Saturday, November 22, 2008

Thus Was All Hope Lost, 45 Years Ago Today

Forty-five years ago today, the world was changed by an audacious act of terrorism.

Ensuing events have confirmed the suspicions that arose at the time: the changes that came in the wake of the terror have been forever, and not for better.

Humanity's last reasonable hope for peace and prosperity was dashed. The last real President of the United States was dead. And all the rest has been decline and fall.

John F. Kennedy wasn't perfect -- not by any means. But he was brilliant, compassionate, hopeful of a brighter future for humanity, and willing to fight for that future.

Alone he stood between the American warmongers and their goal of establishing an endless quagmire in Vietnam. He chided the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in private; in public he did the same thing, but more subtly.

All the world wept at the news of his death -- all except for the most vicious and ignorant parts of it, which lie deep in the heart of the Confederacy.

In retrospect, there can be no doubt that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was an inside job, a military coup d'etat, the beginning of the end of America as it once could have been.

A year ago I wrote a three-part series which I hope all my readers will revisit -- or read for the first time.

[1] Two Conspiracies, No Theories
Although I rarely write about it, I probably know more about the murder of John F. Kennedy than I do about any other historical event.

And it's difficult for me not to notice the parallels between that national tragedy and the other one, the more recent one.

Noticing these parallels makes me a multiple-conspiracy theorist, a moonbat lunatard leftwit nutball and so on, according to the keepers of the imperial gates. So be it.
[2] The Coverup Continues: 'JFK Was A Hawk' And Other Stories
My recent post about the JFK assassination, "Two Conspiracies, No Theories", made distinctions between the plot to kill the President and the plot to hide the crime, and it drew a further distinction between the plot to hide the crime and the coverup itself.

The coverup, I argued, was (is!) much bigger than the plot to hide the crime. I used Walter Cronkite as an example; as I understand it, he wasn't "in on" the plot to hide the crime; he was simply part of the coverup: getting bad information and passing it on.

Many others assisted the coverup without being part of any conspiracy. Lies were fed into the echo chamber, so to speak, and when they came out the other end they were absorbed by millions, who passed them on, and continue to do so.
[3] 'Better Than Doyle': Camouflage In The JFK Assassination Would Have Fooled Sherlock
Forty-four years ago, it was relatively easy to get an open shot at the President of the United States, as long as you didn't mind getting caught. John F. Kennedy, the 35th President, used to wander into crowds to shake hands, and there were no metal detectors at the gates. Quite often there were no gates.

But if you wanted to shoot the President and get away with it, your task was more difficult. And the men behind the coup that shook the world forty-four years ago were not about to risk getting caught.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Reports From Pakistan Say Rashid Rauf Has Been Killed In A US Airstrike

Pakistan's The News reports:
PESHAWAR: Al-Qaeda’s operatives Rashid Rauf and Abu Al-Asr Al Misri have been reportedly killed in suspected U.S. missiles strikes in North Waziristan on Saturday.

A U.S. spy plane fired two missiles early Saturday at the house of one Khaliq Noor in Alikhel area of North Waziristan, killing five people, including three foreigners, and injuring six others.

The attack came just two days after Pakistan lodged a strong protest with the U.S. ambassador over missile attacks on its territory.
The BBC reports it this way:
A fugitive British militant seen as a key link between al-Qaeda and a UK plot to blow up transatlantic airliners has been killed in Pakistan, reports say.

Pakistani media said Rashid Rauf, born in Birmingham, was killed in the strike in North-West Frontier Province.

Mr Rauf, on the run after escaping from a Pakistani jail, was considered a key planner in the 2006 liquid bomb plot.

Three men were convicted in the UK in September 2008 of conspiracy to murder, although several others were acquitted.
Crucially, no one was convicted of plotting to blow up airplanes.

That was the core charge; that was the crux of the case; that was the reason for all the airport security. British authorities, unwilling to allow their massive lies about this "plot" to remain exposed as such, plan to re-try the suspects, in a second bid to obtain their preferred verdict: "guilty as charged".
Several Pakistani TV channels reported that Mr Rauf was among five people killed by a suspected US missile strike in the country's remote north-western region.

Taleban fighters and al-Qaeda militants use the mountainous tribal areas along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan as a safe haven for training and resupply.

The US regularly uses pilotless drones to attack militant targets in the region, a tactic that has caused growing resentment among Pakistan's leaders.
Killing a suspected terrorist with a drone is a lot sexier than seeing him get killed in a bus crash. Bravo!

When the alleged "liquid bombers" get their next "fair trial", their alleged al Qaeda contact still won't be there to testify.

The British authorities must be breathing a huge sigh of relief.

Another cutout has just been cut out; the trail just got a little bit colder; the perpetrators just got a little safer.

Oh well.

~~~

thirty-seventh in a series

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Glenn Beck Gets Something Right

I don't agree very often with any of the people who host and contribute to FOX News, but that's not because of any hard and fast rule; it's just because of the things they say.

Usually they feed you one lie wrapped in another, smothered by a third. But every now and then they accidentally allow a little bit of truth to slip into the mix, and that's when they get interesting.

One interesting bit of accidental truth-telling was occasioned by Wednesday's release of yet another "al Qaeda" video, featuring "number two" Ayman al-Zawahri ([Za-WAHR-ee] whose name often appears as "Zawahiri" [Za-wa-HEER-ee] in the reports of the confused western media) .

The new Zawarhi video was brought to you, if you're a subscriber, by the SITE Intelligence Group, remnant of the now defunct SITE Institute, which somehow gets these videos before they become available on the militant Islamic websites that SITE claims to monitor.

SITE is run by Rita Katz, whose father was an Israeli spy executed in Iraq. This, combined with Katz' close connection to the Bush family, may tend to explain SITE's seemingly magical ability to obtain al Qaeda communications before the radical Islamists do so.

In any case, Ayman al-Zawahri is listed as al Qaeda's "number two" because the confused western media cannot bring itself to believe that Osama bin Laden is dead -- even though the actor who plays him in videos doesn't look very much like him!

As has been clear for a long time, Ayman al-Zawahri, like the late Osama bin Laden, is a CIA asset who specializes in psyop propaganda. The psyops are usually a bit tricky. But one common theme is the "terrorist" voicing legitimate complaints against the American leadership, often in elaborate and earthy language. In this instance, Zawahri's words in Arabic are given in English as subtitles, as provided by SITE or al Qaeda -- who can tell the difference?

Sophisticated psyops such as this one are multi-dimensional and multi-purpose, so it's not easy to say precisely what this video is for. But one recurring purpose has always been to paint any legitimate domestic political opposition as totally offside: immoral, treasonous, and in sympathy with -- if not actually in league with -- "the terrorists".

According to the usual pattern, a "terrorist" video makes a splash and then the domestic propaganda machine hosts the echo. Of course, as with all complicated clandestine operations, there are exceptions. Sometimes the expert manipulators get it wrong, and there was a time when SITE released a video to the White House, which leaked it to the world before SITE could plant it on the militant Islamic websites.

That incident resonates with the story about BBC broadcasting the collapse of World Trade Center 7 before it happened.

Q: What's going on here?


A: Just don't ask and you'll be ok!

In the new video, Zawarhi compares president-elect Barack Obama unfavorably with slain civil rights leader Malcom X.

Look closely at the following mainstream news accounts of the video, and see how everything is spun. It helps to keep the following questions in mind:
  • How much of what Zawahri says is true?
  • How much of what they say about Zawahri is true?
  • Where did this video come from?
  • Where did Zawahri come from?
From the Times of London:
Al-Qaeda today invoked the speeches of Malcolm X in a propaganda exercise designed to divide African-Americans, accusing Barack Obama of being a "house negro".
Ask yourself: How could the Times know what the video was designed to do?
In his first video message to Mr Obama since the Illinois senator was elected on November 4, Ayman Zawahiri attempted to vilify the president-elect in comparison with the black power radical, whom he described as an "honourable" African-American.

His message, entitled The departure of Bush and arrival of Obama, appeared to have been carefully choreographed. It was staged in front of pictures of Mr Obama praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem during a pre-election visit to Israel, and Malcolm X, who was murdered in 1965.
But Mr Obama's visit to Israel, including a photo-op of him praying at the Wailing Wall, wasn't carefully choreographed -- not at all. That goes without saying ... meaning that no one dares to say it. Such freedom of the press!
As Osama bin Laden's deputy spoke, old footage of the black power leader's speeches was played in the background. In one of the speeches, Malcolm X used the term "house negroes" in reference to domestic slaves who were considered more docile towards their masters than the field slaves.

“It is true about you and people like you ... what Malcolm X said about the house negroes,” he said, naming Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, and his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

“You represent the opposite to honourable Black Americans like ... Malcolm X."
This is all too true. It's all too horribly, bitterly, true. I've been saying it for months, and I have not been alone in this. But anyone who has agreed with me has been roundly ignored.

By putting the truth about Obama in the mainstream media via the mouths of "terrorists", the psyop manipulators are preempting any criticism which might someday be given a national voice ... among other things.
He scolded Mr Obama for “choosing to be an enemy of Islam and Muslims”, saying that the Muslim “nation had bitterly received” the US President-elect's pledge of support for Israeli security and the peace process with the Palestinians.

“You have chosen to stand in the ranks of the enemies of Muslims and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim that your mother is Christian,” Mr Zawahiri added.
All this is true -- visibly, provably true. And even the most mainstream reports don't attempt to deny any of it. They depend on your revulsion: they want you to assume all these things must be false, simply because of who is saying them. And they want you to get angry on behalf of your "leaders", whose legacies are so badly "maligned" by having the truth spoken.
Also in his video, he threatened to work towards Mr Obama's removal if he went ahead with his proposals to withdraw troops from Iraq in order to concentrate on Afghanistan, urging him to remember "the fate" of President Bush, President Musharraf of Pakistan and Afganistan's former Soviet occupiers.

The recording came after an interview, broadcast on Sunday, in which Mr Obama said that he would push ahead with his campaign promise to begin pulling troops out of Iraq and switch the military focus to Afghanistan.

“What you have announced before ... that you will withdraw [US] troops from Iraq [and send them] to Afghanistan is a policy that is doomed to failure,” Mr Zawahiri said in the message, made available by the SITE Intelligence Group.

"If you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them,” he added.
This is a difficult pill to swallow for Americans who are used to swallowing the propaganda. They don't think America has failed in Afghanistan. Or perhaps I should say they don't realize America has failed there.

Oh well. They'll figure it out eventually.
Mr Obama refused to comment, declining to get into a "tit for tat with a terrorist group", according to CNN.
That's his best move, from his point of view -- probably his only available move.

What else can he do?

Can he say: "Zawahri is right. I am a house negro. My job is to look after the intrests of the rich and powerful. Didn't you know that already? What did you think the President was supposed to do?"

Not if he wants to maintain his aura of audacity and hope and change.

Or can he say, "Zawahri is all wrong. I won't look after the rich and powerful. I will take care of the little guy. I'll stop America's wars of aggression and I'll stop the American elite from preying on their fellow-countrymen, too."

Not unless he wants to get assassinated.
The tape was not unexpected. Intelligence officials and Mr Obama's campaign team have been bracing themselves for terrorist groups to take advantage of the presidential transition period.
Here's another big lie -- another of the endless big lies in the terror myth psyop. Again it's multi-faceted and multi-purposed.

Aside from scaring you, it reinforces the lie that 9/11 was caused by an understandable difficulty inherent in the transition from one administration to another.

And that's why
Both President Bush and Mr Obama have acknowledged that extremists could stage attacks to destabilise the period, which ends when Mr Obama is inaugurated on January 20.
The myth that 9/11 was the unfortunate and innocent result of the understandable difficulty inherent in the transition has been promoted by some very artful dodgers, including Jamie Gorelick and Slade Gorton who wrote about it in the New York Times back in July.

Both Gorelick and Gorton, of course, were among the chief architects of the 9/11 coverup. Here's an excerpt from their NYT psy-op/ed:
One of the observations of the 9/11 commission was that the deeply flawed presidential transition of 2000 and 2001 created a dangerous period of vulnerability.

As always, the crowd coming in was dismissive of the concerns of the crowd going out. There was a mismatch between the concerns of the Clinton national security team and those of the incoming Bush team. While there were briefings between the election and the swearing-in, there was no trust — and thus no effective dialogue — between the members of the two administrations.
Translation: Because the Bush administration didn't trust Bill Clinton, it paid no attention to the Clinton administration's warnings about the imminent threat of a terrorist attack.

This is, once again, part of the whitewash: it's Clinton's fault that Bush decided not to do any domestic counter-terrorism. If Clinton had only kept it in his pants when that little Lewinsky slut was around, Bush and the rest of the country could have trusted him, and the incoming Bush administration would have taken Clinton's concerns seriously. Yeah, right!

Jamie Gorelick was on Obama's short list for appointment as Attorney General. What does that say about Obama? Nothing you didn't already know, I hope. But we digress...

Here's another, somewhat more detailed report, from MSNBC:
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader slurred Barack Obama with a demeaning racial term for a black American who does the bidding of whites in a new Web message posted Wednesday.
It's interesting to note that all the mainstream reports categorize Zawahri's statements about Obama as racial, when in fact the gist of them is political: This is not about what color Obama is; it's about whose interests he protects. But of course nobody could write that one day and still have a job the next morning. And so we get nonsense like this.
Ayman al-Zawahri's speech was al-Qaida's first reaction to Obama's election victory — and it suggested the terror network is worried the new American leader could undermine its rallying cry that the United States is an enemy oppressor.
In fact the Muslim world is worried -- and rightly so -- about the possibility that America, under the new "black" and "formerly Muslim" president, will be allowed a free hand to commit atrocites against blacks and Muslims even beyond the atrocities committed by the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Obama has been welcomed by many in the Middle East who hope he will end what they see as American aggression against Muslims and Arabs under President George W. Bush.
Their hope is contradicted by his public statements to the contrary -- which proves, as if any further proof were needed, that the power of self-delusion is not uniquely American.
Some believe his race and Muslim family connections could make him more understanding of the developing world's concerns.
They can believe anything they like, of course. Some people believe the sun revolves around the earth.
Al-Zawahri dug into U.S. racial history to try to directly knock down that belief and argue Obama will be no more sympathetic than white leaders to what the al-Qaida leader called "the oppressed" of the world.
MSNBC is apparently incapable of calling oppressed people oppressed, unless the word is in quotes and attributed to somebody else. What else is new?
He said Obama was the "direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s Muslim African-American rights leader, who is known among some in the Arab world and seen as a symbol of anti-imperialism.

Al-Zawahri also called Obama — along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — "house Negroes."
They should be flattered. Among all the terms that fit, "house Negro" is probably the most polite.
The video included old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites and discrimination.

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri used the phrase "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But in the video message, posted on Islamic militant Web sites Wednesday, al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of the speech that translated the phrase as "house Negroes."
Considering that all the house Negroes were slaves and all the house slaves were Negroes, this little discrepancy doesn't seem to make much difference. But this article -- like all mainstream news on this and many other subjects -- is chock full of details that don't make any difference.

Consider the White House response to the video:
In Washington, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the tape is a reminder that al-Qaida is irrational.
There's nothing irrational about the way Perino digs herself into a hole, though, right?
"What we have here is more despicable and pathetic comments by al-Qaida terrorists," Perino said. "And in America, we are going to have a smooth transition from one administration to the next, and that will be a period of change in our country. What won't change is our commitment as a country to fighting terrorism. And I think that these comments just remind everybody of the kind of people that we're dealing with."
The "transition" is going to be "smooth" precisely because Obama has not challenged -- and will not challenge -- the bogus assumptions behind "our commitment as a country" to fighting bogus terrorism, looking for bogus terrorists, and fomenting terror of our own. Therefore it won't be much of a change as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
There was no immediate reaction from Obama's transition team.
As noted.
The 11-minute, 23-second video featured an audio message by al-Zawahri, played over a still image of the al-Qaida No. 2.

The video graphics underlined the contrast al-Zawahri aimed to show: On one side of the screen was a photo of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap and meeting Jewish leaders. On the other side was a photo of Malcolm X praying in a mosque. Interspersed was footage of Malcolm X talking of a "worldwide revolution" against the "Western power structure."

Al-Zawahri addressed "all the world's weak and oppressed," and warned them: "America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always."
Again, this is exactly true. I wish it were otherwise. But wishes are not the stuff of truth-telling.

Zawahri spoke directly to Obama:
"You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America," he said.

"It appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims," he said.
It certainly does appear that way. But not to professional spin-merchants, who cannot afford to tell the obvious truth.
Jeremy Binnie, an analyst with Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center, said al-Zawahri's message suggests al-Qaida leaders are worried "that Obama could be effective in rebuilding America's image."

"They hated Bush, but Bush was good for them in many ways because he was such a polarizing figure. But Obama seems at the moment to be a more uniting figure," Binnie said.
They hated Bush but he was good for them; they hate Obama because he will be bad for them ...
"Al-Qaida very much would like the U.S. to stay with its old policies that put it in opposition to much of the Muslim world."
... They want us to stay in Afghanistan and that's why they want us to leave ...

All this nonsense feeds into the public pronouncements that al Qaeda is "irrational". But al Qaeda is more than irrational. al Qaeda is fictional!

Blind acceptance of the government/media spin is irrational. Belief in the independent existence of al Qaeda is irrational! But MSNBC can hardly say that, any more than Barack Obama can.
Al-Zawahri proclaimed Obama's victory a sign that Americans had realized the failure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This part is unclear: If Americans realize the failure of the war in Afghanistan, then why did they elect a new president who wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan?

Because American voters are irrational! And that's a fact that cannot be denied.

But it doesn't matter, either, because our electoral system is so compromised that the will of the people doesn't express itself at the ballot box anymore. So we're stuck with what we've got -- for as long as we are willing to stay stuck.

MSNBC's coverage of the Zawahri video concludes as follows:
He urged Islamic militants everywhere to continue their jihad, or holy war, saying, "Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him."

Al-Zawahri said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.

Al-Zawahri specifically addressed al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, saying, "your enemy has admitted defeat," and that as U.S. troops withdraw, "you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance."

He also told Islamic militants in Somalia, who have been capturing towns in an advance against the tenuous central government, "don't put down your weapons before the Mujahed state of Islam ... has been set up in Somalia."
This summary reveals another aspect of the psy-op: the manipulators are always trying to foment more "terrorist" resistance, in order to "justify" more armed intervention in more foreign countries.

And everything we've read about this video so far amounts to the typical mainstream spin on what is, after all, a transparently thin and mass-murderous sham.

But way off to the side of the mainstream sits FOX News, telling even more outrageous lies, more vicious, more ridiculous lies of the sort which are enabled by all the other lies about al Qaeda and its videos that the mainstream has been telling.

Here's Glenn Beck:
While many Americans want to ignore the threat posed by Islamic extremism and collectively hope it has gone away, Al Qaeda is determined not to let us forget.
On the contrary, the American government and media are the ones who are determined not to let us forget. They're determined not to let us stop and think, either. Otherwise, the mainstream accounts would be telling you about what a farce SITE is, and how disgusting it is to have an Israeli mole doing supposed intelligence gathering for our national government, and much more, too.

But instead, they insist on taking all this stuff seriously.
In their first video release since the election of Barack Obama, Al Qaeda’s No. 2 — Ayman al-Zawahiri — said Obama’s election was “the American people’s admission of defeat in Iraq.” Unless I’ve been holding the graphs of every measurable facet of the war upside down for the last couple of years, I don’t think that we’ve admitted anything of the sort.
It's the unmeasurable facets of the war that are destroying America; it's no wonder they don't show up on FOX news graphs. And it's no wonder Glenn Beck is denying what everyone already knows. That is his job, after all.
He also claimed that Obama’s idea of sending troops currently fighting in Iraq over to Afghanistan wouldn’t work, but we should send more anyway because the “dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious.” Classy guy.
Not half as classy as bombing innocent sleeping children and then denying it, and claiming that the survivors had fabricated the evidence.

Not half as classy as imprisoning hundreds of innocent people for years and years without even giving them a chance to prove their innocence.

Not half as classy as invading sovereign countries based on deliberately fabricated lies.
But the overall message was very clear: the election of Barack Obama changes nothing to our enemies. Zawahiri said Obama appears to “continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims.” He called Obama “dishonorable” and a “house Negro,” and he said Obama would continue the “crimes of the American Crusade.”

After we’ve been told for months that the election of Obama would magically make our enemies start to like us again, this might surprise some people. But the truth is no change in our voting patterns, no talk of meeting without preconditions, and no blanket promises of diplomacy will be enough to make these people change their minds about us.

Will Barack Obama be as tough as he needs to be? That remains to be seen. There’s not much in his record that makes me believe it, but I hope so. If he is, I’ll be happy to stand with him — because if our enemies aren’t defining us by party, we shouldn’t either.
Here's one point Glenn Beck and I agree about:
no change in our voting patterns, no talk of meeting without preconditions, and no blanket promises of diplomacy will be enough to make these people change their minds about us.
Assuming that by "these people", Beck means the people who actually do hate us, and not the actors in the psyop drama, then why do they hate us?

It's because of what we have done to them, and to their families, and to their countries.

Promises of diplomacy won't make any of that damage go away.

Talk of meetings without preconditions won't bring millions of innocent people back from the dead.

Changing our voting patterns won't help any of those people at all -- especially when we shift our support from a president who has spent the past eight years increasing the military budget and using it to get his way in the world, to a president-elect who pledges to increase the military budget and use it to get his way in the world.

If we were sufficiently color-blind to see beyond Obama-is-black and Bush-is-white, and also to see beyond Obama-is-a-Democrat and Bush-is-a-Republican, what would we be left with? Two guys with funny-looking ears who will tell any lie at all, in a quest to become "the most powerful man in the world", and who are quite willing to use that power to ruin the lives of millions of innocent people.

And instead of being shocked and appalled at Zawahri, all of America would be shocked and appalled at Glenn Beck.

If, if, if: We're in fantasy land again.

Here's the one other bit of Beck's column that I partially agree with:
if our enemies aren’t defining us by party, we shouldn’t either.
I don't agree completely, because it doesn't matter to me how "our enemies" are "defining us". I don't even believe that one person can "define" another. But that's beside the point. The point is: I care about what people do, not what party they join.

And that's what matters to the people of Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Somalia, and Pakistan, and all the other countries where the American military routinely uses its exceptional might, against innocent unarmed people, with unmitigated hubris -- as if somehow it were our right to destroy lives and homes in any foreign countries we choose.

When bombs start falling, the people being shredded and crushed and burned to death don't much care who the president is, or what color his skin is, much less what political party he belongs to. Of course they hate America. You'd hate America too, if America did things like that to you.

But you wouldn't expect to hear such things from FOX News, would you?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Lost In The Land Of Make-Believe

The election of Barack Obama has seemed to many people like a magic trick -- a wish come true, in some cases the wish of a lifetime.

It's a result that seems to confirm their belief that America is still capable of pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

Many seem to think that Obama himself can pull a rabbit out of a hat -- or multiple rabbits out of multiple hats -- whenever he wants to.

But there's a nasty surprise in all the magic: Obama is the rabbit, and the trick is on us!

In "The Era of Magical Thinking: SOFA Smokescreens and Presidential Power", Chris Floyd makes some very important points, beginning with this one:
The American media is by and large swallowing the propaganda line that the Iraqi cabinet's acquiescence to a "Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) with the U.S. occupation force means that the Iraq War will be over in 2011.
Not only the mainstream media are swallowing it; many bloggers, on both left and right, are drinking it too: they should know better but then again it's clear that they don't want to.
This will further cement the conventional wisdom that the suppurating war crime in Iraq is now behind us, and the topic will be moved even further off the radar of public scrutiny.
More fiction for more chumps. But who really wants to know the truth? Do you?

Most Americans seem quite happy with "the conventional wisdom".
But as usual, there is a wide, yawning abyss between the packaged, freeze-dried pabulum for public consumption and the gritty, blood-flecked truth on the ground. As Jason Ditz reports at Antiwar.com, the so-called "deadline" in 2011 for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces remains, as ever, an "aspiration," not an iron-clad guarantee. The pace and size of the bruited "withdrawal" will remain, as ever, "conditions-based," say Pentagon and White House officials -- a position long echoed by the "anti-war" president-elect. And as we all know, "conditions" in a war zone are always subject to radical, unexpected change.
Or radical, entirely expected change, as the case may be.
Ditz also hones in on a very important -- and almost entirely overlooked -- point: the ballyhooed "agreement" (which has yet to pass the Iraqi parliament, of course) "just covers the rules of US troops operating in Iraq from 2009-2011, and... nothing would prevent a future deal keeping the troops there past the scope of the SOFA." American negotiators had originally insisted on stating this point explicitly in the text of the agreement, but finally removed it to allow their oft-disgruntled puppet, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to claim, falsely, that the SOFA will at last rid the country of the widely-loathed American presence.

It will not. If, by the end of 2011, America's bipartisan foreign policy elite -- and the profiteers of the vast, interlocking corporate conglomerate that fuels the War Machine -- decide that it is in "the national interest" (i.e., their interests) for the occupation to go on, it will go on. If they feel they have squeezed Iraq dry enough, then they may well move on to greener pastures -- in a newly "surging" Afghanistan, no doubt, and perhaps even Pakistan. But that decision will not be in the hands of the Iraqis.
Indeed. As I have written on more than one occasion, no important decisions are in the hands of the Iraqis.

There appears to be only one way in which the Iraqis could force all the widely-loathed Americans out of their country.

They would have to take over our government.

But it's too late; the Israelis have already taken it over.

Chris Floyd shifts gears, and we go with him:
II.
Of course, going this far into the weeds on the details of the "agreement" ignores the fact that the entire process is actually a brutal sham.
Exactly. I have been reading Cernig at At-Largely on the "negotiations" leading up to this "agreement", and seeing a lot of depth in the weeds but no understanding of the fact, as Chris points out, that "the entire process is actually a brutal sham".

Most recently, in the November 13 piece entitled "Hawks Pressure Obama To Ignore Iraqi Sovereignty", Cernig wrote [my emphasis]:
There's certainly a gap between Obama's campaign promise of 16 months and the 36 months of the SOFA wording, but the hawks are seemingly advocating ignoring that SOFA hard limit too, if "conditions" warrant it. If Obama doesn't stick to that timetable, he has to explain why he's setting the SOFA negotiations and the stated intentions of the Iraqi government during those negotiations - that the US withdraw from urban areas by end 2009 and entirely by 2011, no exceptions or takebacks - aside. That's a no-no, as the US cannot unilaterally go ask for an extension of the UN mandate and expect to get it. A continued presence would then be an absolute infringement of Iraqi sovereignty and make the US presence clearly an illegal occupation. It seems to me that its the folks who are pushing for doing just that who are out of bounds. Not only are they asking to set international law at naught but inviting a massively renewed insurgency.
But when Obama becomes the decider, he won't have to explain anything! That's the interesting thing about the job, remember?

Apart from that, the invasion, destruction and continued occupation of Iraq already qualify as an "absolute infringement of Iraqi sovereignty". "Iraqi sovereignty" has ceased to exist.

International law has already been "set at naught". And five years ago the people who started this war crime were counting the demolition of international law among their greatest victories!

But, according to Cernig, it won't get really illegal unless three more years pass and then the Americans violate the SOFA.

Stunning , isnt it?

Here's Chris Floyd again:
Disregarding for a moment the murderous nature of the Hitlerian war crime perpetrated on Iraq by the American government -- which removes the situation from any kind of "normal" considerations of diplomacy -- what we have here are negotiations dealing directly with the very essence of a nation's sovereignty, and America's continuing, intimate -- and armed -- involvement in that nation's life. It is absurd in the extreme to pretend that this is not a treaty-level matter, requiring full debate and a vote in the Senate, but simply a side issue to be left up to the President's discretion.
The whole thing is absurd, of course.

If it hadn't already killed more than a million people, and destroyed the lives and livelihoods of millions of others, it might be somewhat funny -- because it's so twisted. But it's not funny at all.

Bush wiggles away from congressional oversight in starting the war, then wiggles away from any Constitutional-style international treaty as well.
Yet that is the case. Bush makes the deal alone -- after all, as Obama continually reminds us, "we only have one president," and even if he is a twerpish, murdering, nation-gutting son of a bitch, we should all defer respectfully to his judgment.
Alleged judgment, please!
All Obama asks is that any agreement to extend the war crime in Iraq will provide "sufficient protections for our men and women in uniform."
That's it. That's all he asks; that's all he's allowed to care about. And that's all we're supposed to care about, too.

It's a totally psychopathic mindset, where outrageous expressions of destructive power are honored and the suffering of innocent victims is disregarded. But this is the kind of mindset a militaristic nation needs to inculcate in its soldiers. If the country has pretenses to democracy then the militarists need to create an entire nation with this mindset, not simply an army that "thinks" that way.

But this has been happening in the USA for a long time: popular culture worships psychopaths (from shoot-em-up video games that make killing "fun", to allegedly "true crime" documentaries that glorify the serial killers): modern politics, business, the military and the "news media" select for psychopathy; and the best liars get the best jobs.

But in the meantime, "protections for our men and women in uniform" constitute all the reason that could ever be needed for the indefinite continuation of this immense crime against humanity -- to the end of the SOFA, and beyond.
As for "sufficient protections" for the Iraqi men and women -- and children -- out of uniform, who have been killed and displaced by the millions, our singular president and his successor have little to say. As always, they play no part in these high affairs of state.
This is exactly true and it's one of the easiest parts of the puzzle to sort out.

This war crime -- like all war crimes, like all politics -- is a power struggle, nothing more or less.

Do the Iraqi people have any power? No.

Can they vote American politicians out of office? No.

Can they prosecute American soldiers, politicians or pundits for war crimes? No.

So who cares about them? Certainly not the people who are committing this enduring crime.

The Iraqi people simply do not matter at all.
And neither, apparently, do the American people, or their elected representatives.
Two questions here. First, the American people.

Do the American people have any power? No.

Can they vote American politicians out of office? Sometimes. But only under certain conditions.

Can they prosecute American soldiers, politicians or pundits for war crimes? Absolutely not.

So who cares about them?

As for our "elected" representatives, the situation is less clear but no more hopeful.

The combination of rigged elections and corrupt media makes it impossible that we could ever elect a president who actually represented us.

The same combination makes it impossible for any major party to select such a person as a presidential candidate.

Since the Glorious War On Terror began, every prominent politician who has opposed the military-industrial-media complex has been turned, or demolished, or both.

Early in 2004, Howard Dean looked like an anti-war Democratic presidential candidate in the making -- and he was promptly destroyed by extraordinarily slanted "news" coverage of a fairly ordinary, if rousing, speech.

So to the fore stepped John Kerry, a "hero" of the anti-war movement who served in Vietnam and then led the charge against that war. He suddenly started winning primaries despite having almost no personal appeal, and guess what? By the time the nominations had been sealed and the debates rolled around, Kerry's position on the war crime in Iraq was slightly to the right of Bush's: thus Kerry of anti-war stood before the nation and told us with as straight a face as he could manage that we needed more troops, more allies, and more effort, so we could "win" this war crime.

Four years later, the Democrats had made it very clear that seriously anti-war candidates were too "fringe" to be taken seriously, even though upwards of two-thirds of the country supported some variety of anti-war position. So Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were ignored and barred from debates and so on, while Barack Obama became the candidate of hope and change and even peace!

Obama has embraced all the bogus basics of the Glorious War on Terror; he's made a pledge of undying, unconditional support for Israel; he's even pledged to resume the vain hunt for the dead man who didn't attack us on 9/11. But he has remained a symbol representing hope and change -- just like he represents us, meaning: not at all.

At lower levels of the political ladder, the dynamic is exactly the same, although the dirty tricks are smaller and less visible. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line -- support for Israel, continuation of the Glorious War on Terror, continuing increases in military and homeland security budgets, and so on -- is turned or demolished, or both.

Meanwhile, up on the Hill, we are continually lied to by people who think we know nothing and who are usually right. So Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader, was lamenting the other day about how even though the Democrats have increased their majority in the Senate, they still have less than 60 seats.

Reid was implicitly talking about filibuster, and in effect he was saying that if he had greater than 60/40 control of the Senate, the Republicans wouldn't be able to filibuster against a Democratic legislative agenda.

What Reid doesn't want you to think about is this: If the Republicans can stop a Democratic agenda with just over 40 seats, then the Democrats could have done the same thing to Bush for all those years when they had more than 40 seats, and yet they pretended to be helpless.
But all of this is entirely in keeping with our cowed and craven post-Republic era, where in the end, all must yield to the prerogatives of the "commander-in-chief." The constant use of this title as a synonym for "the president" is yet another mark of our democratic degradation. For of course the president is only the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in wartime -- not the military commander of the entire country. It has been astonishing to see the erasure of this distinction not only in the popular mind but also among our powerful elites. It is one of the clearest expressions of the true state of the Union: a nation that has willingly submitted itself to rule by a military junta, surrendering, without a shot, the liberties it once claimed as its very raison d'etre.
Yes! Absolutely! And this is the point -- definitely the main point, and quite possibly the whole point, of the Glorious War on Terror.

Republican strategists have been saying for a long time that American presidents were "weak" if they didn't wage war. Conversely, if a president does wage war, he gets to be commander-in-chief. And if he wages endless war, he gets to be commander-in-chief forever.

So it was no accident that this vicious little twerp, who wasn't legitimately elected in 2000 -- at whom and at whose selection people used to laugh -- stood on a pile of smoking rubble and spoke the famous words:
"An act of war has been declared against the United States."
It didn't make very much sense, and the small amount of sense it did make wasn't true, but the media started talking about how this vicious little twerp was "presidential". And you believed them!

You waved your red, white, and blue flags, and you sang "God Bless America" and you felt something you'd never felt before: Pride. National pride. Pride of purpose. Pride in belonging. Your country was being hijacked, and you were proud to be a part of the hijacking party.

Maybe you personally were not proud. Maybe you personally were not part of the party. But everyone around you was, or nearly everyone.

I wasn't proud. I was sickened. I was utterly horrified, not just at what had happened, but because of what it meant would happen next.

On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, one of my neighbors asked me a tough question. "Why don't they stand up and fight?"

The question was tough because I knew he didn't want to hear the answer: "They don't want us to know who they are!"

It was so clear -- it was so obvious! Here were Rumsfeld and Rice and Kissinger and everybody including Bush himself, all sneering and leering and telling us this was the beginning of a war that wouldn't end in our lifetimes!

How would they know that?

Maybe because that's the way they were planning it.

And they planned it well: not perfectly; not perfectly by any means. There are hundreds of holes in their tale. But they planned it well enough to get away with it.

And now we're paying the price -- and we're going to keep paying that price -- for as long as we both shall live.
So now we lurch from election to election, hoping that this time we will get a "good" commander, a benevolent tyrant. Witness the plethora of recent articles in our most august journals, wondering anxiously what Obama will do about the concentration camp in Guantanamo, and the issue of "preventive" indefinite detention, and the torture techniques instituted by Bush, and the secret, warrantless wiretapping of the American people, and the "signing statements" that ignore the Constitutional authority of the elected legislature and impose the arbitrary will of the president, and all the other authoritarian powers now claimed by the Unitary Executive.
It's all a distraction, of course. It's all right up there with the speculation about "the first dog" and whether the president-elect will try to impose his will on the so-called playoff structure of American college football.
The unspoken assumption behind all the stories is that it is up to Obama, alone, to decide these issues. It is he who will now decide how we define torture. He will now decide what's to become of the captives in Gitmo and the other gulag hidey-holes around the world. He will decide whether or not to "re-visit" the spying powers that he voted to give the Executive just a few months ago. And so on down the line.
But the unspoken assumption is a false one; the reality is that Obama won't be allowed to decide anything of the sort. He will be presented as a decider but he has already declared his intention to be the front man of a unification government.

The "unity" Obama will bring will not heal us, of course. It's not designed to do that. We are divided according to any number of criteria: racial, economic, geographical, political, and so on; Obama doesn't intend to do anything about these divides other than possibly proclaim them irrelevant.

The "unity" Obama promises does nothing for the most serious division in America -- between the people who are so enraged over the course America has taken during the past eight years that they have brought Obama to the pinnacle of power, and the people who steered that course.

Obama's administration represents a reconciliation between the two groups. And to a certain extent, it's working. Websites and writers who appeared to stand firmly against the American imperial project have turned out to be merely anti-Bush, and quite satisfied with the "change", even if it is only cosmetic.

Chris Floyd again:
All of the extraordinary hopes now invested in Obama boil down to this: the powerless wish that he will be a "good" king, well-intentioned and masterful, and not a cruel and bumbling ruler like the last "commander."
He may certainly be "masterful". He may avoid "bumbling". But Barack Obama has already shown that he has no intention of being a "good" king.

A good king would never renounce the pastor who taught him this:
Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. Terrorism begets terrorism.
A good king would not resume the costly, deadly and ultimately fruitless, and powerfully misleading search for a dead man.

A good king would never try to pretend that racism isn't "endemic to America"; or that America's problems in the Middle East are caused not by its own actions or the actions of Israel but rather by the "perverse and hateful ideologies of Islam".

Barack Obama has told all these lies, and many more; he has pledged more war against countries that never attacked -- or even intended to attack -- us.

Chris Floyd has the right words for the thoughts going on in the heads of the people who brought Barack Obama to power and now hope he will bring them the "change" that he taught them to "hope" for.
Magical thinking. Cringing and fawning. Looking to the Leader to make everything right. This is the state of American "democracy" today -- even after the historic "transformation" of Election 2008.
I am still amazed at the depth of the self-deception going on, the willingness to be deceived that I see almost everywhere.

Oh well. I deceive myself, too. I know where this is headed. I know what it would take to stop it. I know that's not about to happen, and I know that blogging about it isn't going to make any difference. But I do it anyway.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Monday, November 17, 2008

UN Official Says Israel's Policies Strengthen Extremists

John Ging [photo], director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza, has told an Israeli newspaper that Israel's policies in the Gaza Strip are strengthening extremists there.

This is probably not news to many of my readers, nor would many of my readers be surprised if I said that, in my opinion, strengthening extremists is one of the goals of the Israeli policy.

As I understand it, Israel and the USA both devote serious resources to fomenting terrorism, and neither country is above fabricating synthetic terror, if some terror happens to be required and none can be found or fomented. Of course they strengthen extremists!

Why? Because they need to have a war going, and to do that, they need to have an enemy, and the enemy must be as inhuman as possible -- capable of enormous and heinous crimes. That's why. If the US and/or Israel ever defeated the extremists, who would they have left to shoot at? Who would sell them the bullets, bombs, and fighter planes they need to protect themselves from the kids in the streets throwing rocks at their tanks?

But I'm just a cold blogger; I have the freedom to speak my mind, or type it, in return for the privilege of having almost no readers.

John Ging has no such luxury. People pay attention when he speaks. So he has to choose his words very carefully. And it's John Ging's choice of words that I find most remarkable, not his conclusion (which seems quite obvious to me).

Ging told the Israeli paper, Ha'aretz, that:
by not easing restrictions at crossings into the Strip during the months of the cease-fire, Israel bolstered extremists' claims that the closures represent a political, rather than security-related move.
Ging explains, as Ha'aretz reports:
"The extremists claimed that the Israeli closure is not related to the rockets. We said that wasn't true, we said the illegal firing of Qassams must stop, that they have no justification," Ging said.

"But the stance has been strengthened in recent months that the closure is political and not security-related. There were several months of tahadiyeh [cease-fire], but no easing at the crossings. This failure to ease the crossings was political."
Failure? Refusal.

Political? Well, of course it was; anybody can see that. But look at how John Ging says it:
Ging said he is not interested in judging Israeli policy according to interpretations based on ulterior motives, but on public declarations that Israeli security must be maintained. "If the platform is security and the desire to break the cycle of violence, Israeli policy has destructive, counterproductive consequences," he said.
That's a big "if", and John Ging throws it in, perhaps as a matter of professional necessity. But the question it implies is enormous.

Actions speak louder than words, and clearly the policy is destructive and counterproductive to "breaking the cycle of violence". So why do the Israelis continue the policy? Either they are stupid or they see some political advantage in it.

Are they stupid? Apparently not. Are they seeking some political advantage? John Ging won't say; but it's clear that he wants you to think about it.

He wants you to think about some other things, too. Ha'aretz provides some context:
Ging's remarks came last Thursday morning, when Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing, which was expected to be opened after having been closed for eight days. Gas supplies were also expected to be renewed.

In the afternoon, however, Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the crossings to remain closed. European Union consuls were also prohibited from entering the Strip. According to the coordinator of Israeli government activities in the territories, Peter Lerner, "the policy today is to only allow entry when it is most critical."

Ging said he does not accept the security logic during the cease-fire of only allowing humanitarian aid to the Strip. "If what is allowed to enter is only humanitarian, the entire population here is brought to a situation in which it is dependent on food aid. Is that the goal? People want to work, to create and to be rewarded for their labor, not to stand in line to receive charity," he said.
Ging continues:
"We are not talking about how to keep people alive, but about quality of life, not only physically and materially. This way, the people's mindset and emotional state are liable to be harmed," he said.
Unfortunately, keeping people alive is more difficult, too, when the checkpoints are everywhere -- especially when they're closed. The man in this photo is holding the body of his 3-month-old son, who couldn't get timely treatment because of the checkpoints. Sometimes, it's all and only about keeping people alive.

But the emotional damage is always.
Ging said he continues to be surprised by how people cling to their humanity, even having "lived so long in uncivilized conditions," and continue to hope their children develop and grow in better conditions.

Since the cease-fire went into place this summer, Ging said, fewer supplies have passed through the crossing than did in the beginning of 2006, when the western Negev suffered incessant Qassam rocket fire.

"Why? There is no need to explain the security challenges here. We are always told that we must ensure security arrangements, and we accepted that," he said. "But no one has explained to me the security reason behind the closure of every crossing. The crossings have tremendously sophisticated security devices. No one can pass with an explosives belt or weapon without being detected."

"Explain to me why people who present no security threat are not authorized to work in Israel as in the past. I ask the Israelis, why don't you allow the entry of cement, even during the cease-fire, so we can build new schools and reduce the crowdedness in classrooms?"
The Ha'aretz piece has more detail; for now, please note the following:
The policy of extended siege has proven itself to be ineffective, Ging said, adding that international observers have called for a new approach. In his view, to improve the situation, Israel should take a more positive approach and open all the crossings, ensuring freedom of movement to all people.

"If indeed the goal is the stated one: to achieve security and stability to lay the foundation for peaceful relations," Ging said.
There's that "if" again.

"If indeed the goal is the stated one..."

I can't help thinking that contemporary history -- especially contemporary American history -- would be quite a bit different if it were commonplace, rather than exceptional, to wonder whether the stated goals of our government are actual aims or only rhetorical devices.

~~~

For more on this theme, see: "A Formula For Endless War: The Wounded Shark, The Quest For Victory, And The Illusion Of Success"

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Airstrike Redux: When Will We Ever Learn?

Following one of my most recent posts ("Pass The Cheese: Iraqi Soldier Kills Two American Soldiers") there was a discussion at Winter Patriot dot com which reminded me of a few things. And rather than tell you about them, I've decided to show them to you.

This is a piece from October of 2007, which I called "When Will We Ever Learn? Airstrike Kills Civilians In Iraq, Pentagon Denies Everything". It is reposted here, in full, with no apologies for the graphic content.

~~~

The Americans brought more democracy to the Middle East on Sunday.

An American raiding party went on a hunting expedition in a dangerous area of Baghdad and ran into "unexpected resistance."

So they called for some air support before they turned tail and fled. They never did find the guy they were looking for, but they ran into some more "unexpected resistance" on the way out.

And when it was all over they had killed 18 civilians and injured another 50 (more or less, depending on your sources).

So they announced the deaths of 49 "terrorists" (or "militants") (or "criminals") -- and not a single American or Iraqi civilian casualty.

But you'd never guess all of this -- you'd never guess any of this -- if you only read the headlines. In almost every case the military got the headline they wanted.

Here's the story, piece by piece, assembled from the fragments that lurk behind those headlines, with emphasis added:

The Attack

AP
Backed by air power, U.S. forces targeting militants believed to be responsible for the kidnapping of two coalition soldiers raided the main Shiite district in Baghdad on Sunday. ... Iraqi police and hospital officials said helicopters and jet fighters bombed buildings during the 5 a.m. raid in the sprawling district ... Several houses and stores were damaged.
Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
Clouds of black smoke rose from Sadr City, a sprawling slum of some 2 million people in northern Baghdad, as sirens wailed, heavy gunfire echoed and U.S. attack helicopters circled above.
Christian Berthelsen in the Austin-American Statesman
U.S. forces engaged in an hours-long gunbattle with militants during an early morning raid in the Shiite Muslim district of Sadr City on Sunday, killing as many as 49 people in what would be one of the highest tolls for a single operation since President Bush declared an end to active combat in 2003.
AP
The U.S. military said troops staged early morning operations in Sadr City, a stronghold of the Mahdi Army militia that is loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr....

The military statement said only that the raids were targeting "criminals believed to be responsible for the kidnapping of coalition soldiers in November 2006 and May 2007."

It did not provide more details but said there was not evidence of civilian casualties.
AFP:
the military said ... the clashes ... erupted when troops were attacked by gunfire and rocket propelled grenades.... The US military said troops were drawn into fighting after they launched a raid to seize their high-value target in Sadr City...
Xinhua:
During the house to house searches in the area on Sunday, the troops encountered attacks from militiamen armed with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades from nearby structures, according to the statement.

The US troops fired back and called in aerial support, killing 39 militants, it said.
AFP:
"Responding in self-defence, coalition forces engaged, killing an estimated 33 criminals," the statement said, adding that air support was then called in and killed another six. Ten more were killed as US forces withdrew, it said.
Christian Science Monitor
Mr. Abdel-Karim, a resident of Sadr City, said he saw 10 US Stryker combat vehicles arrive in his neighborhood at about 10:30 p.m. local time Saturday. He said they were quickly attacked by militiamen in the area prompting a fierce fight that lasted nearly 10 hours.

Several loud explosions could be heard across the capital at about 6:30 a.m.

He said several homes, neighborhood power generators, and at least 25 cars were badly damaged in the fighting.
Bill Van Auken for WSWS
An Iraqi police source ... was quoted by the Al Jazeera news agency as saying that the raid was launched, apparently in retaliation, after a US vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb.

The accounts that have emerged thus far suggest that the attempts by US troops to move into the neighborhood in the pre-dawn hours provoked unanticipated resistance, including small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The ground forces responded by calling in air strikes...
Xinhua:
While leaving the targeted area, the troops clashed again with another group of militants after they were attacked by a roadside bomb followed with gunfire, killing 10 more other militants, it added.

No Civilian Casualties?

Xinhua:
The US military said that its troops have killed up to 49 "criminals" in a raid on Baghdad's eastern neighborhood of Sadr City early on Sunday.

"Collation [sic] forces estimate that 49 criminals were killed in three separate engagements during this operation," the US military said in a statement.
Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
The U.S. military said it had no confirmation of any civilian casualties.
Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times:
The military said it did not believe there were any civilian deaths as a result of the fighting.
AFP:
US military spokesman Major Winfield Danielson told AFP there were no civilian casualties and no reports of American losses. ...

"I can say that we don't have any evidence of any civilians killed or wounded. Coalition forces only engage hostile threats and make every effort to protect innocent civilians," said Danielson.
AP
"I don't yet have details on the number of terrorists killed, but I can say that we don't have any evidence of any civilians killed or wounded," spokesman Lt. Justin Cole said in an e-mail. "Coalition forces only engage hostile threats and make every effort to protect innocent civilians."

He said aircraft were used but was not more specific.

Yes, Civilian Casualties!

Christian Science Monitor
in what has become a classic pattern of events in the aftermath of similar operations in Sadr City, both witnesses and officials from Mr. Sadr's movement who live in the area gave a different death toll and version of events.

Salah al-Okaili, a Sadrist parliamentarian, said at least 10 people were killed and 62 wounded, most of them civilians. Another resident, Rahim Abdel-Karim, said funerals for 15 people killed in the operation were held in the area.

State-funded Al Iraqiya television gave a toll of 10 killed and 30 wounded, adding that most of those killed were civilians. It showed footage of women wailing and slapping their faces at funeral processions. The Associated Press said it had photos and video footage of dead and wounded children from the operation.
Christian Berthelsen in the Austin-American Statesman
A freelance correspondent for the Los Angeles Times said he saw the corpses of a woman and two small children.

Among the wounded were an 8-year-old and an 11-year-old boy, who were interviewed in their beds at Imam Ali hospital by the Times. Another man said his 1½-year old son was killed, as well as a neighbor's son the same age.
Steven R. Hurst of the AP via ABC News:
An uncle of 2-year-old Ali Hamid [photo] said the boy was killed and his parents seriously wounded when helicopter gunfire pierced the wall and windows of their house as they slept ...

Relatives gathered at Sadr City's Imam Ali hospital where the emergency room was overwhelmed with bloodied casualties. The dead were placed in caskets covered by Iraqi flags. ...

The U.S. military said it was not aware of any civilian casualties, and the discrepancy in the death tolls and accounts of what happened could not be reconciled.
Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
Local hospitals said they had received 12 bodies and 65 wounded, including eight women and children.

The bodies of the two slain toddlers, one in a diaper, lay on blankets in the morgue of Imam Ali hospital in Sadr City, where doctors tended to wounded men, some elderly, and boys, Reuters Television footage showed.

In a house where one of the children lived, a man pointed to bloodstained mattresses and blood-splattered pillows, choking back tears as he held up a photo of one of the dead.
AFP:
Medics at four hospitals confirmed 17 dead, including a boy and a girl...

Pictures taken by an AFP photographer showed grieving relatives carrying off the bodies of dead for burial and dozens of wounded being treated by emergency hospital staff.

One resident stood crying over the coffin of a young boy, while other residents pointed to blood-stained mattresses they said were the result of an air strike from an American helicopter. ...
Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times:
Two cousins, Murtada Saiedi, 8, and Ali Saiedi, 11, were walking home at 6:15 a.m. after buying fresh samoun for their families. Samoun is a triangular bread beloved by Iraqis for breakfast.

“I was holding the samoun in my arms in a big bag,” said Ali Saiedi, adding that he was taking the bread home for his eight siblings and his parents. “Then I heard a big sound and I tried to run, I wanted to reach my home, but I couldn’t.

“And then when I woke up, I was here,” he said, as he lay in a bed at the Imam Ali Hospital with bandages on his arms from shrapnel cuts.

His cousin, Murtada Saiedi, in the next bed, would not speak. He winced as he shifted his weight in the bed and looked up silently at his father and uncle, who were leaning over the child. The doctor had just come by to say that he thought Murtada might have some internal bleeding.
Canadian Press
A local resident who goes by the name Abu Fatmah said his neighbor's 14-year-old son, Saif Alwan, was killed while sleeping on the roof.

"Saif was killed by an airstrike and what is his guilt? Is he from the Mahdi Army? He is a poor student," Abu Fatmah said.
Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
Police and witnesses said [the raid] claimed the lives of many civilians. ...

Two of the victims were toddlers, Reuters Television pictures showed.
Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times:
An official at the hospital, Abu Ibrahim, said an elderly woman whose midsection had been nearly severed by shrapnel died Sunday evening, bringing the total dead at the hospital to 16. There were 38 wounded who were admitted to the hospital, he said. Officials at a second hospital in the neighborhood reported one dead and two wounded.
Canadian Press
Associated Press photos showed the bodies of two toddlers, one with a gouged face, swaddled in blankets on a morgue floor. Their shirts were pulled up, exposing their abdomens, and a diaper showed above the waistband of one boy's shorts. Relatives said the children were killed when helicopter gunfire hit their house as they slept.
AP
Relatives gathered at the Imam Ali hospital as the emergency room was overwhelmed with bloodied victims and the dead were placed in caskets covered by Iraqi flags.

"The 14-year-old child of my neighbor called Saif was killed by an airstrike and what is his guilt? Is he from the Mahdi Army? He is a poor student," said a local resident who goes by the name Abu Fatmah.

He apparently was referring to 14-year-old student Saif Alwan, whose uncle said was killed while sleeping on the roof, wearing a white robe. The uncle added that Saif's mother and father were seriously wounded.

Fatmah said many of the casualties were people sleeping on the roof to seek relief from the hot weather and lack of electricity.
BBC:
"We were waking in the morning and all of a sudden rockets landed in the house and the children were screaming," [Reuters] quoted a woman as saying.

An official loyal to Moqtada Sadr said the attack was "simply barbaric".

"Most of those killed and wounded were women, children and elderly men which shows the indiscriminate monstrosity of the attacks on this crowded area," Abdul-Mehdi al-Muteyri told Reuters news agency.

But the US military denied civilians had been killed.
Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times:
The episode highlights the difficulty of determining the facts after military operations, especially ones involving firefights in which much happens quickly. The military said the reason so few bodies were taken to hospitals was that the militants picked up the bodies of their own people to prevent American soldiers from gaining intelligence about them.

In cases where Iraqi casualty numbers are far higher than American numbers, the American military sometimes says the discrepancy is a result of exaggeration by Iraqis.

The Target

Xinhua:
the military said that six suspected militants were killed during the raid that targeted a Special Groups member specializing in kidnapping operations.
Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
A U.S. military official said the target of the raid was suspected of involvement in the kidnapping of "coalition force members and other foreigners" in May this year and last November. The official did not say whether he had been captured.
Canadian Press
The raid on the dangerous Shiite slum was aimed at capturing an alleged rogue militia chief, one of thousands of fighters who have broken with Muqtada al-Sadr's mainstream Mahdi Army. The military did not say if the man was captured. He was also not named.
Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a long-time Special Groups member specializing in kidnapping operations. Intelligence indicates he ... has previously sought funding from Iran," the U.S. military said in a statement.
AFP:
"The operation's objective was an individual reported to be a long-time Special Groups member specialising in kidnapping operations," a statement said...

"Intelligence indicates he is a well-known cell leader and has previously sought funding from Iran to carry out high profile kidnappings," the statement said.
Christian Berthelsen in the Austin-American Statesman
U.S. officials said the raid did not capture or kill its target ...
AFP:
Danielson said the targeted individual had not been killed or captured during the clashes...

High Profile Kidnappings

Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
A U.S. army translator was kidnapped last October, and in May three U.S. soldiers and five Britons -- four security contractors and a civilian -- were abducted in two incidents.
Xinhua:
A US military spokesman said in an earlier statement that the cell leader was believed to be behind kidnappings of coalition force soldiers, including one in May this year.

A US patrol was ambushed on May 12 in south of Baghdad. Four soldiers and an Iraqi translator were killed, and three soldiers were missing. The body of one was found later that month but the other two remain unknown.
Christian Science Monitor
The military gave no details about the kidnap victims, apart from the dates they were abducted – this May and last November.

Three US soldiers were kidnapped in an Al Qaeda stronghold south of Baghdad in May. The body of one was found later that month but the other two are classed as missing and captured. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the abductions.

The same month, the five Britons were abducted in the Iraqi capital in an attack blamed on Mahdi Army militants.

A US Army translator of Iraqi descent was kidnapped in Baghdad on Oct. 23 last year when he went to visit relatives. His family said he was taken by the members of the Mahdi Army.

Special Groups

Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
Special Groups is U.S. military jargon for rogue Mehdi Army units they say receive funding, training and weapons from neighboring Iran.
AFP:
"Special Groups" is a US term for what it says are secret Shiite cells which wage acts of "terrorism" in Iraq with the financial and military backing of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards units.
Xinhua:
The Special Groups are Shiite militia extremists funded, trained and armed by external sources, specifically by Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force operatives, according to the US military.
Bill Van Auken for WSWS
“Special Groups” is a category invented by the US military authorities, meant to describe those in the Shia areas who are perceived as an opposing the American occupation. The Pentagon has used this jargon to portray the resistance as the work of “rogue” elements directed, trained and armed by Iran.
AFP:
The US military has regularly targeted Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which dominates in Sadr City and is accused by the Americans of widescale criminal activity and sectarian killings of Sunnis.

Sadr, whose movement is the most powerful popular force in Iraq, declared a six-month freeze on militia activities in August, including a halt to attacks on US-led troops.

But his political bloc pulled out of the Shiite alliance that leads Iraq's coalition government in September following a boycott by his six ministers in April, further upsetting Iraq's already fractured political landscape. ...

US forces have welcomed the Sadr freeze but continue to target fighters who it says have broken away from the main Mahdi Army and formed special groups allegedly aided by Iran.

Context And Reaction

Sattar Raheem and Aseel Kami for Reuters:
The Iraqi government protested against a raid by U.S. forces in Baghdad on Sunday in which the military said 49 gunmen were killed in fierce fighting, but police and witnesses said claimed the lives of many civilians. ...

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki protested about the "excessive force" against civilians in the Sadr City raid in his weekly meeting with General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander Iraq, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in an interview with CNN's Late Edition.

Iraqi officials have criticized the U.S. military in the past for operations that have resulted in the loss of civilian life, especially the use of air strikes in built-up areas.
Bill Van Auken for WSWS
The carnage in Sadr City erupted in the context of intensified US attacks throughout Iraq. Just a day earlier, US troops raided neighborhoods in the southern city of Diwaniyah, supposedly in search of leaders of the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. US attack helicopters were called in and fired on the area, destroying at least five homes. The US military reported detaining 30 people in the raid, while again claiming that the bombardment caused no civilian casualties.

On October 11, US air strikes against a home in Samarra killed 34 people, including nine children, one of the deadliest such attacks to be acknowledged by the US military since the 2003 invasion.
Canadian Press
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said all the dead were civilians.

Al-Dabbagh said on CNN that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, had met with the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, to protest the action.
Christian Berthelsen in the Austin-American Statesman
Sunday's fighting follows incidents in recent weeks in which U.S. forces killed 15 civilians in an attack on alleged leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, and Western private security contractors shot and killed unarmed Iraqi civilians, inflaming anti-U.S. sentiment.

In Parliament on Sunday, Iraqi officials discussed the possibility of placing restrictions on U.S. military operations in Iraq when it negotiates the terms of the U.N. resolution that authorizes the U.S. presence here. The resolution comes up for its annual reauthorization before year's end.
AFP:
"What happened today in Sadr City is part of a series of conspiracies led by the US against the Sadrists. Sadrists who are always demanding the exit of the occupier," said Sadr MP Saleh al-Igaili.

"The Sadrists condemn the barbaric action and hold the Iraqi government and the occupier responsible for the attack.

"The occupier's declaration that it killed 49 criminals is a lie. The occupier's forces actually killed only 10 and wounded 62, but most of them were children and women," he said.
Canadian Press
An Iraqi military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, said the government would ask the Americans for an explanation of Sunday's raid and stressed the need to avoid civilian deaths.

The government has issued mixed reactions to the raids and airstrikes, particularly those that have targeted Sunni extremists.

U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Oct. 11 targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad.

Al-Maliki's government said those killings were a "sorrowful matter," but emphasized that civilian deaths are unavoidable in the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq.
Christian Science Monitor
"People are very angry at the silence of the Iraqi government over these unprovoked actions by the US military," said Mr. Okaili, the Sadrist parliamentarian.

On Sunday, hundreds of local residents, wailing and chanting "There is no God but Allah," carried wooden coffins through the streets.
Bill Van Auken for WSWS
On Saturday, US troops also raided and ransacked the headquarters of the Iraqi Islamic Party (IIP) in Baghdad, leaving it in a shambles. The IIP, which is the largest Sunni party in Iraq, is led by Iraq’s Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi.

Al-Hashemi has provoked the ire of both Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, and the US occupation authorities in recent weeks with his highly publicized visits to crowded detention camps, where predominantly Sunni prisoners have told him that they are innocent, have been arrested without charges and have been subjected to torture.

The United Nations humanitarian mission in Iraq recently released a report estimating that there were some 44,000 detainees in Iraqi or US custody as of last June—a total that had increased by at least 10 percent just over the previous two months as a result of increased US raids. No doubt this prison population has grown sharply since then.

The UN report cited “widespread and routine torture and ill-treatment of detainees.”

“In addition to routine beatings with hosepipes, cables and other implements,” the report states, “the methods cited included prolonged suspension from the limbs in contorted and painful positions for extended periods, sometimes resulting in dislocation of the joints, electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body; the breaking of limbs; forcing detainees to sit on sharp objects, causing serious injury and heightening the risk of infection; and severe burns to parts of the body through the application of heated implements.”
AP
Mourners tied wooden coffins onto the tops of minivans while a plume of black smoke rose in the background.
Bill Van Auken for WSWS
Meanwhile, one of Washington’s principal Iraqi collaborators and an architect of the US-imposed regime declared in a television interview that the American intervention has brought only “chaos and instability.”

Feisal Amin Istrabadi, who resigned in August as Iraq’s deputy ambassador to the United Nations, told NBC News Friday that “there is no Iraqi government,” only an “appearance of institutions.”

Istrabadi, a US-born lawyer who was a leading figure among the exile circles promoting a US invasion and later played the key role in drafting Iraq’s interim constitution, blamed the catastrophe confronting Iraq on Washington’s drive to hold early elections in which the population was pushed to support competing ethno-religious-based parties.

“What did we accomplish, exactly [with] this push towards an appearance of institutions ... merely an appearance?” he asked. “Except that an American politician can stand up and say, ‘Look what we accomplished in Iraq.’ When in fact, what we accomplished in Iraq over the last three years has been chaos and instability.”
Christian Berthelsen in the Austin-American Statesman
The White House declined to comment on the clash.

What Does It Mean?

Among other things, this event shows how much the American military respects the wishes of the Iraqi Prime Minister and his supposedly sovereign government.

It also shows that the tactic of bombing residential areas -- killing hundreds of innocent people in the hope of eliminating just one bad guy -- is American still policy, just as it was in Korea, just as it was in Vietnam, just as it has been in Somalia, and in many other places before and since.

Canadian Press
The sweeps into Sadr City have sent a strong message that U.S. forces plan no letup on suspected Shiite militia cells despite objections from the Shiite-led government of al-Maliki, who is working for closer cooperation with Shiite heavyweight Iran.
Bill Van Auken for WSWS
There is growing evidence that the use of air strikes against the Iraqi people has grown considerably since the military “surge” ordered by the Bush administration at the beginning of the year, even as it goes largely unreported by the US media.

The US Air Force posts daily accounts of its operations, listing between 50 and 70 “close-air-support missions” each day. According to a survey by the Associated Press, the number of bombs dropped by US war planes on Iraq increased fivefold during the first six months of 2007, compared to the same period a year earlier. The Air Force has for the first time this year deployed powerful B1-B bombers in Iraq, capable of carrying up to 24 tons of bombs.

This increasing use of air power inevitably entails a growing toll in terms of civilian dead and wounded, referred to by military officials a “collateral damage.” The study of excess Iraqi deaths published in the authoritative British medical journal Lancet a year ago estimated that 13 percent of all violent deaths in Iraq were caused by US air strikes. The report’s authors estimated that these strikes were responsible for fully 50 percent of the violent deaths of children under the age of 15.
The increasing use of such air power—and the indiscriminate bloodshed that it entails—is a measure of the growing crisis of the American occupation and the Pentagon’s fears about the demoralization and disintegration of US ground forces in Iraq. The deliberate aerial bombardment of crowded civilian neighborhoods—a war crime—is designed both to further terrorize the Iraqi population and cut the number of US casualties.

Headlines

I mentioned headlines. Now that you know what's in the articles, look at some of these headlines:

Reuters : U.S. military says kills 49 in Baghdad raid

ABC : US: Raid of Baghdad's Sadr City Kills 49

AFP : US forces kill 49 in Baghdad Shiite stronghold

Xinhua : US troops kill up to 49 in Baghdad's Sadr City

Washington Post : US: Raid of Baghdad's Sadr City Kills 49

BBC : US raid kills Iraqi 'criminals'

Canadian Press : U.S. forces kill 49 militants in Sadr City; Iraqis report civilians killed

Christian Science Monitor : US targeted Iran-tied group in raid

AP : US: Raid of Baghdad's Sadr City Kills 49

AP : 13 Said Killed As U.S. Stages Iraq Raid

Citizen (Zambia) : 10 killed in clashes with US in Baghdad Shiite bastion

Malaysia Sun : Criminals and civilians killed in Iraq operation

Austin-American Statesman : U.S., Iraq differ on toll after Sadr City raid

New York Times : Confusion on Deaths After Fighting in Sadr City

WSWS : US raid on Baghdad’s Sadr City leaves many dead and wounded

Gulf Daily News : Toddlers killed

When Will We Ever Learn?

Thirty-five years ago an airstrike on civilians was captured in a photograph which appeared on the front pages of newspapers everywhere and became world-famous within 24 hours.


It changed the nature and the intensity of the anti-war movement overnight. And some of us thought it had changed humanity forever. What did we know?


That little girl lived. But this little boy died. And you won't see his photo on the front page of any newspaper, let alone all of them.

What's it going to take this time?

~~~

Read more about airstrikes on civilians, from Chris Floyd:
Rain of terror in the U.S. air war in Iraq

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.