
CORPORATE JOURNALISTS in the United States are generally little more than stenographers for U.S. government propaganda. But in times of war–or alleged war–they tend to abandon stenography for cheerleading as their preferred mode of “reporting” the “news.”
Rather than independent analysis, journalists compete over who can give the most enthusiastic coverage for the home team. Reporting on the current bloody assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja–absurdly code-named Operation Phantom Fury by the Pentagon–provides a clear illustration. To help readers of Socialist Worker decode this coverage, here is a guide to some of the real meanings of the terms dominating the headlines.
— Suspected terrorist hideout: Any home destroyed by U.S. troops.
— Terrorists: Any of the 300,000 people who live in Falluja who are killed or who resist U.S. forces in any way.
— Coalition: The name for the U.S. military when it wants to portray its actions as having the support of other nations–for example, Poland. Poland has 2,500 troops in Iraq, though it has announced it will withdraw them in 2005. But, not to worry. Fiji has sent 170 troops to protect the U.S.-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad.
— Rebel propaganda: Any report of a civilian death or human rights abuse by the “Coalition,” even if documented by human rights groups.
— Propaganda center: Hospital. This is the reason why the assault on Falluja began by seizing Falluja General Hospital. “Iraqi troops eagerly kicked the doors in,” the New York Times reported, “some not waiting for the locks to break. Patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.” Why? Because, military spokesmen explained, the hospital was responsible for “inflated civilian casualty figures.”
— Preparing for elections: Brutalizing the population. As Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian, “Escape routes have been sealed off, homes are being demolished, and an emergency health clinic has been razed –all in the name of preparing the city for January elections. In a letter to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi explained that the all-out attack was required ‘to safeguard lives, elections and democracy in Iraq.’”
— Body count: An obsolete term as far the U.S. media are concerned. Estimates of the number of Iraqis killed in the assault on Falluja stand at 600, “although U.S. officials say an accurate figure is hard to obtain because of the use of air strikes and other heavy ordnance.”
— Terror Town: Used originally to refer to Falluja, by the New York Post. But can be used to describe any city in Iraq with more than 200 people. In the week of the Falluja assault, the Financial Times notes, “guerrillas have struck in virtually every big city in central Iraq, including Mosul, Ramadi, Samarra, Tikrit, Baaqouba, Bayji and Baghdad.”
— Iraqi security forces: Iraqis who will be left to do the dirty work once U.S. troops withdraw from their assault.
— “Mission accomplished”: The operation in Falluja has been “very successful,” with “hundreds and hundreds” of insurgents killed or captured, according to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers. But, he added, “If anybody thinks that Falluja is going to be the end of the insurgency in Iraq, that was never the objective, never our intention, and even never our hope.”

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Nov 21 2004 0:36 utc | 74

Amen, DeAnander!

Posted by: Stoy | Nov 21 2004 6:52 utc | 76

Iraqi police loot police post, defect to Iraqi resistance
Bodies of 9 Iraqi soldiers found in Mosul
Clashes intensify in Mosul
Four government officials assassinated – Ministry of Public Works adviser and three colleagues killed
Violent attacks sweep Baghdad, US soldier killed
Nine killed in Ramadi clashes
Another airport highway attack – Car bomb in western Baghdad wounds five U.S. soldiers
Iraqis dying to work for the west
Polish hostage freed in Iraq
Zarqawi ‘harder to catch’ than Saddam
Civil war possible after Iraq elections – General Richard Myers
Destroying it to save it? – Falluja
US military deaths in Iraq as at Saturday November 20th 2004 – ‘at least 1,219’
Details of some of the day’s incidents throughout Iraq
US military operations in Iraq accidentally faxed to Cleveland clinic
Saboteurs hit oil well near Kirkuk
Does anyone still believe Iraq will go to polls in January?
BAGHDAD — Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government…..
…Mehdi and other analysts attributed the increase in malnutrition to dirty water and to unreliable supplies of the electricity needed to make it safe by boiling. In poorer areas, where people rely on kerosene to fuel their stoves, high prices and an economy crippled by unemployment aggravate poor health…
“…Believe me, we thought a magic thing would happen” with the fall of Hussein and the start of the U.S.-led occupation, said an administrator at Baghdad’s Central Teaching Hospital for Pediatrics. “So we’re surprised that nothing has been done. And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice,” the official said….
Children pay cost of Iraq’s chaos
Two page article

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 21 2004 7:31 utc | 78

When you see pictures of people jumping off the top of the WTC you can imagine how bad it must have been up there for them to choose jumping from 110 stories up.
to hear “And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice,” the official said…. you can imagine how bad it must be in Iraq right now.
How can we stop this?

Posted by: Dan of Steele | Nov 21 2004 9:30 utc | 80

US behaviour on Iraq:
A man rapes a women. She defends herself by scraching him as much as possible. The man kills the women. In front of the jury he claims that he only killed her because she would not fight “fair”.

Posted by: b | Nov 21 2004 10:28 utc | 82

On the eve of the assault on Falluja, the US military ordered troops to shoot any male on the street between the ages of 15 and 50 if they were seen as a security threat, regardless of whether they had a weapon.
“You are killers, not murderers. You are warriors not war criminals. Don’t cross that line.”
Those were the words of a US officer to his men before they took part in the recent assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja……..
Falluja troops told to shoot on sight
And this after they refused to allow any males aged between 15 and 50 out of the city and turned back all those who tried to get out. It seems the ‘warriors’ wanted a good ‘body count’ come what may, even if they had to kill the ‘unarmed sleeper cells’ to achieve it. By a simple formula of words a war crime is Americanized and sold as something else. Par for the course from a nation of hucksters – alas the English language is not all that they are murdering.

Posted by: Sic transit gloria USA | Nov 21 2004 11:35 utc | 84

Children Pay Cost of Iraq’s Chaos
“BAGHDAD — Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.
“After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq’s Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway’s Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from “wasting,” a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein. …
“Iraq’s child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti.”
Malnutrition on the Rise in Iraq
Psychiatric study finds malnutrition in childhood has long-term consequences
“Malnutrition at a young age appears to contribute to an increased risk of externalizing behavior problems throughout childhood and adolescence, report researchers who found that low IQ, rather than psychosocial adversity, was a mediating factor.
A new study “…assessed cognitive function at the age of 3 and 11 years, as well as antisocial, aggressive, and hyperactive behavior at the age of 8, 11, and 17 years in 353 children who showed signs of malnutrition when aged 3 years. The outcome for these participants was compared with that for 1206 children who were not malnourished…
“They were found to be more aggressive or hyperactive when aged 8 years than those who were not malnourished.
“Moreover, malnourishment was associated with increased externalizing problems at the age of 11 years, and elevated conduct disorder and excessive motor activity at the age of 17 years.
“The researchers note that the results were independent of psychosocial adversity and were not moderated by gender.
“Rather, the relationship between malnutrition and externalizing behavior appeared to be mediated by cognitive ability, with malnourishment predisposing children to a low IQ, which, in turn, increased their risk of externalizing behavior problems.”
Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2005-2013

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2004 14:30 utc | 86

Here’s a piece of homework that I hadn’t even thought of–not recently, anyway: could it be that the Geneva Convention has something to say about “pre-emptive war” per se? There may be language in the GC about “just cause”. Even if it were a little sketchy, it would speak to the first instance of unacceptable violence…..But then again, a shooting war, “pre-emptive” or otherwise, is always, in its initial and terminal phases, a war by other means, and arguably pre-emptive in some sense: I’m thinking of embargoes, the suspension of diplomatic recognition, the jamming of airwaves….all the maneuvers that comprised the “cold war,” not to mention some sixty-odd years of American behavior towards Cuba…..All could be taken as tactical preparations for a war, pre-emptive or otherwise, and so the distinction between “pre-emptive” and “preventive” war becomes almost unimaginable at this phase…..A word of warmest thanks to Pat, Bea, b, DeAnander and others for their assistance with this rather dry and academic margin of the main scene.

Posted by: alabama | Nov 21 2004 15:48 utc | 88

I am far from an expert on this topic, but I believe that absolutely, there is language not only in the Geneva Conventions but more fundamentally in the United Nations Charter which makes the waging of pre-emptive war illegal. Viz Chapter 1 of the Charter (which for its signatories, including the US, is supposed to take precedence over other treaties):
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
There is also the longstanding theoretical concept of “Just War”. This is not legally binding but philosophically and morally important to understand. More on definitions of “just war” through the ages at this site:
Just War Primer
Here are some tidbits from the site:
“In modern language, these rules hold that to be just, a war must meet the following criteria before the use of force:
* War can only be waged for a just cause, such as self-defense against an armed attack.
* War can only be waged under legitimate authority. The sovereign power of the state is usually considered to be legitimate authority. This means that citizens at their own will cannot attack another country without the permission of the sovereign.
* War can only be waged with the right intention. Correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain is not. Thus a war that would normally be just for all other reasons would be made unjust by a bad intention.
* War can only be waged with a reasonable chance of success. It is considered unjust to meaninglessly waste human life and economic resources if defeat is unavoidable.
* War can only be waged as a last resort. War is not just until all realistic options which were likely to right the wrong have been pursued.
“Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act:
* The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. Some theologians believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb).
* Torture, of combatants or of non-combatants, is forbidden.
* Prisoners of war must be treated respectfully.
* Some, such as former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, argue that the force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. Others argue that force should be total and immediate, as to make the conflict as short as possible (See Powell doctrine).”

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2004 16:23 utc | 90

Ah, bea, once again we touch on the keystones of “sovereignty” and “state” (the latter amounting in our own times to the “nation-state”). If the “nation” (or “nation-state”) were concretely dissolved, what would take its place? Would the “United Nations,” for example, be conceived as a “state”? The concept of the “sovereign,” underwriting the concepts of “nation” and “state,” is famously the most problematic, of course, and would remain problematic for a truly effective United Nations. “Sovereign is he who decides the exception,” says Carl Schmitt….

Posted by: alabama | Nov 21 2004 17:30 utc | 92

@alabama
Here’s a link to a good brief legal research paper on the subject of international law, preventive war, and the Bush Doctrine.
Preventive War After Iraq

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2004 18:07 utc | 94

@alabama
Sorry. I am not sure why it didn’t work, but if you go to the root directory
http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/
then choose “Preventive War After Iraq” it should work.

Posted by: Bea | Nov 21 2004 18:41 utc | 96

A great opportunity for all you Moonies! This is your chance to get in on the ground floor, before the building collapses from an artillery round!

This is a genuine possibility, with remarkable ramifications. Organizations like Operation Iraqi Children working with the US military, are helping to shape a new generation of freedom loving Iraqis. It won’t be long before these kids take their place in society. They will recall their childhood as the time when powerful Americans released them from the grip of a bloodthirsty madman, and gave them the tools and support to build a peaceful, prosperous society to call their own. Evidence suggests they will run with it.
…
Let’s say you decide to err on the side of Iraqi prosperity. You take advantage of the 100 year low value and buy 2 million Iraqi dinars.
…
A few years from now, you see a program on A&E portraying the lives of average Iraqis. You see people drinking locally bottled, genuine Pepsi Cola; not the ersatz they’d been consuming for years. They are buying their cars from Baghdad Mitsubishi.
…
You discover that things are going well enough in Iraq to have raised the value of the the dinar to one US cent.
Your $2100 purchase would now be valued at $20,000.

I know it’s easy to be a sneering cynic, so I’ll just say that Iraq is facing another 10-20 years of war. There are many currencies in the world even more worthless than the dinar, and things are never so bad that they can’t get worse. And this all assumes these people aren’t complete charlatans. Oops, there I go again.
Here’s the best part:

Some proposals they are considering include pegging the dinar to either the US dollar or the Euro.

HMMMM. Which one do you think they’ll pick?

Posted by: Harrow | Nov 21 2004 19:51 utc | 98

On the legality of wars, I would just like to add that one of the things the accused at the Nürnberg-trials were tried for was crimes against the peace (or something to that extent). So the nazi leaders hung for among other things starting wars.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Nov 22 2004 1:54 utc | 100