@The US Military are the scum of the earth (7:39pm)

We know they have done the same thing in Iraq.
Do you remember the photographs from Abu Ghraib, in particular the photagraph of the iced corpse? That was the remains of an Iraqi GENERAL that had died under interrogation. So they iced him up, put him on a stretcher, attached an IV drip and carried him away...to God knows where.
This happened two years ago. The photographs came out one year ago. Nothing has been said about this case. Do you really believe they did any less to this poor man than they did to the poor Afghan taxi-driver????
It's time to drag it out of the memory hole.
First, the man was a "ghost detainee"
Second, I remember that in contemporaneous reports someone had said it was "payback for 9/11" or something similar. It was Bush himself who implied to the armed forces that Iraq was behind that atrocity.
Third, we have the photograph.

If this one gains traction, Bush will go down. Can anybody help?

Posted by: John | May 23 2005 12:45 utc | 101

@John

He's simply one of an unnumbered Iraqi 'disappeared' ... the CIA Inspector General has been investigating that case and others for more than a year with nothing to report yet and probably never will ... the senate committee's no longer even bother to ask for an update or status report ...

After Abu Ghraib G.W.Bush said to the world words to the effect " ... judge us not by these acts but by how we deal with them."

Yet the tortured, disappeared, ghost detainees, extraordinary renditions, sanctioned murders, intentional and 'accidental' murders et al continue unabated ...

Yes, this is how we spread Democracy and Freedom, with the same immoral, brutal and ruthless hypocracy as we have around the world since the Spanish-American War of 1898 and 'Remember the Maine'.

American exceptionalism combined with the 'War on Terra' now envisage endless warfare against 'the others' fighting for such 'ideals'.

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 13:04 utc | 102

b: thanks for the link. Truly politics has become the domain of hallucinations.

Posted by: citizen k | May 23 2005 13:08 utc | 103

Iraq's insurgents are conducting increasingly sophisticated and lethal attacks on the private security companies that are crucial to the nation's reconstruction and the eventual departure of U.S. troops, contractors and U.S. officials say.

These contractors and officials point to the surprising level of planning and brutality involved in a May 8 attack on the British security company Hart Security Ltd., which provides protection to convoys, homes and individuals in Iraq.

Twelve out of 18 Iraqi and international guards were killed in the attack, in which insurgents ambushed a convoy escorting cargo for the U.S. forces from Baghdad to a base in al-Asat, about 90 miles west of the city.

Once resistance from the security team ended, the attackers moved in to finish off the wounded, then piled several of the bodies on top of a bomb so they could not be removed without setting off an explosion, sources said.

The terrorists taped the event, presumably to develop a training and recruiting tool and to study to refine their techniques. The six-minute video is available on the Internet with a claim of responsibility from the terrorist group Ansar al-Sunnah Army.

Security specialists said the terrorists appeared to have calibrated mortars in advance of the attack, permitting direct hits on the five-vehicle convoy just as it hit a series of hidden bombs laid out in a "daisy chain" along the road.

The militants then managed to split up the convoy and systematically wipe out members of each smaller component....

Posted by: Nugget | May 23 2005 13:09 utc | 104

And no locals saw anything.

How long before that's a US convoy being hit and wiped out?

Posted by: Colman | May 23 2005 13:14 utc | 105

The Iraqi prisoner who was packed in ice after he died following beatings with rifle butts during his arrest, further beatings, chokings and eye-jabbings with extended fingers during interrogation by U.S. military and C.I.A. personnel and being subjected to, while suffering broken ribs, a suspension process known in the torturer's trade as a 'Palestinian hanging' (a favorite of interrogators from another country, one with very close links to the U.S.) was Manadel al-Jamadi. After a brief period providing entertainment and fond photographic memories for U.S. Army Spc Sabrina Harman and friends his remains were allocated unclaimed corpse number E63 and lay for over four and a half months rotting in the power-cuts afflicted refrigeration area of a Baghdad mortuary but eventually his body was claimed by his family and he was buried at a place known to them. After the manner of his death became public it was claimed that he was a suspect in the bombing of the ICRC headquarters in Baghdad but no substantiating evidence to support this allegation has ever been released, even in the face of outrage over the revolting and barbaric nature of his murder.

Posted by: Nugget | May 23 2005 13:52 utc | 106

Just over a year ago the US forces in Iraq ceded the country to the insurgents by withdrawing into thier fortified bases and effectively ceased aggressive patrolling on a strategic and operational scale ... the driver being the crippling doctrine of 'force protection' (i.e. keep the body count low).

From that moment they lost the counter-insurgency because they gave freedom of action to the insurgents. It is the insurgents who have the detailed Intelligence and agents, they've infiltrated the occupation and all its supporting forces and elements. The reality of this is clearly demonstrated by the virtual continuous reporting on a daily basis of senior members of the Iraqi forces, Police and Army, as well as governement and other officials assassinated. In many cases quite soon after a new appointment.

The best the occupation can come up with in recent times is a 1,000 string 'cordon and search' in the west of Anbar province near the Syrian border which accomplished virtually nil and conducted without Iraqi Army forces in support as there is effectively only a single battalion capable of independent operations.

The US forces are facing a conflict of attrition where they seek to stand back from direct engagement and therefore losses other than on ground of thier choosing whilst pushing forward the under-trained and poorly motivated/committed Iraqi Police and Army as a buffer of cannon fodder.

The insurgents are playing the long game ... the US strategy demonstrates the occupations inherent weakness, vulnerability and lack of staying power.

The combat troops of the ooccupation are overly dependent on contractors and non-uniformed elements for thier very day to day existence ... everything from fresh drinking water to ammunition and food.

The insurgency is striving to accomplish a series of concurrent aims:

undermine the legitamcy of the occupation and the interim government by demonstrating its inability to govern,

deny freedom of movement and therefore logistic support of the largely static/defensive combat elements so they can eventually be defeated in detail, and

undermine the morale and committment of the occupation forces as well as what they consider 'collaborators' (government, contractors, Iraqi Police & Army) in support of the above.

They have a long way to go yet, however, ask yourself what faith the average Iraqi can have in the government/occupation when Iraqi policemen wear balaclavas to protect identity and no senior government figure or goods shipment can travel without armed escort, in convoy ...

By targeting the contractors and therefore the non-uniformed logitics elements of both the military and goverment agencies they cause them to slowly 'die on the vine'.

What good will 145,000 US boots on the ground be as they face constant shortages of food, water or ammunition on a recurring basis ...

Sooner or later no amount of money is going to be worth the risk of being a contractor supporting the enormous logistical demand of the occupation ... consider whats required just support the bunkered oasis of the Green Zone.

The insurgents are not 'ragheads' ... they are a composite of Iraqi military veterans going back to the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, both Gulf Wars, stiffened by islamic extremists and guerilla warfare veterans from places such as Afghanistan, the Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, the Balkans etc.

This conflict is a form of ruthless darnwinism on the battlefield. The dumb or incompetent insurgents are long dead, the capable fighters are now leaders and organisers whilst the US troops rotate out after a 12 month tour and 'fresh meat' is sent in to replace the old ... the insurgents fight until they eventually win or die ... they're already home ...

In this type of conflict it is the technologicaly superior US military which is the incompetent amateur and they demonstrate thier relative impotence week in week out.

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 13:57 utc | 107

cher RGiap: I wonder how you strain to make parallels between the Us in Iraq and the German Eastern Front, the absence of death camps strikes me as a significant difference, when there is a much closer analogy at hand. I refer of course to a more recent war between a Western Power and an Islamic country, featuring urban warfare, torture, terror, arial bombardments of civilians, and even a non-arab ethnic group taking the place of the Kurds. Rings a bell?

Posted by: citizen k | May 23 2005 14:38 utc | 108

Outraged

Just to back up what you say about the war of attrition. The UN mandate expires at the end of this year. I'm not sure they'll grant an extension this time after the "Downing Street memo".

Nugget

Thank you. Thorough and comprehensive, as always

Posted by: John | May 23 2005 14:45 utc | 109

Some compare Iraq to Vietnam; I say compare it to Afghanistan now; it will be Vietnam when Sadr decides enough is enough; and bloody three way Civil War when Sistani decides to mobilise and interstate Gulf War when Fratboy Bush gives Sharon the green light to hit Iran.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 23 2005 14:46 utc | 110

nuggets link "With the intensity and sophistication of terrorist attacks increasing, and with the constant fear of kidnapping, the cost of security has mushroomed to account for 16 percent of the total reconstruction budget. "
how long before this security , which is just another name for private army ,reaches 50%.and once you add the logistic support on to the 16%??does reconstruction mean constantly reconstructing our base? no wonder we have nothing to show for it and loose track of the funds.meanwhile we don't have to add the deaths to the military's count, experienced soldiers are opting for the better paid reconstruction jobs,headscratching over low recruitment and btw coleman i love your 7:18 interpretation of the assasination! all we really need is the media to win this war.

Posted by: annie | May 23 2005 15:15 utc | 111

Every insurgency has it's own unique character, however, Iraq is probably best characterized as a hybrid of the French (not US) post WWII occupation of IndoChina (Vietnam), the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Israeli occupation of Southern lebanon.

In all cases a culturally ingorant and unjust occupation defeated by varying methods but ultimately by the will and determination, no matter how long or bloody the conflict may ultimately be, of the occupied.

Use of superior, overwhelming, indiscrimate brute force and combat power will succeed in a set piece conventional battle/war ... it only pours fuel on the fire of an indigenous insurgency.

Yet it seems that the US militaries leadership in particular has come to know or understand no other possible solution ... they seem to simply be unable or unwilling to learn the lessons of military history ... the British Military has had the most success at successful counter-insurgency Ops, yet the US forces laugh in the Brits faces when offered valuable advice.

Is this self-destructive arrogance due to some ingrained sense, belief, indoctrination of some sort of aryan-like superiority (i.e. " ... it's not easy being the the worlds sole superpower ... ")

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 15:18 utc | 112

China ready to counter US space plans

Fucking Great, A new arms race. Somehow, I don't think we'll be as lucky in this one.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 23 2005 15:21 utc | 113

i think they don't care if it drags on . time is of the essence, lots of time. the US needs it , to mold the mind of the public. this propaganda about us leaving eventually and how its the insurgents fault we can't leave and we're building these bases for the iraqis to occupy when we leave, eventually, is all a smokescreen to shut us up and let them build on. it's going to take lots of time to drain the economy and shift it all over to the private sector, reconstruction budget of the halliburtons etc. this is part of the game plan. it doesn't matter to them how long it takes, they make money every moment we're there.win or loose it all ends up in the pockets of oilmen.

Posted by: annie | May 23 2005 15:26 utc | 114

@annie

True.

However, all actions engender reactions, and the ultimate cost to the US the longer Iraq goes on is 'righteous' defiance by the rest of the world, overtly and covertly, collectively and in blocs to its 'superpower' status and supposed inherent entitlements as a result thereof ... not a pleasant prospect re a stable world into the future ...

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 15:39 utc | 115

i'm not endorsing it outrage, just making a point that everytime a US helicopter goes down more money is transfered from the pockets of the collective ie mostly poor working class, directly into corporate 1% carlyle, halliburton or whatever. if the goal is the guilded class once again, every loss gets them one step closer. it's set up so that they make money any which way it goes. a slow dribble is less in your face(as far as they're conserned) than an outright takeover. no scenario leads to a US exit, and that's something they are not copping to. they need the time, just like they needed the timelapse of when the news about no wmd came about , even thou most of the world knew it at the get go. they are writing history and time works well w/ the spin factor. like grease in the wheels. lets just cross our fingers that all the idiots over here wake up and quit becoming foder.

Posted by: annie | May 23 2005 16:01 utc | 116

one more point, if they take a loss and spin it to their liking, which they do everytime you hear the word terrorist, it pulls on the collective sympathy string. all those ruthless barbaric terrorist and the christian heros willing to sacrafice. bla bla

Posted by: annie | May 23 2005 16:05 utc | 117

I sure hope the do not actually do it. BBC:

Camp Delta death chamber plan

A court and execution chamber could be built at the US detention camp in Cuba under plans being drawn up by military officials.
...
Pentagon rules for the tribunals permit death sentences to be passed and the construction of a death chamber at the camp is among options being considered.

But defence officials stress that everything remains on the drawing board until orders are issued by the president.

Posted by: Fran | May 23 2005 16:23 utc | 118

@annie

No disagreements here.

However, the current administration removes, rejects, dismisses views/advice that are dissenting and therefore move futher into a surreal bubble re Policy. This disconnect from reality will have to bite back ...

I make no claims to economic expertise, yet its my perception that maintenance of US economic might (and therefore lifestyle) is dependant on the constant inflow of foriegn investment and exploitation for profit of other nations resources through the direct and indirect threat of varying forms of force; political, economic and military.

Remove the credibility of the threat or create sufficient angst/aggravation to lose foriegn acquiesance and the cashflow stops ... and the deficit implodes ... it would seem to me that one reckless policy after another is bringing that eventuality ever closer ... the haliburtons of the world and their beneficiaries won't do any better out of a US reliving the depression of the 1930's ...

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 16:28 utc | 119

"But defence officials stress that everything remains on the drawing board until orders are issued by the president."

He wants to be sure he can execute from the offal office. It's his favoritest thing.

Posted by: beq | May 23 2005 16:31 utc | 120

onzaga

merci & merci

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 16:35 utc | 121

also want to reply briefly to citizen k

the germans war against the east was a war of anhilation - so is this continuing war against the arab people - there are many many points of reference. as i have noted before the mass of murders in the east were carried out by police battallions and by the german army

the russian war against afghanistan is noit comparable in the least - again you throw something out rhetorically - indeed a provocation as if i am the last defender of everything red

& in a way i am - but it is a little more colourful & complex than that - legal positivists/bourgeois humanists etc are not the only persons to live multiplicitiouslly

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 16:48 utc | 122

"This disconnect from reality will have to bite back ..." of course, they are just banking that it won't bite back till they are in full control of the senate,courts and election process. as for the rest of the world , sending bolton to the UN should hold back any concerted effort to consolidate outside forces. they are banking on controlling the oil BEFORE the backlash occurs.
once we are on our knees(economically, and this works in there favor) only then will we be willing to play the footsoldiers? the timefactor re slow gradual drip drip of destructions and loyalties lost stretches out the time between now and the outrage. the world already sees what they're doing and where's the backlash? perhaps they are waiting til the noose is firmly in place. at least the chinese are preparing themselves. controling the skies,hmm.

Posted by: annie | May 23 2005 17:08 utc | 123

Black market organ trade is Baghdad's new growth industry

Ali Hameed quit his job as a taxi driver because he no longer felt safe on Baghdad's streets. Increasingly desperate for money to help him get married, he hit on a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity - selling one of his kidneys.

Last week, in a shabby ward in the city's Al Karama hospital, he lay bandaged on a bed, one kidney lighter and $1,400 (about £765) richer after a three-hour operation.

In a nearby room, his body similarly bandaged, lay the man who had paid for it - the other player in a grim new black market trade in organs that is one of Iraq's few growth industries....

.....In 2001, the going rate for a donor was $2,000. The fact that the price has tumbled, some doctors say, suggests that Iraqis are even more desperate for money now than they were under Saddam....

Posted by: Nugget | May 23 2005 17:15 utc | 124

Aaargh! I just noticed that my homeowners association has marked a tree behind my house with blue and orange spray paint. I just made a phone call about it and they say they will cut it down because the developer backfilled clay over its roots and the HOA doesn't want to pay for its removal later if it dies. Removing it now means the developer pays for it instead. We moved in 18 months ago and the tree looks fine. The clay has probably been around it for three times that amount of time. Frankly I don't see that much clay around it; it is on the edge of a preserve that got no clay.

The tree is very so close to our property line that it blocks our fence gate from opening all the way. We don't mind. The hummingbirds and the goldfinches use it to perch while waiting their turn at our feeders. I don't know what kind of tree it is, but it grows/drops little spikey brown balls every other year or so. It is so tall that we can see it from our bedroom window which is darn high up there. Its fall colors are spectacular reds oranges yellows and lime greens. Which is why I am very upset that I have no say in this decision.

I do not like the folks that got elected to our mini HOA. On of them had the nerve to say once to me in reference to other homeowners concerns that "this is not a democracy". I know he got that attitude from GOP propaganda garbage about the nation being a republic not a democracy. Another one ignores homeowners concerns that don't match her own. [Clean up the woods to get rid of firesetters/shotguns/broken glass and fourwheel all-terain motoring?? Heck no: her property doesn't back to the woods. So makes friends with the perpetrators' neighborhood to adopt a highway together instead. I bet she's got her eye on higher elected office and wants to expand her influence. Cleaning up the woods would just piss off the other nighborhood's voters.] A third used his position to get elected to the larger HOA and now says he doesn't represent us anymore because he has to represent the whole HOA instead of our neighborhood that sent him to represent us on the larger HOA! Little autocrats!

Oh my tree.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 23 2005 17:33 utc | 125

gylangirl, don't get me started on trees. A developer bought a pretty bungalow on a modest lot in my neighborhood. He cut down a magnificent oak and the biggest cedar I've ever seen (both perfectly healthy and likely to outlive us all) so he could cram a crappy house to either side of the original one. He left one tree in as a showpiece in front of one of the new houses and now it is dead, no doubt from the construction. Sorry about your tree. Maybe you could adopt it and say you'll be responsible if it dies??

Posted by: beq | May 23 2005 17:50 utc | 126

The status quo of the Cold War has evaporated ... the US is only a superpower and maintains its lifestyle only so long as it is tolerated as benign by the rest of the world.

The EU was formed to effectively be an economic and political counterweight to the US, without the burden of a $400 billion+ a year Pentagon ...

China is the worlds third largest economy and is expanding on all levels at a sustained rate ... Japan is economy number two and because of the threat of China/North Korea clearly moving towards a potentially resurgent militaristic and independent foriegn policy to protect its own interests ... so long Japan as a US puppet ...

Musharef is on borrowed time and when he's gone Pakistan becomes a possibly unstable nuclear state in the most volatile area of the Globe ... scratch another US ally ...

Latin America is forming into a bloc that intends to act in its interests and not as the backyard resource of the US ... no more officer exchange programs with the School of the Americas ... Venezuala is demonstarting open defiance/comtempt without consequence and other SA countries are taking note ...

South Korea is moving towards acting in its own interest rather than the strategic interests of the US ... scratch another ally ...

Without even considering the Middle east or Central Asia the US is fast running out of friends, allies and longtime proxies in what is rapidly becoming a multi-polar world that has no desire to be the kicking-boy of a renegade superpower under Bush & Co.

The neocons documented strategy was to sieze strategic territory and resources before the percieved economic failure of the US rendered it incapable of doing so to stave of the loss of world dominance. Howvevr, in so doing they may very well have accelerated the process itself and created conditions that could lead to the economic inability to maintain its previously formidable military might.

At every level the US is demonstrating loss of power, influence and might throughout the world thanks to Bush & Co.

There's going to be a landing for America from No. 1 economy and sole superpower ... it's just a question of whether the landing will be soft or hard, internationally and domestically and how far away it is ...

Re military dominace of space ... jeez, that's just another financial blackhole to add to the existing deficit ... supposedly the Cold War arms race accelarted the USSRs demise 'cause it could'nt afford it ... if that analysis is accepted then the US is headed the same way in a multi-level arms race against no-one but itself ...

Just some idle thoughts ;)

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 17:51 utc | 127

Of eggs and omelettes

Perhaps, at this time, you may require some reassurance. Perhaps, if you are one of the handful of Americans not otherwise occupied with Amber Alerts and runaway brides and the curious sleepover habits of washed-up eighties pop stars, you may have accidentally happened upon a few bodies halfway across the world (Afwhatsistan? Bagrawho?), which may or may not have pricked whatever remains of a long-dormant and desensitized National Conscience. And you may be asking yourself what the point of all this has been, what has driven Americans halfway around the globe to sieze innocent men, beat their legs to pulp, and chain them to ceilings until they die.

Regrettable, yes, but let us remember that these two eggs, like the dozens before them, and the tens of thousands before them, were broken to make the greatest and worthiest of omelettes, the most succulent of breakfasttime generational commitments, the proudest and most visionary of truck stop slop. And when it is finished and served, to whomever it is served, will it not have been worth the mound of eggshells, the broken crockery, the shattered glass, the mountain of murdered cooks, the acres of burning kitchen, the unbroken stench of dead flesh? And if that omelette is never made, won't the idea of the omelette - finer and purer and more pristine than the thing itself - have been worth them all, in the end?

Fafblog wonders about the distinctions citizen k seems to draw among omelettes.

more

Posted by: citizen | May 23 2005 17:59 utc | 128

Apologies if upthread.

New Testament Tank

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 23 2005 18:03 utc | 129

So...having a little war in your neighborhood G-girl?

Must be human nature.

Posted by: rapt | May 23 2005 18:03 utc | 130

Human nature indeed. I remember similar problems in my college sorority. "The committee" kept increasing the amount of time spent wasted in meetings; kept increasing the number of "required" social events we had to attend; referred to members who didn't care to spend every night in official sorority activities [that the committee invented] as "the deadwood".

Whether at the micro organizational level or at the national political level, I suspect that service to the electorate is not the motivation of most people who run for elected office.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 23 2005 18:20 utc | 131

outraged,

You bring up many good points, especially the policy of "force protection". I would agree that the beginning of the end for the US came on the heels of Abu-Graib at Fallujah 1. At that watershed event the US reached an impass as to their tactical effectivness in pacification. They were not yet ready to level the place, as in Fallujah2, and were also not ready to take the city in in a low impact/small arms/ infantry manner that would lessen both collateral damage and political impact, because this would mean much higher casualities for the US troops. In short, the US at this time illustrated for all to see, the tactical catch-22 that they were operating within -- that the US for its own political reasons (on the homefront) was not able to carry out operations most likely to succeed (politically with the Iraqis) because it would produce politically damaging results (high casualities) back in the US. So, the only option left then is the one used first in Najaf then in Fallujah2, and that is to use overwhelming force in high density populations, to keep minimum US casualities, the logic of "destroying the village to save it". This is of course, understood by resistance intellegence to be the narrow losing tactical/political strategy that it is, and must be then be exploited in ways that bait the US to use it al-a -Tet offensive -- and why the resistance grows after such operations -- and why in the eyes of the US a major defeat of resistance, is in the eyes of the resistance seen as a major victory. Short game / long game.

Posted by: anna missed | May 23 2005 18:23 utc | 132

Gylangirl,

From your description, it sounds like a sweetgum tree (Liquidambar styraciflua). I remember many of these trees when I was young; I don't see very many of them anymore.

Yes, it does sound like a senseless and destructive act to uproot it. I am sorry for your (and our) loss. It does seem that few people recognise the profundity of the suffering of others (especially if those others do not belong to the same species) and this makes the suffering more difficult to bear for those who do "get it".

Posted by: | May 23 2005 18:27 utc | 133

The unsigned comment above was from me.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 23 2005 18:29 utc | 134

anna missed

May I just highlight that the U.S. cannot fight a smart war in Iraq because it started by deceiving the public about the reasons for war. Now that our neo-revisionists are pulling the "blame the press, blame the pacifists" trick out again to argue that the military is being betrayed, it matters that we state clearly and simply that the U.S. forfeited tactically smart warfare because our government lied its way in to a war that is not even remotely justifiable by any concept of national interests. It is pure profiteering that started this war, that's destroying at least two nations, and that will lose the war because our leaders do not have the sac to actually lead the country, but instead occupy themselves with drugging and dragging us into war.

The true cowards here are those who did not have the faith in their own case to actually explain to the republic why to start an orgy of killing in Iraq.

Posted by: citizen | May 23 2005 18:45 utc | 135

@anna missed

Another issue not well understood is that the Iraqi Army is only trained for limited combat Ops, primarily to 'stand in' or be the fronmen for the US troops and therefore absorb the casualties and take the greater risks.

Yet they have to do it without any heavy weapons or any armored vehicles/transport, they get around, at best in 4WDs/SUVs, and 'hope' if they get into trouble the US armor or air assets might arrive in time to save thier hides.

The Iraqi forces also have no staying power ... they have little to no administrative or logistical support staff or systems, after all they were created as 'cannon-fodder'. Therefore without the dedicated and direct logistical support of US forces and contractors they are incapable of independent operations or operations in an environment that does'nt include the Coalition in direct support.

Hence, the Iraqi Police and Army have by and large a morale rating of close to zero. They are happy to take thier chances for a paycheck and a regular meal, but they are in no way committed to being willing cannon-fodder for the US troops. And regardless of the supposed perfidy of the insurgents, they are'nt too thrilled about initiating fighting to death against fellow Iraqis.

Take the US and Coalition troops out of Iraq and the Iraqi Army and Police will collapse as effective cohesive forces overnight ...

Add to this that virtually all levesl of the Iraqi police, Army and Intelligence services have been actively infiltrated by the insurgents from day one and its no wonder the Insurgents, as opposed to the Coalition, have such excellent Intelligence with which to conduct THIER Operations ... a large percentage of the Arabic interpreters and contracted convoy drivers attached to and working for Coalition forces contracting companies are probably working for the insurgency or when the time comes are suborned/coerced into doing so ... this was preciseley the situation in Somalia, we just did'nt realise it until after we left ... in Vietnam, Generals, Governers, Intelligence officers were working for the VC/NVA from day one ...

Another aspect is how do the insurgents Intel lads get thier man into the most useful positions ... manage his career and promotion by 'removing' competitors/superiors ... if key apointees have'nt been assassinated or targeted is it because they're already working for the other side ?

Humint has never been our strong suit, we're far too dependent on technical means ... we've been consistently beaten at this game by our opponents for decades ...

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 19:09 utc | 136

citizen,

Well yes, I'm just trying to point out that the US is hamstrung by their own true intentions, and that those true intentions are played out on the ground in Iraq minute by minute by our actions. And that those actions, and their modalities, are understood and used in deference to the rhetoric. Everything (down to detail) the US has done is predicated exclusively on top layer political control and resource/economic management. Nothing the US has done shows the slightest interest in the security, wellbeing, and humanity of the Iraqi people. All this blather of "best friend, worst enemy" is code word for blackmale, and blackmale is surely seen from the actions on the ground, and so security for instance, is to be found only in traditional alliances where fact follows rhetoric.
The trajectory of falling public support (in the US) for the occupation will at some time soon, intersect with the rising tide of resistance acumen created by our actions which will perciptate either a wider and more horrific war or a total collapse of confidence, necessitating withdrawl.

Posted by: anna missed | May 23 2005 19:28 utc | 137

anna missed,
sorry, I seem to have gotten my tone a bit wrong - basically I was trying to gloss the nature and origins of the impasse that US forces arrived at, and that you mentioned in your 2:23 post.

Posted by: citizen | May 23 2005 19:39 utc | 138

@anna missed 03:28 PM

Quite right.

Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 19:51 utc | 139

gylangirl, get the opinion of an arborist. recently around here a contractor made a 'mistake' and accidently cleared a patch of woods that impacted the views of its new condos that were up for sale. they are sorry, but now that its done they are offering some compensation, an amount thay can easily make up by the enhanced value of their real estate. is that tree blocking someones view? someone on the HOA? also, request documentation that negates the ability to make the contractor responsible down the road. what are they saying, we will take responsibilty now but not later? that makes no sense. if an arborist says it will die eventually as a result of the clay, ask them if they can take it out once it starts dying. get some other neighbors involved. see if there is some kind of tree group in your town that will come to your rescue. some assoc. don't give up. this happened to me once and i actually was able to save the tree. also a town i lived in once removed a popular tree there was such a stink about it they passed some resolution requiring permission from the town to remove any old growth.many towns have this kind of thing. call an arborist!

Posted by: annie | May 23 2005 21:35 utc | 140

Citizen: Fafblog is brilliant - but please don't ascribe your opinions to her. Fine distinction between butchery is the fundamental topic of history I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 0:40 utc | 141

"I refer of course to a more recent war between a Western Power and an Islamic country, featuring urban warfare, torture, terror, arial bombardments of civilians, and even a non-arab ethnic group taking the place of the Kurds. Rings a bell?"

France/Algeria? Do I win?? Maybe a copy of the Battle of Algiers?

Posted by: razor | May 24 2005 0:51 utc | 142

yes & who won?

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 0:53 utc | 143

& its still a very difficult fim to get here & has only been broadcast a number of times on our television. it remains a film of rare power

& it is continually used for pedagogic purposes in any number of countries still

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 0:55 utc | 144

Rgiap: Is there any rational argument that the US military has not lost Iraq? The only question is the magnitude of the disaster. As for Algeria - the answer is that France won - and the Algerians lost. France purged the officer corps and evicerated the Vichy right and entered into half century of prosperity and stability. Algerians have not been so lucky.

One possible outcome for Iraq is that the US wins by purging the far right in the followup to the military defeat and Iraq descends into 50 years of civil war. Or maybe the far right takes power in the aftermath of the failure - as almost happened in France. As a mere 18th century humanist, not in possession of scientific methods, I don't predict except the safe prediction that many innocent people will suffer horribly and the guilty have a good chance of escaping punishment in this world.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 1:14 utc | 145

Razor - yes of course. But perhaps our European friends would get manage better political analysis if they didn't think "american" was the necessary prefix to "exceptionalism". It took Robert Paxon to uncover Vichy, the Belgium museum of Africa (as Hoschild notes) contains a wonderful exhibit with no mention of the 10 million murdered by King Leo, and so on

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 1:24 utc | 146

there are any number of historians here who arrived at the same conclusion as paxton before paxton but they were all communists - auguste le coeur, leonard trepper, paxton changed the vision of 'dominant' history - try to be a little more exact citizen k - when yr throwing insults this way, also the work of pascal ory or even gerard miller

& yes - the united states remains the principal threat of humanity today - without exception

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 1:36 utc | 147

Rgiap: I have to disagree. The US,despite the fantasies of the neo-cons, cannot treat the world as a blank page to be written on as they desire. Much of the current world misery is due to European bad faith and failure to come to terms with the colonial word Europe created and the US inherited. Instead of following along like a flock of junior vultures hoping for scraps, Europe could have spent a tiny fraction of its wealth and - for example - rescued Africa. Even now a small amount of aid could tip the scale for South Africa and Uganda. Instead of demanding that Europe live up to its fucking obligations, however, the European left wallows in fraudulent helplessness denouncing the Americans and the Zionists as if the EU was a spectator to the world system. That's why this false equivalence of the US Army to the Wermacht without any notice of the much closer parallels to France in Algeria seems noteworthy.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 4:14 utc | 148

"fraudulent helplessness"
As Montgomery Burns would say, exxxcellent.

And, on comparisons, while the neo cons are crazy, Iraq was/is a real world security threat, one "fraudulent helplessness" also made horribly worse by the refusal to properly diagnosis the threat, in favor of blaming the Prime Mover, the American Federal Government.

Posted by: razor | May 24 2005 4:26 utc | 149

Razor: I have to disagree with you too. Iraq was no threat.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 4:36 utc | 150

@razor 12:26AM
You cannot be serious, surely ...

Posted by: Outraged | May 24 2005 6:28 utc | 151

I don't think it's fair to say Iraq was no threat. I'd not sure it made the top fifty however. I'll agree that Iraq is now a real world security threat. It appears to be full of terrorists. Many of them seem to be wearing US flags on their uniforms.

I've just reread your comment: are you suggesting that the European left is responsible for the war in Iraq? Are you out of your mind or just trolling?

Posted by: Colman | May 24 2005 6:49 utc | 152

citizen k: so it's not the US's fault that they have fucked up, it's down to fifty year old acts by European nations.

Could you, speaking from the moral high ground, explain to this European what my fucking obligations in Africa are?

Posted by: Colman | May 24 2005 6:57 utc | 153

Colman:

Europe sits on a pile of loot stolen from Africa and Asia and pretends all of it just fell off the boat. Even today, the unspeakable moral evil of the Western agriculture subsidies that destroy 3rd world agriculture requires the active participation of the Europeans/Canadians/Australians in concert with Imperial America. The systematic debt peonage of the world banking system is the same. In addition, European nations continue to actively participate in colonialism - the French supplied and trained Rwandan army facilitated the murder of a million people just a few years ago, and the Europeans compete in selling arms with all other earthly powers.

None of this makes America a paragon of virtues, but it does make one wonder what would happen if the EU tried to be part of the solution instead pathetically wringing its lilly white hands about those dreadful Americans. When the EU in Brussels, 100 years after Belgians murdered 10 million people in Congo and systematically looted the country and destroyed all social structure, and conveniently forgetting that French and Belgian troops were saving the Mobutu kleptocracy only in 1991, makes pious comments about the disorder in Congo, shouldn't a person with some common moral sense react with revulsion? As someone much cited but rarely read once said: "men make their own history but they do not make it just as they please." Congolese try to make their history in the butcher shop the Belgians and French made - certainly with US assistance in later stages.

My practical complaint is that European left buys into this massive whitewashing (in all senses of the word) of history and conveniently blames Americans and Zionists (oh whatever could have made those nasty Jews, er Zionists, so paranoid, surely 1000 years of European massacres could have had no effect at all?) while engaging in a modern form of Orientalism that romanticizes third world resistance.

Perhaps the least an EU headquartered in Belgium could do is provide security and basic necessities for the millions of refugees in Congo and assist, say, Uganda and South Africa in a reconstruction effort. Maybe the EU could find a better way to subsidize its farmers than with the blood of Kenyan peasants. I don't know the answer, but I find the continual demonizing of the US to be nothing but an excuse for complicity and worse. For the love of God, Iraq as a nation is an invention of the British empire and Rumsfeld was not the only first world potentate to visit Hussien with gifts of weapons and money.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 13:09 utc | 154

How could Hussein's abuse of Iraq's sovereignty not been a real security threat?

I claim every security threat in the world today involves an abuse of sovereignty, that, healthy sovereignty is vital, and the single worst thing about the neo cons is that they undermine, weaken, and disdain all other's sovereignty in the name of their own. If the EU would have demanded of Iraq a healthy sovereignty, the benefits around the world would have been enormous. The real "asymmetry" today is between sovereign privileges and sovereign accountability. Currently the Holier Than Thous both worship sovereignty, and indict those who do not prevent, e.g., Rwanda massacres. Iraq was the test case for doing the right thing and no one did the right thing.

Posted by: razor | May 24 2005 13:45 utc | 155

So we're not allowed criticise the US until after we atone for the sins of our forefathers? And under what conditions can we criticise Israel? It's not as if we don't criticise our own governments.

I don't see anything in your list that the European left would be against, or even not advocating. Which European left were you talking about?

Posted by: Colman | May 24 2005 13:48 utc | 156

How could Hussein's abuse of Iraq's sovereignty not been a real security threat?

Posted by: Colman | May 24 2005 13:52 utc | 157

Colman: Of course you are welcome to criticize the US or who so ever you chose. There are two issues: analysis and action. For analysis, it is not illuminating to, for example, state that the US war in Iraq is exactly like the Nazi war in Russia and it is bizzare for a resident of France to seize that analogy rather than the obviously much closer analogy of Algeria. For action, complaining about the US from Europe seems like merely an exercise in self-indulgence. The US elites don't care what demonstrators wave flags about in Berlin or Amien or Turin. They do care about what is done in GATT, on the bourse, or on the ground in Africa. The American people, not to mention the people of the world, would benefit far more from French or British positive actions that impeded our feckless leaders than from denunciations in hackneyed ideological terms.

In any event, China, India, and Brazil are remaking the world, without waiting for Europe to assist.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 14:15 utc | 158

citizen k

Well said

Posted by: slothrop | May 24 2005 15:03 utc | 159

on the contrary, slothrop, on the contrary

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 18:24 utc | 160

comrades citizenk & razo

you do not work at a rand think tank by any chance. but believing that i will offer for these far shores where we are covered in sin a little bibliography because your absences in the middle east appear as large as those about china :

yves besson - identités et conflits au proche-orient, l'harmattan, 1991

uriel dann - the great powers in the middle east, 1919-1939, new york, holmes & meier, 1988

jacob hurewitz, diplomacy in the near and middle east, a documentary record, 2 volumes, d;van norstrabd, princeton, 1956

jean-pierre luizaed, la formation de l'irak contemporain, éditions du c.n.r.s., 1991

harald st philby - arabian days, london, r hale, 1948
this is the saint kim philby's daddy

these & a few other books will help you in your misunderstanding over geography, geopolitics & power

& as i understand my marx (which is not well according to you) the french & british just served as a comprador class for american imperialism in the 20th century

dear ô dear

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 19:33 utc | 161

just a brief addendum - i have never winessed the attack on the twin towers except as shown in the film by denys arcands - les invasions barbares (?) & i decided to not witness it because - the victims the millions of victims of american imperial power have never been honored with presence(s) for as far as you seem to be concerned - they do not exist - are a figment of the mad leftists imagination. the reality of that attack is mixed in my mind with the thousands of attacks on the lives of those whom you have forgotten

as for french & british imperialism, or belgian imperialism - they were never quite as good as the us empire in keeping things quiet & hidden

& you are the master of relatavising this with that or that with this

i will continue with the bibliography if you like

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 19:44 utc | 162

Colman:
As a sovereign nation in a world of nations, Iraq receives certain privilges, is a peer. UN membership. Own borders and army. Its own Kurds. The usual.

Hussein used that sovereignty for his own purposes, killing who he would and where he would, taking what he would, stirring up trouble where he would, gassing who he would, invading where he would.

I catagorize this as unhealthy behavior and an abuse of Iraq sovereignty by Hussein.

As usual, if someone has a more precise vocabulary that addressed the facts on the ground, I will happily use it. Let's hear it.

Posted by: razor | May 24 2005 20:02 utc | 163

razor

i thought the think tnks had enough money for dictionaries or even encyclopedias

seeing you have so much trouble with the word sovereignty & its meaning - i have decided to form a popular front here to gather funds - in the object of buying you a dictionary, an atlas & a geopolitical encyclopedia

anything else you may need to clarify matters - just call - or cry - or enuciate - or whatever it is you fellows do in your ivory towers

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 20:25 utc | 164

ô the facts on the ground, i think it is called illegal occupation, corruption, torture & massacring of innocents

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 20:28 utc | 165

bibliography (cont)

faleh a jabar (ed) ayatollahs, sufis and ideologues. state, religion and social movements in iraq, saqui books, london, 2002

sarah graham brown -sanctioning saddam, i b tauris, london,

marion & peter sluglet, iraq sine 1958, kpi, london, 1987

also
stephan green - living by the sword, america & israel in the middle east, 1968-1987, faber & faber, london, 1988

benjamin beit-hallahmi - original sins, reflections on the history of zionism & israel, pluo press, london 1992

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 20:55 utc | 166

Rgiap: Anyone can list books. Do you have a point?

I'd be fascinated to hear your analysis of how the murder of one million Hutus can be ascribed to the evil Americans. Were those piles of the dead just a present our faithful compradors offered up in hopes of earning favor?

It's pathetic to hear a resident of one of the world's richest countries refuse to take any responsibility - the Yanks made us do it. As a fundamental of moral calculus, no string of US atrocities can wipe away the stain of Rwanda, Algeria, and so on.

Posted by: citizen k | May 24 2005 21:03 utc | 167

citizen k - I'd be fascinated to hear your analysis of how the murder of one million Hutus can be ascribed to the evil Americans

not to speak for rememberinggiap, but what about the role of u.s. ambassador john rawson, amongst others?

Posted by: b real | May 24 2005 21:24 utc | 168

Re: Sovereignty. Out of irk, I will take the bait.

My OED has 12 definitions of sovereign, 4 of sovereignty. "A territory under the rule of a sovereign, or existing as an independent state." That should do.

Whew. That was complicated. Perform the substitution: How could Hussein's abuse of Iraq's statehood not be a real security threat? Right or wrong, not difficult.

And rg, my goodness, stop confusing me with citizen k. Citizen k writes far tighter, with more care, than I, and has expressed clear differences. It is not subtle.Start considering some alternative hypothesis to explain the data.

But this is all wide of the mark I suspect, the real problem is that some consistently defend those who have State power and do evil with it, as long as it is anti America, while forbidding America doing something about it as immoral, and, then, when convenient, switch sides, and blame America for not violating sovereignty to save the innocent. Rwanda. Heads they win, tails I lose.

Posted by: razor | May 24 2005 21:42 utc | 169

i listed books citizen k because you throw out the same insult. you repeat you did this so it is ok for us to do that. & yes i do see a comprador class since sometime in the middle of the first world war.

& yes there has been a consistency in american foreign policy which has demolished the lives of millions of people & destroyed the destinies of countless millions of others

i'm your convenient maoist so you can lay the clamims for the red terror at my door but it does nothing, nothing at all to hide the terrible facts

& the terrible facts are these. that for over a century your country has meddled in the affirs of other countries. by destabilisation, by corruption & by force

you cannot seriouslly speak of what has happened in latin america, south east asia,africa & the middle east. the corruption of a generation of political leadership in europe
because of the cold war. your crimes are crimes. simple as that

i do not confuse citizen k or razor - though you dpeak of the sanctity of legality in a world of butchery, you speak of constitutions as if they had something to do with day or day reality, you hint at treaties that the us govt have shown conclusively - are without meaning

then in the poverty of your arguments & they are impoverished - you introduce a ban franophobia, you attack the left - or citizen k attacks the red flag using the red flag & you are quich to rush to the only book in your library - the black book of communism which no doubt you can cite chapter & verse

i suggested the books because it seems to me you need to widen your knowledge & if you looked serioussly at the suggestions you would find that they do not approximate my own position & in some cases are far from it - but they are a necessary knowledge

in some moments with either of you i do not find useful knowledge, that is all

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 22:01 utc | 170

b real: Of course the US role in Rwanda was dishonorable and typical of Clinton's moral tepidity. But Rwanda was a Belgian/French colony, the Rwandan army was armed and trained by the French army, the US had ZERO interests involved other than not wanting to have a big fuss made. In this case the US stood by while France collaborated in genocide - not particularly anything to be proud of, but certainly no grounds for absolving France of responsibility as a mere comprador. The Rwandans blame the French, for good reason.

Posted by: citizen k | May 25 2005 1:02 utc | 171

RGiap: I never said that French or German or British genocides justified anything by the US or anyone else.

But I quote your statement here and give up. For a literate European to be able to say such a thing without shame speaks volumes about the depth of bad faith and self-deception. Do you the faintest idea of what has happened to the world 1905-2005? Obviously not.

& the terrible facts are these. that for over a century your country has meddled in the affirs of other countries. by destabilisation, by corruption & by force

Tell it to the Rwandans and Algerians, my friend. They will be so grateful for the wise words of the Mission Civilatrice.

Posted by: citizen k | May 25 2005 1:24 utc | 172

Listening to the news reports from the demonstrations against the NATO and PFP meeting in Åre, Sweden, I note that there is some serious opposition from parts of the european left against their governments politics. The demos were not big as the meeting had been placed in Åre (essentially a skiing resort) to avoid protests.

Sorry, didn´t mean to interupt the brawl. Let me just move these chairs out of the way. And I can take away all glas or otherwise fragile stuff at the same time. There we go.

Now, do carry on.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 25 2005 1:26 utc | 173

citizen k - what was the u.s. SOFA w/ rwanda on 17 jan 1992 about? also, in his book Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999, investigative reporter wayne madsen says that the sam-7 missiles used to take down habyarimana's plane were brought by the french out of iraq, then turned over to the u.s. military and finally delivered to the rpa in uganda. madsen's 2001 testimony before the subcommittee on int'l operations and human rights makes it clear that the u.s. trained is worth a read:

MCKINNEY: Is there any evidence that the U.S. has trained soldiers who participated in massacres?

MADSEN: Congressman McKinney, certainly the evidence is quite clear that the U.S. has trained not only the top leadership in Rwanda, but through these various military training programs that has gone down to the level of colonel, lieutenant colonel and even down to senior non-commissioned officers.

I would note that the recent report that the U.N. is seriously considering now indicting Kagame himself, Colonel Niamwasa, Colonel Jacques Enziza, Colonel Kabarave and Colonel Embengura. Embengura, I might add, was held directly responsible for some very heinous massacres in not only Rwanda, but also amongst the non-genocide Hutu refugees in eastern Congo.

The fact that these people, who were trained by the United States, it is now being considered that they might be indicted for war crimes. I think now more than ever I think the U.S. military and the intelligence community should turn over any evidence that it has. What training did they provide? When did they provide it? What was the level of effort involved with U.S. covert support for the RPF beginning in 1990 with the initial invasion?

Maybe there we can also get at who was responsible for the downing of the aircraft that triggered that terrible genocide in Rwanda in 1994 that led to a counter genocide against Hutus in Zaire and then Congo in the years following.

I think now more than ever, based on people who have defected like Mugave from the RPF, and I might add many others have defected. There are other international investigations taking place with French Judge Brugiere and another former French Judge named Jean-Pierre conducted a separate investigation and came to the conclusion that the RPF was responsible for the downing of that presidential aircraft that triggered this terrible confrontation....the French and the Belgians, their Parliaments have both looked into this matter. If they were the foreign power that was responsible, I would doubt that they would have any interest in holding hearings, having testimony, doing a thorough investigation.

...The only power that has yet to step to the plate, and now we even have the British saying they are going to look at, you know, the role of private military companies. The only power that has not stepped up to the plate and conducted an investigation is the United States.

We have had OAU investigations, United Nations investigations. There have been investigations by Canada, but as yet the United States has not conducted any sort of independent investigation, and I really think that in this case maybe the guilty party decides to remain silent.

and from wikipedia, on u.s. trained Paul Kagame:

Responsibility for the assassination has not been determined. The obvious benefactors were the Hutu majority, but in January 2000 three Tutsi informants told the United Nations that they were part of an elite strike team that carried out the assassination the Hutu president, with two rockets. They told UN investigators in 1997 that the killing of president Juvenal Habyarimana was carried out "with the assistance of a foreign government" under the overall command of Paul Kagame. The UN shelved the report.
...

Roméo Dallaire, in his book Shake Hands with the Devil, has this to say about Kagame:

"Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. ... But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause.... The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league. (p.515)"

Posted by: b real | May 25 2005 4:55 utc | 174

messed up a sentence w/ all that cutting & pasting - should read "madsen's 2001 testimony...is worth a read"

Posted by: b real | May 25 2005 4:59 utc | 175

Since Wayne Madsden has already been mentioned in this
thread, some might find it worthwhile to take a look
at his latest "hot potato" regarding security lapses at, of all places,
NSA. Madsden doesn't have a spotless track record, but this latest "revelation", if not knitted out of whole cloth, will surely produce some fireworks.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | May 25 2005 5:27 utc | 176

U.S. Department of Defense worker charged again in secrecy case

A Defense Department analyst already accused of disclosing classified information was charged again yesterday, this time with possessing classified documents concerning Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq, the Justice Department announced.

The new criminal complaint says 83 classified documents dating back three decades -- including 38 marked Top Secret -- were found in a search of Lawrence Franklin's West Virginia home. They included three CIA documents on al Qaeda, a CIA memo on Iraq and several government reports on terrorism. It is unclear why Franklin would have had them in his possession or taken them home....

....The formal charges did not reveal who received the information, but federal law enforcement sources have said that Franklin disclosed the material to former top officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbying organizations in Washington. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing....

Posted by: Nugget | May 25 2005 5:53 utc | 177

b real: Amazingly, the French government excuses itself for responsibility and blames the Tsutsi government of Rwanda for organizing the slaughter of its own people and then having the effrontry to overthrow the French sponsored regime.

Of course, the EU courts and independent human rights observers, the UN, and the Rwandans themselves disagree.
one two

Next you will tell me that the US military has cleared itself of any responsibility for torture in Iraq! Oh, I forgot, only the Americans are capable of such bad things. Clearly the Tsutis macheted themselves in an attempt to embarass the humanitarian loving kindness of the mission civilitrice - almost certainly at the instigation of the Zionists.
Bad Zionists, no wonder Christian Europe was so often incensed against them.

By the way, check out Mr. Chiracs recent lecture to Mr. Mbeki who has had the nerve to interfere in Cote Ivoire without possessing the deep understanding of the natives found in the Government Francaise.

Posted by: citizen k | May 25 2005 5:58 utc | 178

I know nothing about Rwanda, but perhaps
this link will
raise more questions than it answers, which to my
mind is always a meritorious deed.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | May 25 2005 6:52 utc | 179

2PM Pacific time today [2005.05.25] there is a guns & butter special on kpfa "target africa" on covert ops in africa, primarily by the u.s. check the archives later if interested.

Posted by: b real | May 25 2005 21:10 utc | 180

thank you for the link b real & hkol

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 25 2005 21:46 utc | 181

citizen k -

The refugees all seem to agree: The real war in Rwanda—which was not a civil war, they emphasize—did not begin with the assassination of the president, as has been almost universally reported in the West. The conflict actually began four years earlier, when 3,000 Rwandan Tutsi troops from the Ugandan army invaded their ancestral homeland under the banner of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The story of Rwanda from 1990 to 1994 is one of a bloody battle for power between the RPF—backed by the US and Britain—and the country’s Hutu government, led by Habyarimana and backed by France and Belgium. Although both sides were responsible for bloodshed, Rwandan refugees in the US say the massacres of 1994 would never have erupted were it not for the RPF’s invasion in 1990, which was carried out under the false pretense of bringing democracy to the country. [source]

from a 1997 speech by the President of Uganda Democratic Coalition:

On October 1, 1990, Ugandan troops, composed of Tutsis, led by Museveni's Minister of State for Defence, General Fred Rwigema and other high ranking Army Commanders, invaded Rwanda launching a savage era of invasions, genocide, cover-ups and deception extending beyond Uganda. It later became known that some of the invaders had acquired military training in America under the IMET program while disguised as Ugandans. A Uganda Democratic Coalition Inc. (UDC) delegation went to the Pentagon and met Major Tony Marley who was in charge of IMET program. He agreed that Uganda had misled American officials by proposing candidates for training who were in reality not Ugandans. He assured us that this matter would be looked into by appropriate officials at the Pentagon and State Department. We later learned that the training program had increased in size and intensity to train more Tutsis who later commanded the Rwanda invasion.
...
In June of 1994 as the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) invaders were about to take over Kigali, Ms. Prudence Bushnell of the U.S. State Department conducted a press conference. A reporter questioned whether the State Department knew about the RPF invaders. Where were they trained and who financed and armed them? She answered that "we do not have that information". Had she answered truthfully, she could have disclosed Uganda and the U.S. since America was training RPF commanders, financing and arming them via Uganda with weapons from their stockpiles in Europe. America was effectively mesmerizing the targeted countries and the rest of the world. The same U.S. officials who were in charge of these sinister operations were parading themselves as peace makers, initiating insincere negotiations which led to thousands of innocent deaths.

During a Hearing by the Congressional Africa Sub-Committee on March 31, 1993, Mr. James L. Woods, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense testified, "We have also been involved in diplomatic efforts to end that civil war. U.S. observer delegations, including military experts, have provided technical advice and guidance to the OAU sponsored peace negotiations. In that regard, LTC Tony Marley (previously of my staff and currently on Ambassador Cohen's staff) has since late February been shuttling between Kigali, Kampala and Arusha providing impartial technical advice to both parties in the tragic war. We have also worked behind the scenes bilaterally with various players, providing advice and encouraging compromise".

Tony Marley, referred to above is the officer UDC leaders met at the Pentagon in 1990 when he was in charge of training Tutsi commanders under the IMET program in the Africa section of Military Intelligence. Later he was assigned to the State Department Africa Bureau as Special Asst. to the Asst. Secretary for Africa.

A former U.S. A.I.D. official, Mr. Harald Marwitz, wrote that, as early as 1989, U.S. Embassy reported to the State Department from reliable sources in Rwanda, such as foreign military observers, confirming Ugandan involvement in incipient border skirmishes and the subsequent invasion of Rwanda." In his report, Mr. Marwitz revealed that some officials questioned the moral grounds of U.S. continued military and economic assistance to Uganda while it was preparing to overthrow a legally constituted government of a friendly country. He further revealed that "between 1989 and 1992, the U.S. alone provided almost $183 million in economic aid enabling Uganda to finance the invasion. This sum is as much as all U.S. aid to Uganda in the previous 27 years".

Asst. Secretary of State for Africa, George Moose, informed the Africa Sub-Committee of the House of Representatives on May 4, 1994 that, "in conformity with our policy of promoting democratization, we shall never recognize a government which takes power by force". A few months later, he went to Kigali to open the U.S. embassy after recognizing RPF regime which had taken power by force.

This clearly confirms that the U.S. State Department has been telling lies. Ms. Bushnell's claim that they did not know about RPF, and Mr. Moose's statement to Congress are proof of their policy of deception and cover-ups. She is now Ambassador to Kenya.

& a bonus,still relevant, walter rodney quote, circa 1972: if "underdevelopment" were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A., which practices external oppression on a massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder.

Posted by: b real | May 25 2005 21:50 utc | 182

b real: The issue is not what nonsense people can make up about "civil war" and US conspiracies, but the undisputed fact that the French trained and supplied Hutu army and interahamwe irregulars committed a grand act of genocide unopposed by their sponsors. The ancillary fact that EU courts have found France to still be sheltering mass murderers seals the deal.
-

Excerpted from Chapter 11 of Philip Gourevitch's book, We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families. Published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, Inc. Copyright 1998 by Philip Gourevitch. All rights reserved.

Throughout the late '80s and early '90s, Rwanda's Hutu Power dictatorship had enjoyed the patronage of France. As a former Belgian colony, Rwanda was a French speaking country, and Paris's neo-colonial policy in Africa was to support those who spoke its language at all costs. In the early '90s, when Rwanda was plunged into civil war between the Hutu government, and the predominantly Tutsi rebel group, the Rwandese Patriotic Front, France threw its military support behind the Hutu regime. After all, the RPF came out of Uganda--where its leaders had been living in exile--and Uganda is an English speaking country. French leaders were unconcerned by their murderous Hutu Power clients. As the genocide reached its peak in the early summer of 1994, France's President François Mitterand was reported to say, "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important." Sadly, by their actions and inactions during the Rwandan slaughter, the rest of the world's great powers signaled that they agreed.

Posted by: citizen k | May 26 2005 5:41 utc | 183

Obviously, Europe's ongoing colonial crimes induce the same guilt deflecting psychic defense mechanisms as does slavery and racism in the US. Instead of projecting blame onto "the black family" and gangsters as Americans of bad faith do, the EU white boy projects blame onto the US assisted by the Zionists. Both defenses draw on deep wells of resentment and guilt, and a long tradition of violence and demonization.

Posted by: citizen k | May 26 2005 6:11 utc | 184

I'd forgotten how right-wing the left in the US can be.

Posted by: Colman | May 26 2005 7:05 utc | 185

You know, that last remark was unjustified, unreasonable and unhelpful. Why don't we all pretend it never happened. Sorry about that.

Note to self: no posting while cranky before first cup of coffee.

Posted by: Colman | May 26 2005 10:43 utc | 186

citizen k - not following where your zionist references to rwanda come from. explain, please.

and if you were to read the links i sourced, more than once it was made clear that those involved & affected assert that the events in rwanda in the 90's were not a civil war, only packaged to western audiences as one.

as for your telling retreat to the propaganda of gourevitch, i align w/ this criticism.

Posted by: b real | May 26 2005 14:44 utc | 187

Not sure why we're having all this rancorous agreement about imperialist and neo-imperialist deeds.

Look, when I critique America imperialism in the present tense, I am talking about an alleged market fundamentalist imperium that tries to hide the open secret that its bloody mechanics are planned - hiding these plans in print behind all sorts of rhetoric about competition, and consumers, and other things that inspire people of power to say "shucks, we just can't fight reality, you know?"

Seen through this lens and its goals, the war in Iraq would appear as a huge success that has destroyed a world of social guarantees to weak individuals - thus making them "free" to be hired at whatever the going rate is. Someone cited the dropping price of kidneys in Iraq, and I think that's a perfect lens through which to understand how thoroughly free one becomes as one's body parts wander off into the marketplace.

Yugoslavia, big market success.
Rwanda - how are its social guarantees these days?
The list is much longer...

That's the empire. It is not merely American because it is as big as the world. And I hear r'giap referencing this when he names French and British participants as compradors. So, please, would you all please just finish agreeing and get on with it. Or confess that you like the empire and get on with that discussion.

Posted by: citizen | May 26 2005 18:19 utc | 188

Of course there was a civil war and while I am not expert enough to have an opinion, it seems only most likely that no sides were angels. However, there is a glaring, unmistakable fact: that the French trained, French armed Hutu army facilitated a massive genocide and that during the long period leading to the genocide, during the genocide, and after, the French government supported its clients with absolute disregard for human life and basic morality. This is not just my opinion, this is clear from the UN documents, from the Medicins san Frontiers, from Amnesty reports, and so on. It is, as far as I know, not the subject of controversy that PHONE CALLS from France were able to prevent eviction of refugees from the Hotel miramar and that France had the demonstrated ability to put soldiers on the ground and that post genocide even the milquetoast EU courts reprimanded France for sheltering war criminals. So all this about the shortcomings of Kigale, about nefarious US dealings, murky conspiracies and whatever seems like an evasion. My point is simple: Europeans cannot take shelter in blaming the US for all the worlds ills. They inherit a still active and brutal colonial program, and responsibility for much of the trouble of the world - particularly in Africa where European divide-and-rule and gross exploitation is responsible for unimaginable misery. None of this is written to justify the US or to excuse the manifest problems of Africans themselves, but the spectacle of the leadership of the worlds richest economy, the masters of far reaching military power, and the inheritors of the Heart of Darkness smugly sailing on, abetted by their "leftist" opposition that e.g. finds the US primarily to blame in Congo as if King Leopold were a figure of ancient legend lost in the mists of time, is revolting. As I said above, it seems to me a a fraudulent helplessness - we can't do anything because the Americans rule the world so we just have to keep on draining the blood from Africa. Poor us.

And when Jerome asks about the dismal prospects of the "non" in France, should we not look at Francois Mitterand who began his career as a Vichy functionary averting his eyes from French Jews being dragged off to Belson and ended averting his eyes from the machete festival of his clients in Rwanda?
The moral failure of Europe to come to terms with its history has profound consequences.

Zionism seems to me to be a similar issue. Why are there millions of militant Jews in Palestine who believe that raw force is the only reliable support in this world and that laws and treaties are bullshit made up by the rich to justify their theft? From the wailings of the EU left, one might think it was a genetic problem or perhaps a willful evil on the part of these unspeakable racist colonists. But the proximate cause of Zionism is the century of accelerating anti-semitism in Europe culminating in the Nazis. The remnants fleeing the extermination camps are not going to be receptive to lectures about the rule of international law from those who either stood by or assisted in sending their relatives to the soap factory and who only had their own exploitative rule over the Ottaman territories ended by force of arms. Pretending that history does not exist is neither morally excusable nor tactically useful. Ariel Sharon may be a pig, but perhaps an EXAMPLE of doing something to increase human rights and prosperity in the former colonies of Lebanon and Syria would be more to the point from France than magisterial denounciations.

"Noone loves us/ I don't know why/ we're not
perfect/ but heaven knows we try/ we give them
money/ but are they grateful/ no - they're spiteful and they're hateful" - Randy Newman's take on American's willful ignorance is also applicable to Europe.

Posted by: citizen k | May 26 2005 18:36 utc | 189

Three things come to mind in about the Rwanda tangent.

First, Rwanda victims should receive royalty rights from those who use Rwanda to make ideological points. They, and all the victims to come, deserve better.

Second, KAL 007 comes to mind. The NY Review of Books had tenditious disputes about missile tests and conspiracies and America shooting down the flight. Friends explained it to me. While I knew the Vinenes shot down an Iranian airbus filled with innocents, I never believed the US shot down KAL 007 because it never made sense. I suspect if many of the posters here were active, they were at the ready with explanation of why America shot down KAL 007. Well, the Soviets fall, and lo and behold, the fucking Soviets sure enough shot it down. But, short of that, the ever popular and lazy explanation was that American imperialism explains all. Kinda of a neocon view in a way.

Third, if imperialism is the all powerful explanation, then, describe how a human population, with imperialism, differs from a human population, without imperialism. I want to know the baseline rate so I can separate out what is inevitable human struggle, to be managed as best it can be, from imperialism, and if this distinction cannot be provided, the word is a hollow word. "Life" would be a better word.

The Confederate South is just now throwing off Yankee imperialism, the Kurds have had enough of Arab and Turkish imperialism, the Basque have had enough of Spanish imperialism, not to mention the Catalonians, and whoever else in local politics I know nothing of, the Irish have about shaken off English imperialism, the Finns are free of Swedish imperialism, and the Hopi are pretty fed up with Navajo imperialism. And there are thousands I have slighted by not mentioning.

As an irish socialist had his frankenstein say to his monster's declaration of independence:

HIGGINS. Independence? That's middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth.

So, specify, please, where the dependence begins and ends and imperialism starts, and what are the non imperial mechanisms that can resolve these problems?

Posted by: razor | May 26 2005 19:27 utc | 190

citizen k - Europeans cannot take shelter in blaming the US for all the worlds ills. They inherit a still active and brutal colonial program, and responsibility for much of the trouble of the world - particularly in Africa where European divide-and-rule and gross exploitation is responsible for unimaginable misery.

You are absolutly correct with that and the tendency still exist with some of the ruling class, though I think not with the citizens.

It´s disgusting. But still, the U.S. is -at least currently- at the top of the pile of hypocrisy and is still the economic leading nation. It therefore deserves exemplary critisism.

This should not deminish the European guild be it Rwanda or elsewhere (WTF did make France to send troops to Haiti?)

Posted by: b | May 26 2005 19:46 utc | 191

citizen - if you were refering to any of my contributions to this thread, what i have been specifically responding to are these taunts from citizen k, initially directed to rememberinggiap, and which, alone in their overt deceptiveness, intentional or not, deserve our examination :

I'd be fascinated to hear your analysis of how the murder of one million Hutus can be ascribed to the evil Americans.

It's pathetic to hear a resident of one of the world's richest countries refuse to take any responsibility

the US had ZERO interests involved other than not wanting to have a big fuss made. In this case the US stood by while France collaborated in genocide

i've worked toward addressing the first & third stmts. as to the second...well, it comes across as quite hypocritical, doesn't it? :) "argument" might be too charitable of a description.

Posted by: b real | May 26 2005 23:03 utc | 192

"agreement"

Posted by: b real | May 26 2005 23:05 utc | 193

thank you b real

it is as if my critics think that i loll about boulevards completely unaware or critical of her history. theirs, is in essence, a rhetorical exercise but at its worse - it deflects from theimperial crimes that are happenign before our eyes & we are in some measure able to stop it. if not stop it - make the awareness of what is happening - the real issue

one cannot be a european citizen without being aware of the stench of death from the cradle to the grave - it is one of the melancholy aspects that make for the 'real' in people's lives

what i have hinted & perhaps inferred is that both citizen k & razor on this thread & on the thread dealing with old leo - conveniently hide the facts of the day to day slaughter of mpire, & the day to day destruction of a people, whether they are iraquis or americans

my anti imperialism grows, not diminishes. i regard u s imperialism as the principal enemy of humanity. that much is a matter of public record here but i think it would be very difficult of those americans with whom i dialogue with here to describe me as against the american people

it seems to me the times we are living through are unparalleled & yes perhaps i panic too much in front of this information but when even amnesty international demands for american official to go before the hague - you know the situation is getting worse, much worse

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 26 2005 23:20 utc | 194

be real, be real. You totally failed to address the genocide issue because feeble claims that the Tsutis were "responsible" for goading the FRENCH SPONSORED HUTU GOVERNMENT are really in the class of "Polish units attacked our post office" or "she was asking for it". Even if we grant your story that the Tsutsi army was really a bunch of Ugandans in drag, how the fuck does it in any way justify hacking a million people to death or being an accessory to that hacking? The plain fact is that the French government's colonial policy is responsible for the genocide. One expects a Negroponte to make arguments that "just because troops our government armed and trained forces that raped and murdered nuns is not our business and those nuns were unsavory anyways" or a Dallaire to say that the Tsutsis started it, but citing such claims as if they signified anything beyond moral bankruptcy is feeble indeed.

As for your jeering, I have to question your reading ability. I have never denied US culpability for typical Clintonian word parsing and dithering as the massacre continued. Even Clinton was finally embarassed by his pathetic response. And Bosnia showed that butchery of white people is more important to US governments. But none of that excuses the dishonest weasely attempts by France and its apologists to blame someone else for the actions of its clients and its own troops. The US governments attempt to blame some low level guards for a policy of torture is certainly not more disgusting than the attempt by France to blame the Tsutsis or Ugandans for the genocide committed by France's puppet army.

Posted by: citizen k | May 26 2005 23:41 utc | 195

i'll have to delve further into this, but robin philpot's material is most interesting, to say the least:

For the English version of my book Rwanda 1994, Colonialism Dies Hard [full book is online @ this link], I interviewed Boutros-Ghali about the wars that have wreaked havoc on Central Africa and especially Rwanda and the former Zaire. His observations about the UN and the possible role of the CIA in the April 6, 1994 assassination of two African heads of state are stunning.
...
Boutros-Ghali insisted that he does not wish to understate his own responsibility in Rwanda. "I said publicly that I failed in Rwanda. I did not succeed in convincing Security Council members to act. The United States with the strong support of Great Britain did everything they could to prevent the UN from intervening, and a majority of countries followed their lead." It should be noted that Boutros-Ghali declared on at least two occasions, including once to me in November 2002, that the "Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American responsibility".

Why did the United States and Great Britain oppose intervening in Rwanda when it could have been helpful and necessary?

Boutros-Ghali: "Is this not a repetition of Fashoda?" The reference is to the fort on the Upper Nile (now in Sudan) where French and British troops met in September 1898. France was trying to dominate Africa from Dakar to Djibouti while the British wanted to build a railway to link its 'possessions' from 'The Cape to Cairo'. France withdrew and conceded Fashoda to the British.

"Central Africa has been the scene of an Anglo-American conflict with France. After all, what has happened in the Congo: war and at least 100,000 Hutus killed. That whole affair has been suppressed. The report on those deaths was never published. The French supported Mobutu, while the Americans and the British were behind Uganda and Rwanda, and they won. The background to these wars is a repetition of Fashoda. It began with Rwanda, and before that Uganda, which is part of the Anglo-American block. Uganda has no political parties, but it is never criticized, never denounced. If there had been no foreign aggression by Uganda against Rwanda in 1990, there would have been no war and no genocide." [source]

from the conclusion of the mentioned book:

The foreign army occupied Rwandan territory and very soon the same powers, led by the United States, told the Rwandans to sit down and negotiate a peace and power sharing agreement with the occupying army that had just launched a murderous war.
...
It became ever more clear that the Rwandan Patriotic Front, who rejoiced when the president of Burundi was murdered, was not interested in a democratic Rwanda, but rather in establishing a new order patterned after the pre-1959 feudal order in which the Rwandan Tutsi minority, who represented less than 15 percent of the population, would once again enslave the Hutu majority. For decades, Western countries, and particularly the United States, had lectured the world on democracy - the political system in which the majority expresses its will in free elections. Now we saw the same Western countries, led by the United States, defend and support an army that, at best, represented a small minority of the population, and whose leaders could never hope to win a democratic election.
...
Following the assassination of the two African presidents, and knowing full well that death and violence would ensue, the United States and Britain, for their own strategic interests in central Africa, prevented the United Nations from intervening in Rwanda. Their goal was obvious: help the Rwandan Patriotic Front win a decisive and, they hoped, quick victory in Rwanda. But the decisive victory the British-American tandem was counting on was not as quick as expected. Four long months went by before the victory was decisive.
...
Let us remember what former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali wrote: “The U.S. effort to prevent the effective deployment of a UN force for Rwanda succeeded, with the strong support of Britain.” For the British-American tandem, strategic imperial interests prevailed over human life, and especially when those human lives were African.

citizen k - you have to admit that the u.s. & british powers did get their guys into power, and yes, thanks in part to the french-backed gangs who undisputably did most of the direct bloodshed. now, to say that the u.s. had ZERO interests is just not the case. can we agree on this much?

rememberinggiap - only a fool would attempt to accuse you of being against the american people

Posted by: b real | May 27 2005 6:24 utc | 196

Rwanda: The General's Story
Mick Collins, Interviewed by John Steppling

Posted by: b real | Jun 24 2005 18:23 utc | 197