Black Box Recorder

Danger: almanacs

Be on the look-out for people - especially suspicious-looking people - carrying almanacs.

What "relative calm"?

According to EI, during the period of "relative calm" recently broken by the suicide bombing in Petah Tikva, 117 Palestinians - including 23 children - were killed, hundreds were injured, and nearly 500 homes were demolished.

What "relative calm"? Only if you happened not to be Palestinian.

I wonder if the puerile minds responsible for pushing such a dishonest and hypocritical phrase would describe as "relative calm" a day-to-day existence in which they had to watch their own children be cut down and blown up by foreign occupation soldiers and their own houses - their lives' works - ground into dust and chunks of concrete.

But, as these "journalists" are white Westerners, comfortably producing drivel for an equally comfortable white Western audience, I don't suppose there will be much opportunity for these defenders of truth to ever experience the joys and pleasures offered by the "relative calm".

Bremer rebuts Blair's lie of "secret Iraqi WMD labs"

US viceroy Paul Bremer is finally doing something useful - exposing the newest lie by the shifty and beady-eyed Tony Blair:

The supposed danger from Saddam Hussein's WMD was central to the Government's case for war in Iraq, but despite months of work, the Iraq Survey Group, headed by David Kay, has all but given up hope of finding them. Mr Blair has remained undaunted, insisting that the evidence would eventually turn up, and told British troops in his Christmas message that the information on laboratories showed Saddam had attempted to "conceal weapons".

But when the claim was put to Mr Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, he said it was not true. ...

"I don't know where those words come from, but that is not what David Kay has said," Mr Bremer told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme. "I have read his report, so I don't know who said that ... It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring, then knocks it down."

But in accordance with the increasingly important Anglo-American principle of incompetence in all matters relating to Iraq, it turns out that the admission was unintentional:

Mr Bremer changed tack when told the statement was by America's staunchest ally. "There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public," he said, adding that the group had found "clear evidence of biological and chemical programmes ongoing ... and clear evidence of violation of UN Security Council resolutions relating to rockets".

So, according to Bremer, there is no evidence of concealed Iraqi WMD and frightful laboratories - except when Blair says that there is.

This is an interesting belief - that our rulers have the power to bring WMDs and related production facilities in and out of existence simply by uttering a few words. Kind of like god and how the world was created. Unfortunately, while this concept of genesis and existence may be fine for religions - not very big on things like proof, rationalism, logic and evidence - it is a pretty outrageous method of public governance.

Meanwhile, Bremer spouts off the now-standard line that the war was justified whether or not WMD ever turn up. This attitude is simply disgusting. Let's be very clear: the issue of WMD as a justification for this war of aggression matters very much. It is essentially a question of whether the rulers of liberal democratic states should have the power to lead around their publics like sheep and lie to them whenever they feel like it, or whether they should not have such powers. Should rulers be held accountable for their public pronouncements, or should they be allowed to make any kind of preposterous claim, not backed up by any kind of evidence, and manipulate public opinion with impunity?

Let us recall the type of statements that we were subjected to before this debacle. Bush knew that Iraq was swimming in a sea of WMD. There was no doubt - he was certain. Blair did make the claim that Britain was at risk from Iraqi weapons. No uncertainty there either. Now we have come to find out that these two leaders, and their respective governments, were not at all certain and did not "know" any of the things that they "knew" before the war. Most importantly, they were aware of their ignorance on these points. In other words, they lied about what they knew, and thus about the rationale they put forward. There is no other way to put it, at least not if one is interested in being honest about the matter (and this includes "liberals" who simply cannot conceive that their government would lie to them and, in fact, has already done so numerous times over the past year).

People who now say that the war was "justified" even if no WMD are found or that the claims put forward by Bush and Blair before the invasion are "irrelevant" or "behind us" are strong believers in the "public as sheep" philosophy. They think that it is perfectly acceptable for leaders to mislead and lie to publics when there is some kind of "greater good" - which these rulers alone define and which they never clearly spell out - at stake. This ideological position has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with authoritarianism.

Whether or not one demands an answer to what Bush and Blair actually knew about Iraqi WMD before the war depends on whether one is content to be a sheep or not.

State interference in education - America's "Gleichschaltung"

Almost immediately after Hitler took power in Germany, the Nazis announced a policy of "Gleichschaltung" - the "bringing into line" of all facets of public life in accordance with Nazi ideology and policy. Labor, political activity, civic institutions and, importantly, education were subordinated to the Nazi state and its aims. The goals behind this policy, closely related, were to make the state all powerful and to crush individual - i.e., dissident - thought and activity.

I don't need to say that the US is not Nazi Germany. This is obvious. Which raises the question of why we are now seeing moves to enforce a kind of "Gleichschaltung" within the American higher educational system:

The proposal, which passed the House this fall on voice vote, would create an advisory board of political appointees to keep tabs on federally financed international studies programs at colleges and universities. The bill could affect any university, including those in Oregon, that requests funding under Title VI of the higher education act.

"This vehicle could be a disaster for American education," said Gilbert Merkx, vice provost for international affairs at Duke University. He and others are concerned that the board will politicize decisions regarding which universities receive financial support for their research.

Critics say the oversight is necessary to restore ideological balance in the programs, which were created by the federal government in 1958 to develop expert knowledge about regions of the world. The programs are charged with training specialists for government, industry and education in areas as diverse as China's economy, Africa's cultures and languages such as Dari and Pashto.

Opponents of the board, including groups that represent the majority of U.S. colleges and universities and the American Association of University Professors, say the legislation opens the door for politics to influence what and how professors teach.
...

The bill charges the seven-member board with advising the secretary of education and Congress on ways to improve international studies to better meet national security needs and to encourage students to work for the government.

The education secretary, a Cabinet member, would appoint three members to the board -- two of whom must represent agencies responsible for national security, such as the Department of Homeland Security. The House speaker and Senate president pro tem each would appoint two members, upon the recommendation of the majority and minority leaders in each chamber.

"It will be a creature of the administration, whichever administration it is," said Jon Mandaville, a Porrtland [sic] State University history professor.

One of the main proponents of this intellectual commissariat is Stanley Kurtz, a member of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University whose articles are frequently cited on Daniel Pipes' McCarthyist-style CampusWatch website.

Kurtz has the curious notion that the federal government should restrict academic freedom in order to promote it:

"Unless steps are taken to balance university faculties with members who both support and oppose American foreign policy, the very purpose of free speech and academic freedom will have been defeated," Kurtz testified to a House committee.

It is difficult to know what to make of this gibberish. Does Kurtz think that the "purpose" of free speech is simply to endorse official US policy or that the "purpose" of academic freedom is to invent intellectual justifications for whatever cockeyed scheme certain elected officials would like to implement? What happens if we go to the trouble of "balancing" university faculties - and then our hand-picked yes-men change their minds? Would they be fired? Should we really be afraid of having independent institutions within the US which criticize and oppose official policy? What of the possibility that Kurtz's ideas and preferred policies - what he likes to call "American foreign policy" - already receive a fair hearing on America's campuses but simply cannot withstand critical scrutiny? And why should we expect America's institutions of higher learning to conform to the official US line? Might it not be a good idea for American officials - for once - to begin listening to what region-studies experts have to say?

In fact, Kurtz and his fellow would-be commissars (e.g., Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz) are interested in other things than "ideological diversity". One thing they are interested in is defending Israel. Over the past two decades, academics in the US, Palestine, and Israel have turned a very bright light on the foundation of the state of Israel and its policies in the Middle East. The ethnic cleansing of 1947-48, Israel's wars of aggression in the region, and its long-term deliberate mistreatment and oppression of the Palestinians (among other things) are all getting more and more serious attention. We are beginning, in other words, to get a history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, rather than the generally accepted myths that have dominated discourse concerning Israel and the Middle East over the past 50 years. American universities are seen as the source of agitation on behalf of Palestinian rights within the US (including on the part of far-rightist Israelis like Sharansky). For ideological devotees like Kurtz and Pipes, this is a very troubling development - one, apparently, which calls for measures bordering on the fascist.

But preventative enforced ignorance is only part of the equation. There is also a "positive" component to this scheme. Kurtz and others are also interested in producing reasonably adequate - functional - administrators of what he might call the "democratic American empire".

It is possible to see how Kurtz's proposed intellectual commissariat - which would help ensure the education of administrators who were both competent in the necessary skills and ideologically sound - fits into his vision of American empire in his essay "Democratic Imperialism: A Blueprint":

There are at least two possible solutions to the problem of Arab nationalist reaction - the Iraqi immigrant returnees and what we might call "blended rule" (a combination of direct and indirect rule).
...

It will take time to educate and train a modernizing and liberal elite.
...

As a way to encourage democratization, an extended American occupation of Iraq would be just policy. Would a long-term occupation also be wise policy? That is the more difficult question. Since democratization will be more lengthy and difficult in Iraq than in postwar Japan, America will have to marshal its will and resources for a stressful and challenging enterprise. If the Iraqi returnees turn out to be poor democratizers, or if America finds it difficult to exercise great and lasting influence without quite seeming to do so, the chances of an Arab nationalist reaction or internal American divisions are high.

Thus, Kurtz's autocratic vision has two goals. One is to educate New American Students to supply the intellectual and "moral" guidance for the Iraqi colony and train the "liberalizing elite" that will "civilize" the country (and whatever other states the US might choose to bring into its empire at a later time). The other is aimed at the domestic US situation - the prevention of "internal American divisions" by ensuring that the people most likely to lead any real dissidence are effectively silenced by being made jobless.

(An aside: Kurtz's deep intellectual dishonesty is also made clear numerous times in his essay, but I will mention only two here. Although Kurtz's main thesis is that the British imperial project laid the foundations of democracy in the later independent India, he never once (in over 7,000 words) mentions Pakistan. Of course, Pakistan was also part of the British-controlled India, but Kurtz's analysis seemingly isn't powerful enough to take this inconvenient fact into consideration. Hello, Mr. Kurtz? How does the history of the undemocratic - and increasingly problematic - Pakistan since its independence fit into your rosy vision of the successful "democratic imperialism"?)

Opponents of America's move towards empire often do not grasp what its proponents have long understood - that situations are not unchangeable and that people can be led. People like Kurtz know this, and they know that the surest means of effecting a radical kind of change (over the long term, to be sure, but this is how they see things in any event) is through education. This new assault on academic freedom must be seen as part of the larger "Gleichschaltung" which is going on in American society and which is already visible in the realms of politics (e.g., the redistricting debacle in Texas), media consolidation, and finance (tax cuts that greatly favor the wealthy over the poor) - all of which are deliberate far-right projects to maintain a long-term/permanent hold on power and reshape American society to serve their interests and aims. Yet, in the long run, the attack against education may turn out to be the most important. For while the others are aimed at establishing and strengthening the aristocracy of the American empire, only control of education will ensure that it works.

Disruption of service

I'm going to be away for a week or so. So, for the two readers of this site (and any poor, unfortunate soul who has come along by chance), please patronize some of the other fine commentators to your right.

In the meantime:

Read Matt Taibbi's column:

The threat that the Grahams of the world pose isn't merely that they are cynical hucksters who steal money and influence from the spiritually desperate. It's that they preach servility and unworthiness. People who buy into what they preach are unable, as Bertrand Russell put it, to "stare the world frankly in the face." Our country is as stupid as it is because so many of its citizens are afraid to look at it.

Mark your calendars for the Kean report:

The head of an independent commission investigating the September 11 attacks yesterday said that they could and should have been prevented, and that the officials responsible for the failure should be fired.

His full report is not due to be published before May, but the comments by the commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, suggest its conclusions are likely to be politically explosive.

Expect crappier mass media service and an increasing stranglehold by far-rightists over information sources:

"News Corporation has a history of taking significant risks and introducing new and innovative media services," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said. "Enhanced competition will increase pressure to improve service and lower prices for both cable and satellite television subscribers."

Right - the jackass who owns Fox is now taking over a major satellite TV provider, and this is supposed to represent "enhanced competition"? Only a mental midget - or someone who thinks that manipulation of the public and flat-out lies are great things - would ever say that Faux was an "innovative" media service.

And remember - it's not a wall they're building in Palestine:

(Reuters photo)

They never built a "wall" in Berlin, either. It was an "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart" there. Funny how inventing a nice-sounding name can't change the reality of things.

Report: Kay to leave mission early

The Guardian reports that David Kay, the US's man in Iraq hunting for WMD (you remember those, don't you? Nasty things, actually-existing weapons, capable of killing millions of Americans in an instant - the reason the US went to war?), will be leaving his post before the end of his assignment.

I suppose this will be about all the admission we'll ever get from the Bush administration that the whole WMD thing was complete bullshit.

Especially considering that we have a president who cannot distinguish between things that exist and things that do not exist:

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still -

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

Yeah, what is the difference between any two completely different things, really? Windmills, dragons; apples, oranges; Saddam, Osama - it's all the same, no difference at all.

Who wouldn't be excited about 4 more years of this?

The "Crystal Ball Award" goes to...

... Representative Ray LaHood (R-"Predicting" the Future).

LaHood on 1 December:

U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, "We're this close" to catching Saddam Hussein.

Once that's accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.

A member of The Pantagraph editorial board -- not really expecting an answer -- asked LaHood for more details, saying, "Do you know something we don't?"

"Yes I do," replied LaHood.

Saddam was captured on 14 December.

Is LaHood talented... or what?

We'll see if his other prediction comes true.

(Link via Hesiod)

Saddam should face justice in an international court

Frankly, I'm surprised that the guy is still alive. After the "decapitation strikes" that began the war and all of the public pronouncements by administration officials to the effect that Saddam would be encountered with extreme prejudice, it seemed like we would have had a case of "dead men tell no tales". It would not have been too difficult - an armed enemy combatant "resisting arrest" would have been plausible and very convenient.

But US soldiers caught Saddam alive. Now what? How and where does this genocidal dictator face justice?

The only option for a fair trial - fair in the senses of providing justice to the victims, the accused and to history - is an international court (such as an ad hoc tribunal established under a broad international aegis). Here's why:

1) There is no functioning judiciary in Iraq. In fact, there is no judiciary whatsoever. The presence of some lawyers and judges not constitute a judiciary. Legal norms and standards of justice are also prerequisites. There is no "Iraqi law" to speak of at the moment - no constitution, no history of precedent of non-totalitarian legal decisions, no functional standards.

2) Impartiality of judges is next to impossible. If Saddam's terror state was as pervasive as virtually all observers agree that it was, then finding impartial judges will be impossible in any event. Potential judges with the degree of competence required for a case of this importance will either have been accomplices in with the Saddamist system (and should thus also be facing justice, not meting it out) or will have been its victims. Neither victims nor perpetrators can provide impartial decisions concerning an accused with whom they are connected.

3) Saddam's crimes went beyond the state of Iraq. They are both international in scope and violated numerous international treaties to which the state of Iraq is party. Thus, the victims of the Saddam regime comprise more than citizens of Iraq. Juan Cole notes that Iran may file a complaint at the World Court. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens died in a war of Iraqi aggression in the 1980s which also saw the use of chemical weapons. International apparatuses are necessary to consider and properly provide justice for international crimes.

4) Fully public, transparent, and impartial proceedings are needed to get a full picture of Saddam's crimes and those of his accomplices and/or enablers. This concerns the historical record. The fact is that Saddam Hussein is no ordinary criminal - he was the totalitarian head of state of an entire country. It is clear that one man could not have dominated 23 million people singlehandedly. Saddam's own testimony will be crucial in reconstructing at least the upper levels of administration of this brutal system.

It is also clear that the Saddamist Iraq received considerable international support for its crimes. This aspect must also be fully investigated. Accessories to genocide, mass murder, breaches of international law and crimes against humanity must also face justice.

It is at this point that all of the right-wing and/or pro-war wingnuts who claim to have developed an acute concern for human rights must put up or shut up. Is your concern for human rights based on principle - or is it motivated by a hypocritical and petty nationalism? People who honestly despise Saddam Hussein for his human rights violations will also despise Saddam's enablers. There is already evidence that certain people in the Bush administration dealt with Saddam and helped restore official US-Iraq relations in 1984 while aware of the fact that the Iraqi army had already been using chemical weapons against Iran. There is also evidence that the Reagan and Bush administrations continued to push for close ties with the Iraqi government even after the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds - in which at least 5,000 people were killed with chemical weapons - was widely known.

How involved or complicit was the US (and other countries, such as France and Russia) with Saddam's crimes? To what extent did international support allow Saddamist Iraq to commit all of the crimes against humanity of which it is accused? Saddam's trial is the logical opportunity to sort these matters out. But since there are very real questions concerning the US's role in enabling the Saddam government to commit its crimes, the US administration clearly has a conflict of interest that must preclude it from having effective say over whatever court is set up.

Only an international trial has a chance of bringing full justice to everyone involved and setting the historical record straight.

ADDITION: Confer the Guardian's leader on the UK's role as an occupying power. Also, various experts provide their opinion. The International Criminal Court is not an option.

EU constitution talks collapse

The EU summit in Brussels to approve the union's new constitution has collapsed.

The main sticking point was voting rights. Poland and Spain wanted to maintain the current undemocratic and disproportional system, which gives them (populations 38 million and 41 million, respectively) 27 votes, in comparison with the 29 wielded each by Germany (population 82 million) and France (60 million). The more democratic proposal for passing legislation - a simple majority of countries with at least 60% of the total EU population - was rejected by Poland and Spain.

The proposed voting formula provided safeguards for the smaller countries of the EU and hardly represented a means of "domination" of Germany, the UK, France and Italy. The requirement of a simple majority of countries (putting, for example, Luxembourg on the same level as Germany) offset the percentage of population required to approve proposals (and even if the big four European countries always voted as a bloc, their total population of approximately 258 million wouldn't give them enough leverage to always pass or block legislation in any event). If Poland and Spain had genuinely been interested in representing smaller countries against the tyranny of the larger ones, they could have worked within the proposed system to get other smaller countries (e.g., Greece, Portugal, Belgium, the Scandanavian states) on their side to block discriminatory legislation. Presenting arguments and building ad hoc coalitions - isn't that the liberal idea of parliamentary democracy?

Instead, these two states opted to throw a monkeywrench into the whole EU integration venture in a bid to hang on to a measure of power they do not deserve. But a rejection of democratic means is not really surprising for these two countries and especially Poland, whose leading ideological currents for the past half century have been Stalinism - hardly democratic - and a particularly hardline strain of Roman Catholicism - an ideology which, considering the persistent silence of its overall head and His inability or lack of desire to meet with constituents, is even less democratic.

Poland seems to think it is doing a favor to the EU by joining. But this is hardly the case:

Spain... is a big recipient of EU funds, and... Poland... will be one of the biggest recipients for years to come.

Who wouldn't want a system that let you keep extracting government subsisidies courtesy of German and French taxpayers? Who said socialism was dead?

It would be best if the EU could just dump Poland at this point. This would both get rid of dead weight and send a message to Spain to stop trying to cock up a system that was being established while it still in the middle of its fascist experiment. Poland could continue to be the US's quisling, but without a structure that it could wreck from the inside. It could take advantage of the "golden boy" relations it currently has with the US, which might last until a conflict of interest landed it in the same doghouse that France, Russia, and Germany are in right now (how about some "freedom kielbasa" to go with your eggs, Mr. Miller?). Or it could start a "New European Union", annoint itself as the head (after god and the pope, of course), and see how many European states would prefer to join NEU over the "old" EU.

But it doesn't seem as if this course of action is possible at this point. Instead, it seems as if France and Germany, along with other pro-integration states, might move to develop a parallel or "fast" track towards integration. This will almost certainly hurt the EU and its political significance in the short- to medium-term and possibly for much longer.

The Baker mission

TPM has an interesting post from a "former high-level Democratic executive branch appointee" on the Baker mission.

Flying the Unfriendly Skies

Sorry, its bad, but I just had to.

So the Iraqis down their second US plane. Its a c-17 transport this time. No injuries or spectacular explosions. One wonders if this is the same crew that took down the DHL jet.

In either case, this is the second plane to come down, and it follows on the heels of another recent, successful helicopter strike. Seems like just about everything that could go right for the resistance, is going right.

What's wrong with this picture?

Remember the childrens puzzles, the picture where you have to pick out everything that's "wrong" in the picture?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- About 300 of 700 members of the new Iraqi army have resigned, citing unhappiness with terms, conditions and pay and with instructions of commanding officers, a representative of the U.S.-led coalition said Thursday.

The CNN headline pegs one thing: "Coalition: Nearly half of new Iraqi army has quit." But whats even "wronger" with this picture? The "new Iraqi Army" only had 700 "members"? What the fuck? 700 people? Total? Thats not an army, Mr Simpson!

More "collateral damage" - US army kills 6 Afghan children

A US military operation in Afghanistan has left 6 children and two adults dead. The victims were crushed to death when a wall collapsed during the attack on Friday. Nine other children had been killed on Saturday.

Incredibly, a US army spokesperson, Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Hilferty, blamed the victims for their deaths:

"...if non-combatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences," he said.

Does Hilferty really believe that a bunch of children "surrounded themselves" with weapons and ammunition? Unbelievable.

Reports: Israeli army training US asssassination squads

Julian Borger of the Guardian and Sy Hersh add reports to the growing file of US-Israel cooperation on the occupation of Iraq. Here we see that the US is setting up assassination squads for counterinsurgency activity in Iraq and that the Israeli army is training them.

Juan Cole, as usual, has a good post on the topic. However, the Professor is off the mark when he states that, prior to the Borger/Hersh articles, it was "ridiculous" to see hands-on Israeli involvement in the US occupation of Iraq. For several months now, reports have been coming out which provide information on Israeli "security" and other cooperation with the US in Iraq:

- Mossad agents were reported to have "visited" Iraq in August;
- A September article examines the US military's interest in Israeli occupation tactics;
- In November, the LA Times ran a lengthy (if somewhat sanitized) piece on the issue.

Even without the reports above, it is crystal clear at this point that the US has adopted Israeli-style measures and is employing them in Iraq. Hostage-taking, the sealing off of villages and towns, indiscriminate fire within population centers, the razing of agricultural lands and buildings connected in the slightest way with guerilla attacks - all too familiar. Now we have assassination squads. If you're going to adopt certain methods, it is entirely logical that you will attempt to employ "expert consultants" with previous experience in implementing them. People see what the Israelis are doing in Palestine; they see the Americans, Israel's closest ally for the past 40 years, doing the same things in Iraq; it is difficult to draw any other conclusion.

More interesting, in my opinion, is the claim that US special forces are operating in Syrian territory:

US special forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border...(Borger article)

I wonder what would happen if Syrian security happened to capture one of these teams (assuming the report is accurate). My guess is a quiet back-door deal, but it could also result in a not-too-pleasant international situation.

The Hersh article examines the dynamics of the new assassination squads. How exactly will they work?

The critical issue, American and Israeli officials agree, is intelligence. There is much debate about whether targeting a large number of individuals is a practical - or politically effective - way to bring about stability in Iraq, especially given the frequent failure of American forces to obtain consistent and reliable information there.

Americans in the field are trying to solve that problem by developing a new source of information: they plan to assemble teams drawn from the upper ranks of the old Iraqi intelligence services and train them to penetrate the insurgency. The idea is for the infiltrators to provide information about individual insurgents for the Americans to act on. A former C.I.A. station chief described the strategy in simple terms: "U.S. shooters and Iraqi intelligence." He added, "There are Iraqis in the intelligence business who have a better idea, and we're tapping into them. We have to resuscitate Iraqi intelligence, holding our nose, and have Delta and agency shooters break down doors and take them" - the insurgents - "out."

More confirmation that the US plans to resurrect the Saddam-era mukhabarat to assist it in its occupation of Iraq - the same mukhabarat responsible for turning over tens of thousands of people to be brutally tortured and murdered. Concern for human rights indeed.

In fact, we get a number of statements from "experts" and others affiliated with the military on the need for a "tough-minded realism" approach to the guerilla war the US now finds itself facing, often with doses of racism thrown into the mix:

- "But I think what you're seeing is a new realism. The American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq, there are just some hearts and minds you can't win. Within the bounds of human rights, if you do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the others...- Col. Ralph Peters (Borger);

- "...we're too squeamish to operate in this part of the world. ...We do need a more unconventional response, but it's going to be messy." - unnamed former Pentagon official (Hersh);

- "The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We've got to scare the Iraqis into submission." - an "American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad" (Hersh).

Using "terrorism" to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq... is it possible to get a clearer statement on what is wrong with the US occupation in Iraq?

Helicopters

Another helicopter goes down.

I dont know why the Iraqis arent downing more American helicopters. What else are they working on? Here's a soldiers perspective on the helicopter in modern warfare.

Another victory for democracy

The Japanese government has decided to send soldiers to Iraq, despite overwhelming voter opposition to the plan. A recent survey found only 17% support for sending Japanese soldiers to Iraq in the near future.

I suppose this means that Koizumi may now be counted among those "brave" leaders of the states comprising the "coalition of the willing" - "brave" enough, that is, to trample all over democracy and ignore the population's opposition to this enterprise. Perhaps "Japan" - minus its people - can now be described as the leader of the "new Asia".

Meanwhile, 41 US soldiers were wounded in a suicide bombing at a base outside of Mosul. Earlier, 3 US soldiers died in a road accident north of Baghdad, and 3 Iraqi civilians died in an attack against a mosque in Baghdad.

US soldier killed while guarding a gas station

A US soldier has been killed in a drive-by shooting while guarding a gas station.

I'm sure that some pro-war wingnut will be happy to explain how this isn't a big deal because people are killed all the time in US cities in drive-bys. At least they've dropped the "killings-are-a-sign-of-freedom" line.

Another soldier was killed on Sunday in Mosul by a roadside bomb.

Israeli spokesperson: No difference between attacks on soldiers, civilians

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jonathan Peled on negotiations among Palestinian groups to reach a cease-fire:

Israel made it clear that it would not accept an end to violence restricted to the pre-1967 border. Jonathan Peled, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said: "We will only accept a comprehensive ceasefire. We can't distinguish between blood and blood. The Palestinians have to resolve this among themselves."

No truce agreement has been reached.

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

A column in the Guardian delivers the friendly reminder that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.

On another note, we see that the EU's report on anti-Semitism (warning: PDF file) has been leaked.

I have made it through all 112 pages of the report and will be posting some comments about it tomorrow. I will say for now that while the report does contain a valuable listing of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe (and, sadly, there were many in the time period under consideration), the EUMC's description of the paper as being of "poor quality" is entirely on the mark. Two points: first, the fact that the authors, Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel, considered anti-Zionism as being a form of anti-Semitism is despicable.

Second, there is at least one instance of outright plagiarism in the report. Consider this passage, from footnote 32:

Just 1967 [sic] Martin Luther King Jr. emphasised: "Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a plot [sic] on the soul of mankind. (...) So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so." Martin Luther King Jr., Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend, Saturday Review, August 1967, p. 76.

The problem with this citation is that this article by King Jr. does not exist:

The treatise, it is claimed, was published on page 76 of the August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review, and supposedly can also be read in the collection of King's work entitled, This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That the claimants never mention the publisher of this collection should have been a clear tip-off that it might not be genuine, and indeed it isn't. The book doesn't exist. As for Saturday Review, there were four issues in August of 1967. Two of the four editions contained a page 76. One of the pages 76 contains classified ads and the other contained a review of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's album. No King letter anywhere.

Tell us, Herr Bergmann und Frau Wetzel... from what anti-historical treatise did you lift this bullshit reference?

Caveat Emptor

Dont believe everything you read.

The story about the 46 dead fighters sounds like great news for the "coalition", such great news that the US didn't bother to verify any of the claims. The US is trying to fight a propaganda war here, and doing a piss poor job. Its not that your stories cant turn out to be bullshit in a propaganda war, but they cant be debunked the next day.

The only people who still think the US defeated anyone in Samarra are people watching Fox news. An important thing to look for is how the battles end, for what the scene is afterward. If you want to know what happened, ask the people picking up the pieces the next day. If the battle ended with the US turning tail and evacuating their convoys (which most do), and if the US is nowhere to be seen the next day when it should be doing an investigation, its a safe bet the military has no idea what the hell happened. This also underscores the fact that the US military is largely cloistered in its bases and does not venture out for security reasons.

I'm also confused as to how the Iraqis are targetting convoys using mortars. But maybe its just me.

Many dead in weekend attacks in Iraq

The US military reports that its soldiers have killed 46 Iraqi guerillas who launced two coordinated attacks in the town of Samarra, north of Baghdad. A further 18 were reported wounded and another 8 captured. Five US soldiers were reported wounded.

The whole thing seems odd. If these numbers are correct, then at least 72 guerillas were involved in the attacks. This is an incredibly large number to have taken part in a single operation. It may indicate that several small independent groups have come together, and thus that various cells in some parts of the country are moving towards a kind of centralized control structure. Greater numbers and greater coordination may be providing a kind of impetus for bigger and militarily "more impressive" attacks. On the other hand, from the guerillas' perspective this operation was a total failure. One reason for the large number of guerilla casualties may be that the US soldiers destroyed 3 of the buildings from which the attacks were launched, apparently during the firefight. This tactic, to be viewed as part of the US military's new "overwhelming firepower" policy, may have taken the attackers by surprise. Finally, according to a US military spokesperson, "many" of the dead attackers were wearing "Saddam Fedayeen" uniforms. Why they would do this, I have no clue. To boldly announce that they are violently anti-American? To ensure that they stand out as much as possible from the general population? I'm just surprised that none of the dead guerillas turned out to be carrying "Syrian passports" as well.

As the BBC notes, no non-US military account was available by late Sunday evening. We could see a very different version of events coming out shortly.

Meanwhile, 2 US soldiers were killed and a third wounded in a small arms-RPG attack in western Iraq. This attack capped a particularly deadly weekend in Iraq, in which 7 Spanish intelligence officers, 2 Japanese diplomats, 2 South Korean technicians, and a Colombian were killed. A handy chart from the BBC article lays out the details of the attacks:

- Seven Spanish agents killed and one wounded near Hilla
- Two Japanese diplomats and their Iraqi driver killed near Tikrit
- Two US soldiers killed near the Syrian border
- One Colombian contractor killed and two wounded near Balad
- Two South Korean electricians killed near Tikrit
- Three ambushes said foiled by US troops in Samarra

The guerillas are apparently shifting their attacks to "softer" targets while the new US offensive is under way.

In other news, an AP report in the WaPo quotes General Sanchez as saying that "some U.S.-trained Iraqi police appear to have coordinated" some of the recent attacks against US soldiers. No specifics or analyis are given. This possibility is something I have discussed several times, most recently here. As long as there is no credible political system in place and the resistance to the US occupation continues, it is likely that more and more of the people being recruited into the new Iraq army, and especially the police and other security forces, will in fact be working with the guerillas. (link via Antiwar.com)

One final point, a bit of pure speculation: I wonder how Sanchez and his lieutenants are dealing with the presence of "double agents" in the new Iraqi police/security forces. Would they, for example, feed them information that deliberately underestimates the strength and firepower of "easy-to-target" convoys?

IGC censors Al Arabiya

The US occupation authority continues moving ahead with the peculiar form of "democracy" being planned for Iraq. Today's exercise concerns "freedom of the press":

The U.S.-appointed government raided the offices of Al-Arabiya television on Monday, banned its broadcasts from Iraq and threatened to imprison its journalists.
...

"We have issued a warning to Al-Arabiya and we will sue," said Jalal Talabani, the current council president. "Al-Arabiya incites murder because it's calling for killings through the voice of Saddam Hussein."

The move comes 3 days after Rumsfeld launched yet another tirade against Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera:

"At the present time, two of the most popular stations, Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera, are violently anti-coalition and were pro-Saddam Hussein, in the case of Al-Jazeera, in such an obvious way," Rumsfeld said at a town hall meeting with Pentagon workers. "It will take some time to persuade people to watch alternative programming."

"Persuade people" in this case being understood as "give people no other choice".

During Rumsfeld's "town hall" meeting, one of the US finest "soldier-journalists" stated that the US was working on setting up its own Arabic-language propaganda outlet:

The American-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq is working hard to get its own satellite station broadcasting, said Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Myers said the new station was trying to develop "quality programming that we hope will attract Iraqis' attention to what's going on in their country and take their attention away from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya."

Fisky gives us an idea of what this "quality programming" will entail:

Things are no better in the American-run television and radio stations in Baghdad. The 357 journalists working from the Bremer palace grounds have twice gone on strike for more pay and have complained of censorship. According to one of the reporters, they were told by John Sandrock - head of the private American company SAIC, which runs the television station - that "either you accept what we offer or you resign; there are plenty of candidates for your jobs."
...

When a bomb blew up in part of a mosque in Fallujah last month, for example - killing at least three men - local residents claimed the building had been hit by a rocket from an American jet. The Americans denied this. But no mention of the incident was made on the American-controlled media in Baghdad. Asked for an explanation, newsreader Fadl Hatta Al-Timini replied: "I don't know the answer to that - I'm here to read the news that's brought to me from the Convention Palace (the American headquarters that also houses the station's offices), that's all."

Quality, indeed.

Civil liberties or shopping: which better reflects the ideals of Western culture?

You certainly remember all of those cute little stickers and signs that went up shortly after 9/11 with the American flag shopping bag and the words "AMERICA: OPEN FOR BUSINESS" emblazoned on them. They were a real statement that Americans were not going to be intimated and "let the terrorists win". They were a deep reaffirmation of American freedom - freedom to shop, that is.

Too bad that our civil liberties don't generate nearly as much of a desire on the part of the Bush administration and Main Street to "not let the terrorists win":

- FBI is spying on dissident groups: The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.
...

"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover."

According to the report, the FBI is collecting and analyzing information about legal activities on the part of dissidents. At best, this is a pointless waste of the time of personnel who, one would think, should have better things to do. But in light of the reported abuses of the so-called PATRIOT Act, we are clearly not in a "best case" situation. Instead, this spying will probably be used for other purposes: to infiltrate and disrupt dissident groups.

- Arrested Miami protestors get impossibly high bails: "The bonds appear to be excessive and more in line with felony charges than the misdemeanors in question," said Public Defender Bennett H. Brummer, whose office filed the papers in the Third District Court of Appeal.
...

Thursday's legal move came after a series of unusual bonds were imposed earlier in the day on protesters accused of minor crimes.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Korvick ordered a $20,000 bond for Jesse S. Dewlow, 18, of New Jersey, and a $10,000 bond for James Anthony Samaro, 19, of Coral Springs, for loitering and prowling. The standard bond is $500, the public defender's office said.

(Link via Antiwar.com)

- Miami police beat legal observers: Eight legal observers sent to monitor Miami police during trade protests were arrested, and four were beaten by officers, their organization said Saturday as dozens of protesters were issued bond.
...

In a letter sent Thursday to Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, the lawyers guild said police used indiscriminate, excessive force against hundreds of nonviolent protesters.

- UK considers new emergency laws: Sweeping measures to deal with terrorist attacks and other emergencies are to be announced this week, giving the Government power to over-ride civil liberties in times of crisis, and evacuate threatened areas, restrict people's movements and confiscate property.
...

Some of the proposals in the draft version of the Bill, drawn up in the summer, have alarmed civil rights activists, notably a clause that gives the Government the power to suspend parts or all of the Human Rights Act without a vote by MPs.

Once an emergency has been proclaimed by the Queen, the Government can order the destruction of property, order people to evacuate an area or ban them from travelling, and "prohibit assemblies of specified kinds" and "other specified activities".

No fancy signs here. I guess that after all of our civil liberties have been robbed from us, Americans and their Limey counterparts will still have shopping to show that we're "not going to let the terrorists win".

3 US soldiers killed in Iraq

Two soldiers were killed in Mosul on Sunday. There were conflicting reports on the killings: the US army said that they were shot dead, while several witnesses reported that they were stabbed and had their throats cut.

A bystander had this to say:

"They hate the Americans in this area," said a man waiting for petrol near the scene. "They've been doing many raids around here and so it's not surprising they've been attacked."

The Toronto Star adds that "Iraqi teenagers dragged two bloodied American soldiers from a wrecked vehicle, pummelled them with concrete blocks and slit their throats". The article points out that the attack was "unusual for Mosul, once touted as a success story in sharp contrast to the anti-American violence seen in Sunni Muslim areas north and west of Baghdad".

Another soldier was killed in a roadside bombing in Baquba, north of Baghdad. In addition, a police chief was assassinated in a town south of Baghdad.

The two attacks come one day after 17 Iraqis were killed in two car bombings of police stations in and around Baquba. Guerillas on Saturday also killed a police colonel guarding oil installations in Mosul.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, 5 US soldiers died and 7 were wounded in a helicopter crash. The cause of the crash was unknown.

Report: Bremer fires 28,000 teachers

Another one for the "Iraq - Incompetence in Occupation" file:

American's top man in Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, last week fired 28,000 Iraqi teachers as political punishment for their former membership in the Saddam Hussein-dominated Baath Party, fueling anti-U.S. resistance on the ground, administration officials have told United Press International.
...

The Central Command spokesman attributed the firings to "tough, new anti-Baath Party measures" recently passed by the U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council, dominated by Ahmed Chalabi, a favorite of administration hawks in the White House and Pentagon.

Now that Bremer has fired so many teachers, who will teach in all of these freshly painted schoolhouses?

Of course, the "tough, new anti-Baath" measures didn't extend to former security service personnel, who probably would have been more responsible for the gross human rights violations of the Saddam era than a bunch of teachers.

I wonder what these new thousands of unemployed will be doing with their time?

(Link via The Agonist)

US seeks Israeli advice on Iraq occupation

Something that readers of this site (all 2 of them) are already well aware of: the LA Times reports that the US military has sought advice from Israel on occupation techniques and strategies.

The article contains some apologetic passages:

U.S. officials were particularly interested in the "balancing act" that Israeli officials say they have tried to pursue between fighting armed groups and trying to spare civilians during decades of patrolling the occupied territories.

Yes, that famous Israeli "balancing act", whereby collective punishment, ruthless house demolitions, and thousands of noncombatants killed over the past three years can be magically redefined as "sparing civilians".

Much of the information shared with the U.S. involves the defensive tactics and training that Israel has constantly updated for its troops and police in the occupied territories, where they are familiar not only with the most current tactics and code of ethics but the international laws that apply as well, the two Israeli officials said.

Considering that groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, and even the State Department, regularly criticize the Israeli army for its gross breaches of international law, it would appear that this training is a little deficient.

As the article notes, Israel's tactics are under fire within Israel itself. The question is: why on earth would the US military want to adopt tactics that will make the entire population under occupation hate the occupying force? Wouldn't this promote violent resistance? In the Palestinian case, a lack of suitable weapons prevents more effective armed resistance. Iraqi guerillas, with access to shoulder-fired SAMs, large quantities of explosives, and heavy weapons, do not suffer this handicap. The US military might find out that tactics that haven't worked in Palestine will be even more counterproductive in Iraq.

The NY Times and the concept of progress

The New York Times continues to demonstrate its willingness to be the Bush administration's propaganda cheerleader. Two days after Bush, speaking in London, reiterated that the US is making "good progress" in fighting Al Qaeda, the Times published an article purportedly demonstrating that the US is making "progress" against the group, despite an increasing number of deadly attacks.

The recent surge in terrorist strikes on "soft targets" like consulates, banks and synagogues in places like Turkey and Saudi Arabia is worrying, but paradoxically reflects progress by the United States and Europe in disrupting Al Qaeda, especially its leadership structure, American and European intelligence officials said Friday.

According to the NYT, we should see "progress" in the fact that there is an increasing number of attacks. It doesn't make sense; more people dying = progress? Would it mean that less people dying equals lack of progress? Or is there "progress" being made no matter what happens?

In fact, the second paragraph severely undermines the thesis of the article's lead:

"We continue to disrupt Al Qaeda's activities and capture more of their leaders, but the attacks are escalating," a senior counterterrorism official in Europe said. "This is a very bad sign. There are fewer leaders but more followers."

"Escalating attacks"... "very bad sign"... more "followers" than ever - this paragraph could only support the lead if we decided to define "progress" as "failure".

The entire article is more of the same: quotations and reporting that do not show "progress" but rather an increasing failure:

The shift to softer targets does not make Al Qaeda and its followers any less dangerous, the officials cautioned. They said there is deep concern here and in Europe that the United States and its allies are facing more - not fewer - terrorist foes than before. The killing and capturing of Al Qaeda leaders is failing, they said, to keep pace with the number of angry young Muslim men and women willing to participate in suicide attacks.
...

The State Department issued a new global terror warning Friday, saying that it saw "increasing indications" that Al Qaeda is planning to strike American interests abroad. It also said that it could not rule out another Qaeda attack within the United States, one "more devastating" than the Sept. 11 attacks.
...

Despite that cause for optimism, the intelligence officials said they are troubled by evidence suggesting that more young militant men are becoming terrorists than ever before.

We are left wondering: what is the point of this article? Al Qaeda is "weaker" but at the same time it is not "any less dangerous"; the group is "less capable" of striking at important American interests - so incapable, in fact, that the State Department recently warned of that very danger; it is "brain dead" even though every new militant group that comes along copies its modus operandi and claims affiliation. There are so many logical contradictions that one has the suspicion that Thomas Friedman had a hand in editing this turd.

But it would be too easy on the Times to conclude that we simply have yet another example of the steep decline in the quality of journalism, logic and editorial skill at America's "newspaper of record". No, what we are dealing with here is toadyism. POTUS says there is "progress" in the "war on terror"; and, surprise, the NY Times finds it - even if it means that the Times has to imply that more people dying is a good thing. And this, of course, completely leaves aside the issue of whether the US can "win" the "war on terror" by killing or capturing all of the leadership of the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda: are we supposed to believe that Al Qaeda is the only fanatical and militant group out there?

I can only conclude that the NY Times was offering yet another journalistic fig-leaf to the Bush administration counterproductive policies. If the paper had been interested in doing real journalism, the article would have had a thesis along the lines of "militant ranks surge despite attacks on Al Qaeda" and it would have analyzed why this is the case. But instead, the Times chose to assure Citizen Sucker that everything is all about good "progress", even while the Bush administration continues to make his/her world more dangerous.

"US policy has intensified Muslim hatred"

The Berlin daily newspaper "Berliner Zeitung" published an interview in its Saturday, 22 November edition with Alex Standish, a security expert with "Jane's Intelligence Digest". The following is my translation of the interview.

Berliner Zeitung: Mr. Standish, are we losing the fight against terrorism?

Standish: Yes. Western governments will never be able to prevent the attacks of individual extremists who operate across geographical borders. Not even the Israelis, whose security measures are much tougher, have solved the problem. Nor can you negotiate with groups like Al Qaeda, because their demands completely contradict our ideas. They want the destruction of Western culture. That's no basis for negotiation.

BZ: The British prime minister said that terrorism can be wiped out if we rigorously finish the war in Iraq.

S: Exactly the opposite is the case. Before the war, intelligence agencies had little evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda. The situation has worsened due to the war. Since then the country has become a magnet for extremists from the entire region [I suppose Stanish is a believer in the "flypaper" theory - ed.]. Several mistakes have been made since September 11: the criminalization of ordinary Muslims in Western countries, the war in Afghanistan, and the campaign against Iraq. If there is now also polemicization against Iran, in the Muslim view everything points to an imperialistic crusade against Islam. The policy of the US has intensified Muslim hatred - and prepared the breeding ground for recruitment by Al Qaeda.

BZ: Blair and Bush make it seem as if victory is only a question of determination.

S: It shocks me, how little they really know about the situation in the Islamic world. Bush's Islam advisor is not even a Muslim. The US government surrounds itself with West-oriented experts who tell it what it wants to hear. For years they have ignored the development of radical groupings and done business with corrupt states. The two government leaders apparently have no clue how much they are hated among the majority of the population in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Western values are not attractive for many.

BZ: Bush talks about a struggle between fanaticism on the one hand and tolerance on the other.

S: He has not understood that you don't reach Muslims with this language. Instead of condemning the assassins as fanatic criminals, Bush's administration should examine why well educated, westernized young men prefer to die as pilots of death rather than make a career for themselves. Only if we understand what drives terrorists can we make them harmless.

BZ: Do you estimate that London will be a target for attacks?

S: That's only a question of time. For two years, Jane's has received warnings to be taken seriously that Al Qaeda is contemplating "soft targets" like shopping centers or cinemas. If a bomb would explode here during Christmastime, it would have catastrophic consequences - and it would ensure even more hatred. That is Al Qaeda's goal.

-----

Incidentally, in the same issue of the Berliner Zeitung, we get an official Israeli statement on the "clash of civilizations" thesis and the idea of doing something other than lashing blindly and brutally out:

The envoy of the Israeli embassy in Germany, Mordechai Levy, reproached the [German] federal government though for a "dishonest dialogue" with Muslims.

"Whoever denies the 'war of civilizations' [Zivilisationskrieg] allows oneself a luxury for which he will later pay a heavy price", said Levy in Berlin at a memorial service for the terror victims.

Levy might know something about a "Zivilisationskrieg": after all, his state has been fighting one against the Palestinians for over half a century.

The question is: should the rest of the world rush headlong into something similar in view of the miserable results obtained so far?

Car bomb kills 4 in Kirkuk; US soldier killed

A car bombing against the offices of the PUK in Kirkuk killed at least 4 and wounded 37, 7 critically. A car bombing targetting a tribal leader in Ramadi on Wednesday killed 2.

A US soldier was also killed in a convoy bombing east of Ramadi.

A "pro-US" politician was assassinated in Basra. Sargoun Nanou Murado, a member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement, had been abducted on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a US general is claiming that the new operations against Iraqi guerillas have been a success: "Attacks on the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division have dropped by about 70 percent since the unit began an offensive against known guerrilla cells in Baghdad, the commander of the unit said Thursday."

This latest pronouncement of progress follows earlier reports that the US military was looking to demonstrate its "overwhelming firepower" to the guerillas. But with all due respect to the generals, it is almost certain that the guerillas know that they are "outmatched" and do not possess an arsenal comparable to that of the United States. The overwhelming majority of them, being Iraqis, were in Iraq when the US invaded in the first place. They have had ample opportunity to witness first-hand what kinds of weapons the US has at its disposal. That is the reason they are fighting a guerilla war and not marching out in neat formations to fight US soldiers head-on.

Only time will tell how effective these operations will be. Normally, when outmatched guerillas come under this kind of attack, they will simply blend back into the population, wait out the attacks, and carry out other, non-combat operations (like intelligence gathering and recruitment). It is possible that this decline in attacks against US military personnel will last only as long as aggressive US operations last.

Bush opens door to US troop increase in Iraq

Bush has apparently signaled that the US may increase the number of US soldiers in Iraq, despite a flurry of reports that plans are in the works to begin reducing troop levels beginning next year. Bush made his remarks at a joint press conference with Blair shortly after the car bombings in Istanbul that killed 27 and wounded over 450.

QUESTION: Could I ask both leaders about the agenda on Iraq? You are both engaged in an unpredictable and dangerous war, as we've seen today. And yet, you say you want to bring the troops home starting from next year. Now, how is that possible when the security situation is still so unresolved? You haven't got Saddam Hussein. Aren't you stuck in Iraq with your enemies holding the exit door?

BUSH: I said that we're going to bring our troops home starting next year? What I said is that we'll match the security needs with the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq. And we're relying upon our commanders on the ground to make those decisions.

QUESTION: So you'll keep a certain number of troops in Iraq for a longer time?

BUSH: We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq, what is ever necessary to secure Iraq.

Bush goes on to talk about the magical 130,000-strong Iraqi security force that is being trained and how the US is pinning part of its hopes on this project. In my opinion, this is a pipe dream. Not only will we get relatively untrained security forces (which might be susceptible to large-scale rights violations), but they will be widely seen as the enforcers of an occupying regime. In addition, the US might find out that it actually trained new segments of the Iraqi resistance.

In terms of the overall struggle inside the administration over the direction of the occupation, it looks like the anti-"Operation Cut and Run" faction now has the upper hand.

Twin car bombings in Istanbul kill 27, wound 450

Car bombings targetting the British consulate and a British bank in Istanbul killed 27 and wounded over 450 people.

The British consul general was killed in the attack. The Turkish news agency Anatolia "quoted an anonymous telephone caller saying the attacks were a joint action by the al-Qaeda terror group and the Islamic Front of Raiders of the Great Orient (IBDA-C)" (also translated as Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front). The same group claimed responsibility for Saturday's attacks against two synagogues in Istanbul that left 25 dead and over 300 wounded.

The attacks were almost certainly planned to coincide with Bush's state visit to Britain.

Some Bush and Blair reactions to this newest tragedy:

Bush: "They hate freedom. They hate free nations... we're making good progress with al Qaeda. "
Blair: "...what this latest terrorist outrage shows us is that this is a war, its main battleground is Iraq... What has caused the terrorist attack today in Turkey is not the President of the United States, is not the alliance between America and Britain. What is responsible for that terrorist attack is terrorism, are the terrorists."

Another terrible attack which has killed scores of innocent civilians, and this is the explanation we get from the two most powerful people in the world:

- they hate freedom - it's their only motivation;
- we're making good progress - even though a self-described "Al Qaeda"-affiliated group has now killed over 50 people and wounded over 700 in less than a week in the same city;
- the attack demonstrates that Iraq is the "main battleground" on the "war on terror", even though it took place in Istanbul, which is not located in Iraq, and was carried out by a Turkish group, and not Iraqi guerillas;
- no matter what the US and its lackeys do in the world, they will never, ever bear any responsibility when things go bad - only terrorism, arising from absolutely nothing at all and unconnected with anything else in the world, is to blame.

This does not inspire confidence in the future.

2 US soldiers, 3 Iraqi civilians killed

Two US soldiers were killed and at least 2 were wounded in two separate attacks in a town north of Baghdad. In Baghdad, US soldiers killed 3 Iraqi civilians after mistaking the sound of customers test-firing weapons for a guerilla attack.

Meanwhile, we see that the Boy Blunder just... doesn't...get...it:

The United States would wage war again, and alone if necessary, to ensure the long-term safety of the world, President Bush said in an interview published Monday.

Because, you know, the US war in Iraq has been such a smashing success. So smashing that we are now hearing some reports that the US approaching the formerly hated Europeans for help in Iraq.

Well, if the Europeans are willing to play the role that daddy used to and bail out the ne'er-do-well failure, what's to stop Bush from playing his games somewhere else?

More on the fenced-off Iraqi town

The Independent looks at the situation in Awla, the Iraqi town near Tikrit that the US military fenced off a few weeks ago.

The US military's rationale at the time was that Awla was a major center of the resistance. Since then (30 October), Iraqi guerillas have shot down 4 helicopters and killed more US soldiers than they did in the entire month of October. It seems fair to say that fencing off one town did nothing to stop the attacks and, thus, that the move was entirely pointless from a tactical point of view.

On the other hand, it has made at least some people there angry:

"Hey, this is just like Gaza, isn't it?" a fiery-eyed young Iraqi policeman shouted at us from behind the chest-high, three-layer wire coils which separate his home from the rest of the surrounding dead-flat Iraqi landscape, Sunni Triangle heartland. "We're not happy. Not happy!"
...

Residents seem to think the approach is doomed to fail. A young policeman said over the wire barricade: "It will make the resistance stronger. Even those who did not fight when the Americans came to Iraq are being pushed to join the resistance."

As I pointed out at the time, the fact that the US is increasingly adopting Israeli-style measures will strengthen the US-Iraq:Israel-Palestine link and make the US's occupation much more difficult and deadly by further reducing the number of people who will "colloborate" with the Americans. A string of counterproductive tactical moves, like cutting off Awla or blowing up random buildings, is leading to a deteriorated strategic situation that will make any kind of productive move much harder to carry out.

Ministers with nothing to minister

Two Ha'aretz columns on the Israeli occupation: the first looks at why there is no Palestinian "partner" for the Israeli government's "peace" plans:

More moderate rightists, such as Ehud Olmert, propose that the Jews [sic; i.e., the Israelis] relinquish a small portion of the lands of Judea and Samaria [i.e., the West Bank], based on a formula of "maximum land, minimum Arabs." As far as they are concerned, the Palestinians can term the enclaves that remain under their control "a state." They will be first in line to recognize it.
...

Olmert, like Sharon before him, proposes a 25-year life span for the temporary state, with the final-status agreement to be based solely on UN Resolution 242. Olmert is correct in saying there is no Palestinian partner for an agreement with Israel - if he means an agreement for the establishment of "a temporary state" that would leave Israel in control of some 42 percent of the West Bank. This is the extent of the Palestinian territory that, in accordance with the Likud's plan, will remain outside of the separation fence on completion of the project... .

The second concerns the farce that is the Palestinian Authority:

If the leaders of the Palestinian Authority had been blessed with a greater measure of self-respect, readiness for personal sacrifice and political audacity, they would have long since declared the PA liquidated and left all the responsibility solely in Israel's hands.
...

Is the Palestinian minister of internal security capable of seeing to the security of even one Palestinian in the face of the assassinations, the helicopters, the soldiers and the troops who burst into homes in the middle of the night? Is the health minister capable of seeing to the health of his nationals, when every soldier at every checkpoint can delay ambulances and patients and when the cities and villages are under lengthy curfew? And what can the agriculture minister do when settlers cut down and uproot hundreds of olive trees without interference or prevent the harvesting of the olives, and when the Israeli army defoliates thousands of dunams of fields and vineyards? And how will the minister of labor ensure jobs for the people, when they cannot even leave their places of residence? What can the transportation minister do when his country is strewn with checkpoints and the Israel Defense [sic]Forces is the exclusive sovereign that decides which roads are for Jews only and which Palestinian bus lines will be allowed to operate? The list goes on and on.

This supports my argument that the best political strategy for the Palestinians to adopt at this point is to drop the demand for a separate state and ask for the vote.

(Second link via Antiwar.com)

Jessica Lynch has nothing on this

The media is telling us the US has gone on the offensive.

The only thing new about this is that the US decided to engage in a bit of newspeak. We're not "sitting ducks who are getting attacked", you see. That's old speak. Now, we're "attacking the enemy in his lair". As if, two weeks ago, the US military was not responding in the least. As if it wasn't conducting raids a month ago. Or in June. Tough ones too, with lots of detentions, a real message (we're clumsy morons and well come arrest your entire village?). This time, what's the message?

Whatever. The response of the military (mortar fire, shooting up random buildings) is not new. Its in the same category as what the media was accurately describing, earlier, as soldiers who shoot blindly, who are nervous and afraid so they "shoot first, ask questions later." This admittedly understandable response to persistent guerilla attacks is indicative of the fact that it is not possible for the US to have a coherent military response to this shit. Now, in a remarkable coup, the fact that the US has no options has been repackaged as a brave counter offensive. The military has figured out: "We're being attacked 30 times a day and we cant do shit, well, that just doesnt look right! We gotta do something for our image."

So we get to watch a true media circus at work, as the same picture of a US mortar being fired makes the rounds, and appears everywhere as the unifying symbol of American retaliation. That oughta show some mound of dirt somewhere! Oh, and we'll shoot a missle, or a laser guided bomb, just to show them were not afraid to spend $200,000 blow up some campsite somewhere. No reports of enemy casualties in this operation (but its all about message isnt it.. or maybe the troops are so demoralized that the brass is putting on a show for them, and they get to do the acting!). The message to the Iraqis is "good job, you're winning". The message to the Americans is "theres the truth (head shaking) and the truth (vigorous head nodding)."

Increased evil quotient

Looks like our hard work ridiculing Bush and his authoritarian robber-baron administration has paid off: according to The Gematriculator, BBR is now 39% evil. This represents a 4% increase from our previous level of evil.

Without Bush's inept and dishonest style of governance, it wouldn't have been possible.

Former UK ambassador: Cheney, Pentagon ignored post-Saddam advice

The Observer reports that British suggestions that the US make actual plans for the occupation of Iraq were ignored by the Pentagon and Cheney. Christopher Meyer, the UK's former ambassador to the US, said that while the State Department showed interest in the British proposals, the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President were less enthusiastic about the project:

Asked if the Government had warned the US about the need for planning the post-Saddam era, he said: "Absolutely, absolutely."

He added: "The problem was that bureaucratically there is a tendency in Washington to be able to focus on only one big issue at a time. I think they were consumed in the contingency planning for war. We were saying that's fine but we must be clear in our own mind what is happening afterwards. That was absolutely indispensable.

"The message was well taken in the State Department but it could not agree an approach with the Defence Department and the Vice President."(note: combines paragraphs)

In light of this revelation, Professor Cole (who you really should be reading every day) speculates that Cheney may have also been ultimately responsible for an order from Rumsfeld to then-US viceroy Jay Garner not to use planning studies developed at the State Department designed specifically to deal with the "post-war" phase.

Exactly how much power does Cheney have? Can we just formally drop the "vice" part from his title about now?

Meyer's interview would also seem to make General Peter Pace's recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee look even more ridiculous than it did before:

"We did not want to be planning for a postwar in Iraq before we were sure we were going to war in Iraq. We did not want to have planning for the postwar make the war inevitable."

Now: was Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, simply ignorant of the high-level contacts between the US and UK governments dealing specifically with post-Saddam planning - or was he bullshitting Congress and the American people with this testimony?

In addition, the article seems to indicate that all of this talk we heard earlier this year before the war about how "no decision" to attack Iraq had been made (e.g., Rumsfeld on 26 February) was rubbish:

Meyer revealed that Tony Blair had made a personal appeal to Bush in the new year to delay the war.

At their Washington summit in January, Bush had made it clear that America was ready to attack the following month, well before all the diplomatic avenues had been exhausted and before Britain felt that its military capability was ready.

With all of the fuck-ups concerning Iraq, it's a little past time for some straight answers.

British gov't rejects preposterous White House requests for Bush visit

It turns out that Bush wanted a lot more than just his own personal "vibe zone" for his visit to London:

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.

In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.
...

The White House initially demanded the closure of all Tube lines under parts of London to be visited during the trip. But British officials dismissed the idea that a suicide bomber could kill the President by blowing up a Tube train.
...

Demands for the US air force to patrol above London with fighter aircraft and Black Hawk helicopters have also been turned down.
...

The Americans had also wanted to travel with a piece of military hardware called a 'mini-gun', which usually forms part of the mobile armoury in the presidential cavalcade. It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people. One manufacturer's description reads: 'Due to the small calibre of the round, the mini-gun can be used practically anywhere. This is especially helpful during peacekeeping deployments.'

Ministers have made clear to Washington that the firepower of the mini-gun will not be available during the state visit to Britain.

No, Mr. Bush, you can't play with the "mini-gun" in London.

I suppose we can gather from all of this that Bush does not put too much faith in British security. If I were one of these masculine American chickenhawks, I would be deeply embarrassed and ashamed that my president both thinks poorly of the security services of the US's most trusty puppy-like follower ally and seems to have lost some of the bravura he displayed in that 9/11 documentary with regard to attacks from "tinhorn terrorists".

But I guess that the Bushian "bring it on" philosophy only applies to the lives of other people.

14-year-old Palestinian killed; ICRC ends emergency program

Israeli soldiers killed a 14-year-old boy near Nablus. He was shot in the stomach while reportedly throwing stones at the soldiers.

Meanwhile, the ICRC is ending its emergency food aid program in the West Bank. The organization says it is Israel's responsibility as the occupying power to meet the humaitarian and economic needs of the Palestinians.

Vincent Bernard, an ICRC spokesman, said: "This was humanitarian relief designed to assist in a humanitarian emergency, not to address the longer-term problems caused by curfews, closures and the collapse of the economy that has occurred. It is not our responsibility to take care of the economic needs of the Palestinians. We have repeatedly said it is the responsibility of the occupying power."

Mr Bernard denied Israeli press reports that the food programme had been cancelled for budgetary reasons. "As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility to minimise the humanitarian consequences of its actions," he said. "You cannot go on for ever with the curfews and closures which are destroying the Palestinian economy. They have to find a different way to guarantee their security. If they lifted these security measures, the Palestinian economy, though damaged, would start again."

The Israeli press had earlier reported that the ICRC's representative said that the Palestinians face a humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza.

Tragedy in Istanbul

Juan Cole on the terrible attacks against the Istanbul synagogues on Saturday.

New obstacles for 9/11 commission's access to documents

The Bush administration has put up new obstacles in the way of obtaining White House documents relating to 9/11. Specifically, we see that the administration and the 9/11 panel have reached an agreement that limits the latter's ability to acquire the presidential daily briefings:

Tim Roemer, a panel member who was also denied White House documentation when he sat on a congressional committee studying 9/11, says more hurdles put up this week by Bush may mean the world will never really know what the president knew.

The White House and the bipartisan commission, headed by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, a Republican personally chosen by Bush, have struck a compromise on the commission's demand that they have access to the Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs), the highly classified intelligence documents made available to only Bush and his innermost circle.

Neither side is officially releasing the terms of the compromise but Roemer says the access will be restricted to a handful of commission members and the documents will be truncated.
...

Some of the 10 members, likely including Roemer, will not actually see anything under the deal. Only four can see PDBs, and then only portions the White House deems relevant - and even then, the members' comments about the top-secret briefings will be vetted by the White House.

So, not only are these secret documents not being handed over, but there was a secret deal concerning their fate whose terms are not being released... Nothing to see here, move along.

Here's one question: if the administration was guilty of massive criminal incompetence, how else would we ever find out, except via these documents? Or is this something the American public has no right to know?

But we find out that Roemer himself seems to be a little dense about the issue:

"What I find surprising," Roemer said, "is that there are two things which can most help the Bush administration and they won't co-operate.

"This report could prove there was no warning; there was no smoking gun provided to the president. It could also prove that the intelligence community did not do a proper job of putting the position to him.

"And he won't provide access to these things."

Yes, that's certainly true... but it's also entirely possible that they will not provide exculpatory evidence but rather the opposite: that the intelligence community did its job and that there was a smoking gun provided to the president.

Given their refusal to turn over the documents, which scenario do you think is more likely, Timmy?

(Link via Antiwar.com)

Israel/Palestine: "Road map" obligations and secret prisons

According to an internal memo, the government of Israel failed to honor its commitments under the so-called "road map".

"Our claim that Israel has fulfilled its side of the (peace) road map is seen as lacking credibility because not only have we not evacuated the illegal outposts, we are working in every way to whitewash their existence and build more," it said.

Sid Blumenthal, from his new post at the Guardian, explains how Blair was duped by Bush concerning the "road map". Note to British readers: anyone duped by Bush does not deserve to be running a country.

Meanwhile, the Guardian carries a report about Facility 1391, a secret prison in northern Israel where physical and psychological torture is part of imprisonment.

One former inmate has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was raped twice - once by a man and once with a stick - during questioning. But most of those who emerge say the real torture is the psychological impact of solitary confinement in filthy, blackened cells so poorly lit that inmates can barely see their own hands, and with no idea where they are or, in many cases, why they are there.

"Our main conclusion is that it exists to make torture possible - a particular kind of torture that creates progressive states of dread, dependency, debility," says Manal Hazzan, a human rights lawyer who helped expose the prison's existence. "The law gives the army enough authority already to hide prisoners, so why do they need a secret facility?"

Facility 1391, Room 101, hasbara, doublespeak... it's all the same.