American Troops and the Shia-Sunni Wars
Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New America Foundation who is also affiliated with the American Strategy Program which I direct, has just published a Robert Kaplan-esque treatment in the Boston Review of what he sees unfolding in Iraq.
It's a powerfully written passage that opens with a vignette of Americans killing an Iraqi man inside his home, his family outside, perhaps as part of a scheme engineered by a Shia "translator":
The Americans came for Sabah one Friday night in September. His house in Radwaniya, on the western outskirts of Baghdad, stood in a dry, yellow field surrounded by brick walls. Three cars were parked in front the day I came to visit, two weeks after Americans had shot him.It was the month of Ramadan, and our mouths were as dry as his yard. The resistance was active in Radwaniya, and we drove through fields and dry canals to avoid any checkpoints that might reveal to locals that I was a foreigner. Journalists were targets now too.
The Americans had come maybe 20 times before to search for weapons in the house were Sabah lived with his brothers Walid and Hussein, their wives, and their six children. They knew where to look for the single Kalashnikov rifle the family was permitted to own. They had always been polite. "This day they didn't act normal," Hussein told me. "They were running from all sides of the house. They kicked open the doors. They didn't wait for us."
With Iraqi National Guardsmen standing outside, the Americans hit the brothers with their rifle butts. Five soldiers were on each man. Sabah's nose was broken; Walid lay on the floor with a rifle barrel in his mouth. The Shia translator told them to kill Walid, but they ripped the gun out of his mouth instead, tearing his cheek.
The rest of the family was ordered out. The translator asked the brothers where "the others" were and cursed them, threatening to rape their sisters.
As the terrified family waited outside on the road, they heard three shots and what sounded to them like a scuffle inside. The Iraqi National Guardsmen tried to enter the house, but the translator cursed them, too, and shouted, "Who told you to come in?" Thirty minutes later Walid was dragged into the street. The translator emerged with a picture of Sabah and asked for Sabah's wife.
"Your husband was killed by the Americans, and he deserved to die," he told her. He tore the picture before her face. Several soldiers came out of the house laughing.
Inside, the family found Sabah dead. Blood marked his shirt where three bullets had entered his chest; two came out his back and lodged in the wall behind him. American-made bullet casings were on the floor. The house had been ransacked. Sofas and beds were overturned and torn apart; tables, closets, vases with plastic flowers were broken.
Sabah's pictures had been torn up and his identification card confiscated. Elsewhere in the house one picture remained untouched -- Sabah with his three brothers and their father, smiling in happier times. When Sabah was buried the next day his body was not washed -- martyrs are buried as they died.
Hussein told me that three days before Sabah was killed, an American patrol had stopped in front of Radwaniya's shops and the Shia translator had loudly taunted the locals, cursing and threatening them for being Sunnis. Sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Shia had been escalating throughout the year, and the Americans had done little to diffuse them.
Rosen also elaborates on the potential for a massive regional convulsion between Shia and Sunni Muslims:
In December 2004, Jordan's King Abdallah warned of a "Shia crescent" from Lebanon to Iraq to Iran that would destabilize the entire region. Iraq's Shias had demonstrated against Jordan in the past, condemning the country for its steady trickle of suicide bombers who crossed into Iraq to commit atrocities against Shia civilians.In September 2005, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal warned that a civil war in Iraq would destabilize the entire region and complained that the Americans had handed Iraq over to Iran. In response, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr called the Saudi foreign minister a "Bedouin riding a camel" and described Saudi Arabia as a one-family dictatorship.
Jabr, who had commanded the Badr corps, also condemned Saudi human-rights abuses -- particularly the repression of Saudi Arabia's approximately two million Shias -- and he mocked Saudi Arabia's treatment of its women.
In Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahhabi Islam, Shias are known as rafida, which means "rejectionists." A highly pejorative term, it implies that Shias are outside Islam, and to Shias it is the equivalent of being called "nigger." This is the same word Sunni radicals in Iraq and the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, use to describe Shias. Saudi Arabia's two million Shias have been persecuted, prevented from celebrating their festivals, and occasionally threatened with extermination.
Saudi Arabia is also the main exporter of foreign fighters to the Iraqi jihad to fight both the Americans and the Shia "rafida" collaborators.
Nir Rosen's treatment of this killing of an Iraqi man inside his house -- where no guns or other terrorist materials seem to have been found -- is the type of reporting that is vital for Americans and others in the world to read. The job Americans are assigned to do in Iraq is nearly impossible to accomplish if they are unable to make sensible life and death decisions without being dependent on the biases of local "fixers" and "translators".
I am highlighting Rosen's report because I've already heard of dozens of cases from U.S. servicemen who had previously served in Iraq that the language and culture gap between American troops and the Iraqis that they are trying to "protect" and "help" forces dependencies on "gatekeepers" -- particularly English-speaking "translators" -- who are very frequently crooks charging exorbitant fees for their services, spies, thugs attached to organized crime rings, extortionists from Iraqis whom they threaten to expose to Americans, or players in the Shia-Sunni conflict who manipulate American troops to perform executions of their enemies.
This situation is terrible. Those who continue to harp on that we "must stay the course" need to think about this. What does "stay the course" mean when many of our troops are not able to conduct themselves independently of thugs who are terrorizing the very people we are trying to help.
I had not read about this case which Nir Rosen exposes, but the American military needs to find a way to investigate this story and prosecute the "translator" and other such thuggish gatekeepers. It then needs to find alternatives in how life and death killing decisions are made when such translators are involved.
I think that Rosen's depiction of the Shia-Sunni tensions that are beginning to boil regionally is accurate, but I want to add two dimensions that are missing from his piece but which are potentially important in balancing this picture.
The first is that as I and others have reported before, Saudi King Abdullah has been sending unambiguous signals that he is trying to reach out to his own domestic Shia population in positive ways -- and as part of this campaign within and beyond Saudi borders invited Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to be his personal guest during the Haj. These symbolic gestures are seen by Sunni and Shia and represent a bit of a counter-force to the negative news we hear.
Secondly, I recently had a conversation about Saudi Arabia's political stability with a senior Saudi Defense Attache based in a foreign government -- and would rather not identify the person. The Saudi General told me that one of his greatest concerns about Saudi Arabia's future was not that the Iraq War or other regional conflicts would boil over, but rather that the conflicts would be quelled, that the problems in Iraq would more or less stabilize and the fire in the heart of the insurgency would diminish.
The General's concern in that scenario is that the many Saudis that have left the country to fight in these "wars" would come home. That, he said, would create serious internal tensions and possibly create instabilities that would be "difficult to control". This was an astonishing admission from a top General but it seemed candid and honest to me.
I asked then whether it was important for Saudi Arabia's stability for it to have the ability to export these young-ish, male jihadists. The General's one word response: "Absolutely."
There are no quick fixes in the Middle East -- and every course of action for America, whether it involves staying or leaving, or engaging in so-called "strategic redeployment" has serious costs attached.
America needs a better strategic plan to address expanding arcs of instability in the world and without a more serious road map, our efforts are thinly reactive, ad hoc, and designed to go nation by nation rather than focus on regional realities -- and this only prescribes ongoing serious failure.
America has to turn this problem of strategic blindness around, and it is something Republican and Democratic partisans should resist treating as election fodder. The Republican leadership has been self-righteous and indulgent in pushing an idiotic notion of infallibility. And Democrats have failed to provide a competing vision of national security priorities and strategy to satisfy a market calling for such a plan -- recent proposals included.
America's mystique is fragile and collapsing and without some better management of American political, economic and military resources, America could, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has said on several occasions, "lose its primacy".
That could have devastating consequences for Americans and the world. That is what this gambit in Iraq may be costing, and we have to wise up to better decisions now.
Steve Clemons is publisher of the popular political blog, The Washington Note, is editor of Bolton Watch, and is Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation.
This story is disturbing in more ways than one. If, as I have read, our military are planning more air strikes, and allowing Iraqi military to direct bombing attacks, then the damage will be far more than one man killed.
As far as American "primacy," I think we are far past that point.
And as far as Democratic response, I disagree. The Republican Congress is in power and they are not interested in bipartisanship. I believe Murtha has it right -- withdraw and redeploy. But it is, I think, disingenuous to suggest that somehow the Democrats can come up with any kind of real solution when they are given no real say in the running of our government.
April 8, 2006 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
American primacy -- a modern definition:
A unique capacity, exceeding that of any other nation, to screw up on a majestic scale while never missing an opportunity to do so.
April 8, 2006 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
. What does "stay the course" mean when many of our troops are not able to conduct themselves independently of thugs who are terrorizing the very people we are trying to help.
Indeed. These are the onlyforces that can defeat an insurgency, but is it is clear now what has been happening for some time. The insurgent civil war against the government has taken on a terrifying third dimension. The only forces that could have defeated the insurgents, a locally based, tribally sanctioned force of Sunni natives, never existed for in fact it was destroyed in the invasion . Big white boys from California and Kansas counter-insurgents???
Now some think we can substitute air power for ground troops and that we might if they counterinsurgency force was really fighting insurgents and no sectarina rivals, a family that owes money, or which slighted your daughter etc. Score settling with a rifle is on thing. Settling scores with a Blackhawk gunship is something else.
The Russians came to the same point in Afghanistan. When they realized that their ground presence was counterproductive, they to the air and wantonly destroyed villages. Though I've no doubt that our air units are decidedly more profressional, the result will be the same for who do you think will call down airstrikes?
Welcome to hell the Arab League president warned. Many warned but that was then, and this is now.
A bad plan was executed and we should have gotten the hell out once it became apparent that our leaders had lied us into war. The longer we refuse to acknowledge the lie, the longer we live with ever more wretched consequences.
As for Nir Rosen, that would be the one who Juan Cole calls "brave" today, usuually "intrepid"
Either way, Juan is understatiung.
April 8, 2006 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve
How "inevitable" was this showdown between the Sunnis and the Shia since the rise of Khommenism in Iran and Al Qaeda? The United States arrival in Iraq and the removal of Saddem may have exacerbated the problem but did it cause it? Iraq under Saddem was both able to suppress its own Shiites and provide a buffer for much of the Arab Sunni Muslim world from the Persian Shia world.
It would seem obvious that the United States should not allow itself to be a partisan in this sectarian war becuase it doesn't have enough Arabic translators. If the United States leaves Iraq and the Iranians, Saudis and Turks start picking sides within Iraq what then?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 8, 2006 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Last night on NewsHour, a chilling report from Baghdad, in which the Los Angeles Times reporter tells Jim Lehrer that the country is in the grip of rising anger and fear in which families are stockpiling arms and ammunition for what he sees a dubious claim of "self-defense" ie "I am going to kill that (fill in the blank) before they kill my family"
We cannot stay in Iraq. That has been clear for a least 2 1/2 years. Also clear, the longer we have stayed the worse it has and will become if we stay any longer. Yes, there maybe ameliorating steps we can take, and I have suggested several:
1. Total US withdrawal
2. US repartations package
3. US funding of an international force (arab league? India? ) under UN command
4. Possible supplement of US airpower directed by that force.
5. Detente with Iran
6. Decisive pressure on Israel for complete withdrawal from West Bank and east Jerusalem
But you tell me if that's ever going to happen with this regime or even with another.
That's what it is going to take - We need to set a new course on an entirely diffferent roadmap. It is too late and getting lateer by the hour.
I'd put Nir and Anatol Lieven to work Steve.
April 8, 2006 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
We inevitably will leave Iraq at some time. If we stay much longer we are obviously there to maintain Iraq as a military base for the Middle East, probably to "protect" Israel. That will make things far worse than they are now. If we don't stay to maintain Iraq as a military base, we have no business there at all. It is increasingly obvious that we are filling the same role there that occupying troops always fill - that is to terrorize the populace. We are the terrorists in Iraq today. Any international war on terrorism has to take that fact into consideration.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 8, 2006 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
I have never been to Iraq Daniel, but Juan Cole knows a thing or two. The answer to your question is "post hoc ergo propter hoc". The answer is Paul Wolfowitz and his Lobby boys had a plan premised on the fact that Iraq was a secular state. Wolfowitz even told Congress that it would be for us to be in Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia because Iraq didn't have holy sites or fundamentalists.
Get my point now? That was the point of an excellent lecture and killer powerpoint from Juan Cole (bete noir of the Lobby) that I was privileged to attend last August Oh by the way, the answer to question.
I almost forgot. Sunni-Shia violenc, practically unknown until we arrived. The title of Cole's presentation - The Rise of Shiite Crescent in the Oil Gulf. Saudi Arabia is smart to move now to embrace Sadr. Iran is the new Gulf power and the oil producing region of the kingdom - long oppressed Shia.
April 8, 2006 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Those who danced the tune Dan, have a large account with the Piper - long past due.
April 8, 2006 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole says the American military should immediately stop search-and-destroy missions because they inflame Iraqis and intensify the insurgency. Air-strikes have the same result. No matter that we can do "precision bombing", for our intelligence is so often bad or wrong about who the enemy is. Moreover, the missiles are just not as precise as we claim. We end up killing and wounding innocents and creating more hostility among the Iraqis.
"Staying the course" in Iraq is absolutely not an option.
April 8, 2006 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm not alone in extreme fatigue with the "they are" or "he was" worse than we are and therefore we're not all that bad... I don't care what Saddam might or might not have done under the circumstances. What we did is something we can do something about.
If this is the way American troops are behaving, then obviously we either have to pull them out altogether (not necessarily a good choice) or leave the best there and put them under international command as to act as real security forces and to rebuild what they've broken. For sure individual soldiers are capable of doing horrible things on their own, but the pattern of abuse in Iraq can only come from mid and high level command. It's that command which we need to delete, whether military or civilian.
We have a culture in this country which respects the military a great deal more than it always deserves. Facing reality may not be pleasant, but it's more apt to keep us out of trouble in the future.
April 8, 2006 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Have cross pollinated to Informed Comment's post on the Rosen article.
Will be up once Cole approves content.
April 8, 2006 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Specifically (and Cole is a Lobby certified "anti-Semite" - fair warning Dan)
April 8, 2006 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
If you are wondering why Israel is passing bricks over Iran, don't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Iranian nuclear threat and everything to do with the fact that for the US to extricate itself from the Disaster, we're going to have to cut a deal with Iran and the longer we wait, the higher the price
Aahh the Lobby sowed the wind, and Israel will reap the whirlwind. They'll have company
April 8, 2006 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Cole also notes on the question of withdrawal/air support and the problem of spotters, that US air power should be held in reserve to attack large formations one side or the other assembling for attack and NOT for a continuation of "surgical" strikes on a day to day basis.
I think it was in March that he most recently disussed this.
It pays to read Informed Comment regularly and I've done so religiously without fail, at first log on, every day now for three years
April 8, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
We were having coffee together just before his lecture last fall. Cole expounded at length about why the Saudis and Jordanians "are passing bricks" over this lie-begotten mess.
Get the picture?
Ain't purty is it and it is getting uglier by the day.
April 8, 2006 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole may or many not know about Iraq but I do not believe he has ever been there. He is also not saying anything all that magical.
Your comment about Sunni-Shia violence is patently untrue. There was the Iraqi-Iranian war, 1 million dead. Saddem's suppression of the Shia. Al Qaeda's killing of Shia. Do you know anything of the history of the Sunnis and the Shiites? There was also the killings in Mecca by Shiia.
Saddem's regime was secular, his Ba'ath Party was modelled on the Nazi Party. However, his country is split between Shia, Sunni and the Kurds. As I have writen before William Kristol's dismissal of the potential problem between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq after Saddem was eliminated may be the single most ridiculous thing said in the run up to the war. Removing Saddem's brutalization of the Shiite's was likely to have consequences.
I gather you believe the Arabs are pretty much incapable of acting rationally on their own behalf. Is your solution to the Middle East that what the Arabs need are monstrous dictators?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 8, 2006 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Solution-from those who brought you The Bloody Iraq Fiasco:
Nuke Iran- people rise up, throw out their mullahs, regime change, US hegemony, democracy and peace. World thanks George W. Bush for saving civilization.
April 8, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
And you'd be wrong again, but what gets me is that you fell for the bait.
April 8, 2006 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
And you'd be wrong again, but what gets me is that you fell for the bait.
April 8, 2006 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Truly sad and desperate days for the Lobbyists as I am pleased to demonstrate daily.
Thank you Daniel Greenbaum = proof of so many points
April 8, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any peaceful settlement of the Iraq question would also require tacit acceptability to Turkey and Iran at a minimum. The Kurd question alone would have been tough. This is one mess that isn't going away anytime soon regardless of mea culpas, indignation or anything except serious arbitration : not military enforcement.
The U.S. is known to be capable of being a serious pain in the ass. That reputation can be an advantage. A neutral trusted by the principals is a prerequisite to any dickering ( at least that's locally acceptable ). Next is the hard part. Who would trust the U.S. enough to go there ?
I'll guarantee you the only practical solutions to this mess will depend on people closer to the problem but not actually caught up in it.
One last point. Bush/Cheney deliberately caused this problem. No solution is possible with them in charge. Housecleaning ( spring cleaning ? ) or an expired term are preconditions for any possible success.
April 8, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's going to be blowback because of Bush's moronic war no matter what. So we need to follow Murtha's strategic redployment plan immediately.
Tom
April 8, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read the link you supplied. It has nothing to do with Israel. It has very little to do with the United States.
It clearly acknowledges that in Iraq the Sunnis are the primary problem but that in the Middle East as a whole given the regime in Iran the Shiites present a longer term problem.
The bait? That you are to be taken seriously and are not just a juevenile anti-Semite?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 8, 2006 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Not to belabor the point (like hell!) but I do so hate to hoist another on his own petard without him even knowing he's been hoisted so
George Bush's been to Iraq
Tommy Franks, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney...
I've never been Dan.
April 8, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
What's the use of beating a horse unless it's dead eh Daniel?
April 8, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The house is full of more trash than the Regime. The WarParty's tentacles run as deep as they sweep wide
April 8, 2006 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have some actual point?
By the way. While Iran is certainly a regional power in the Middle East a bit of realism. According to Wikipedia 85% of the world's Muslims are Sunnia and less than 15% are Shiia.
I am not at all sure what your ravings are meant to prove but you seem to like brutal dictators i in the Arab world. Do you believe they are necessary for the Arabs?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 8, 2006 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No matter that we can do "precision bombing", for our intelligence is so often bad or wrong about who the enemy is."
"Precision bombing" is a phrase applicable to highway bridges, power stations, factories, etc., but not at all to houses, automobiles, etc. Five hundred pounds of high explosives cannot possibly be a precision weapon on a scale we are attempting in Iraq. In fact, a more accurate phrase would be "more precise bombing". Recall that gravity bombs, unguided, have to be dropped by the dozens to have any chance of hitting even a bridge - more precise bombing, using laser guidance, reduces that number considerably.
A good principle to remember is: news handed out by the military is propaganda. When the military states that they have done something, it is only slightly probable that they have actually done so.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 8, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
I could swear that when I first linked to Rosen's article this morning via Informed Comment, that I had read it a week ago somewhere. Can't recall where. Information overload or advancing years..no matter
I did read it some days ago
April 8, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
"Precision bombing" along with its cousin "collateral" damage are just so much salve for the conscience of the masses.
After all, we're on a noble mission for freedom now aren't we?
Can't have too much self-flagellation or truth.
April 8, 2006 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
"Precision bombing" along with its cousin "collateral" damage are just so much salve for the conscience of the masses.
After all, we're on a noble mission for freedom now aren't we?
Can't have too much self-flagellation or truth.
April 8, 2006 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
You think things are screwed up today.
Check back in a month or two. That's what happens when pack of lies is "executed" according to plan. Not a matter of incompetence in execution but deceit and delusion from the very start.
Enough rationalizations of failure. Time to take the bull by the tail and look the problem in the face - better had we done so three-four years ago, better 3-4 days ago too.
April 8, 2006 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Operation Rolling BS: a Look at What's Behind the Tail
April 8, 2006 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
America has to turn this problem of strategic blindness around, and it is something Republican and Democratic partisans should resist treating as election fodder.
With all due respect, and maybe I misunderstood, but -- why the hell not?
What's the alternative?
If Republicans can make 3000 dead Americans fodder, if they can smear U.S. decorated vets as fodder, if they can use terror warnings as fodder, if they can say if you vote Democratic, we're "likely" to get hit by bin Laden -- they can do all that, but we cannot use their stunning incompetence as fodder???
This "problem of strategic blindness" is a Republican creation. Delusions of flowers and chocolates. Josh Rushing was appointed Defense spokesperson not because he was an expert in the Middle East, but because HE READ IRAQ FOR DUMMIES ON THE PLANE RIDE OVER.
Rumsfeld denied troops. Gonzales signed a torture memo. Cheney fixed facts around the policy. Bush lied about it.
That's fodder. (And sorry for the shouting.)
Dissent Protects Democracy
April 8, 2006 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
And while we're dicussing how to salvage this disaster and save the nation from catastrophe, a difficult if not impossible task already, the Lobby is out to make hay while their setting sun still shines
Why do you think that the Israeli's have threatened on at least a half-dozen occasions over the past few months to strike if the US didn't (including 3 high profile official visits to Washington and to Lobby meetings)?
Put another way, does it strike you has odd that these masters of surprise pre-emptive attack would violate Rule #1 - surprise?
Isn't the answer obvious? They want us to do their dirty work because they are scared witless that we will do what we must to get out of Iraq - deal with Iran
April 8, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell
Then they can kill each other till they're sick of it but they won't be killing Americans and we won't be killing innocent people who get in the way.
April 8, 2006 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell
Keep shouting. The national party hasn't heard us yet.
April 8, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get in the way?
April 8, 2006 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What amuses me about this article is that US troops have been doing this sort of thing for the last three years in Irag and now we have this guy claiming it's all because of "thugs" who don't translate things right.
Uh, no, actually. It's because US troops don't give a rat's ass about "hajis" (if I'm spelling that right). It's because the US military is composed of ghetto blacks, ghetto Hispanics, green-card Hispanics, and rural rednecks (as well as a bunch of Army Reserve guys who hopefully spread the racism out somewhat).
It's that simple.
Couple this with a bunch of incompetents whose only interest is in brown-nosing their way up the chain of command and throwing their authority around, and you have a recipe for war crimes on a massive scale.
The left press and the Arab press have been reporting this sort of thing DAILY for the last three years. It started before the invasion was even over in April 2003. Where was the US mainstream press?
I'll tell you where. Because it's "unpatriotic" to question the caliber of US soldiers, that's why.
Never mind that US troops have conducted atrocities and war crimes in every single conflict they've ever been involved in. In many cases, those crimes were the acts of rogue elements. But in many cases, those crimes were on orders and were covered up by higher ups right up to General Colin Powell.
I was IN the US Army for three years with a tour of duty in Vietnam from 1967 to 1968. While I did not see any war crimes in my area of operations, I DID see the attitude and behavior of US troops to Vietnamese nationals. Racism can't begin to describe it.
Until the American people wake up and recognize that their vaunted "boys over there" are the same assholes they were when they were here, the US will continue to get a reputation for being a brutal war criminal.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 8, 2006 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem with "surprise" in this instance is that it went out the window years ago.
The Iranians have known since Osirak that the Israelis would attack them if they ever had a serious nuclear program. That's why they put everything underground.
Israel gave away surprise at Osirak. They know it. The Iranians know it. The US knows it.
Surprise is not an issue here. What is at issue is how easily Bush has run the Iran war up the flagpole even after Iraq proved to be such a disaster.
And now if Hersh is correct - and he isn't always but he is always on track - Bush intends to start a NUCLEAR WAR in the Middle East this year.
I'm still wondering what Josh and the "progressives" think they can do about it - or if they even care.
I also don't think the Israelis think we will deal with Iran. As long as the Lobby and the neocons still have offices in the Bush Administration, that simply isn't going to happen. How the hell can Bush deal with Iran about Iraq and simultaneously threaten them with nukes? Is this just the way Bush thinks about "diplomacy"? I don't think so. Sure, it seemed that way with North Korea - but again, North Korea actually HAS nukes and a military that CAN kick our ass - and no oil. Iran has none of that - that makes Iran an "easy" target for the neocons.
Bush is looking for a cheap "War President" bounce and the neocons are looking to expand the chaos in the ME. It's that simple.
The Iran war is ON. As long as people keep arguing over whether it IS on, it will STAY on. Only when progressives order the Congress to EXPLICITLY PREVENT Bush from launching ANY military action on Iran without an express Declaration of War by Congress in response to an imminent and direct threat to the US by Iran, and explicitly prevent Bush from using ANY nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will the discussion be able to move on.
Until then, Bush will just keep on moving on and the rest of you will just keep reacting to events when they're too late to fix.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 8, 2006 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
What Oh What is a WarLord to do? Oh I know. Just what the Israelis would do if cornered, kill people
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
THE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
After all who in the world other than plucky little Israel would have the balls to do such a thing.
New war crimes, same war criminals.
April 8, 2006 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you what frightened me about Sy Hersh's latest, CSCS. This graf:
One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
One would think that the exposé of the "garlands of flowers" fantasy in Iraq would have taught these folks something. What scares me is that Bush and his cabal likely believe what is written above (as opposed to merely authoring dishonest propaganda.) I think we need to look at the many studies of cult structure to see our way through this imbecility.
Therefore.... With all due respect, and maybe I misunderstood, but -- why the hell not?...I'm with you 100% Leave no stone unturned - we need to throw out everthing we can to put these morons on a leash, or at least keep them off-balance.
Neoboho
April 8, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every body (and I mean everybody - even the moribund Democratic leadership) better get off their butts right now and start screaming and shouting to stop this. Otherwise this looney may unleash a nuclear holocaust.
Tom
April 8, 2006 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inside, the family found Sabah dead. Blood marked his shirt where three bullets had entered his chest; two came out his back and lodged in the wall behind him. American-made bullet casings were on the floor.
Is it of no importance that this man seems to have been murdered by U.S. soldiers? Is cold-blooded assassination so common that a report of it goes unremarked? I’ve always thought that soldiers were charged with engaging enemy fighters or defending themselves from direct attack, not with being judges and executioners in civilian homes.
April 8, 2006 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the pointless killing of a civilian Iraqi is of great importance, just as an equally pointless killing of an American soldier is of great importance. The significant difference is that American soldiers are there to subdue the populace, and when the populace resists by killing an American soldier, that is an act of guerrilla warfare. What strikes me about the story is that we are supposed to be fighting the terrorists in Iraq, but have obviously become the terrorists in Iraq. That isn't something to be proud of.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 8, 2006 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that, jexter. I think Juan Cole may have misread what Kerry was saying about al Qaida in Iraq being a major concern - it appears Kerry was really saying that our occupation of Iraq constitutes a recruitment tool generally for al Qaida. But that's a minor thing - Cole's plan seems the most sensible I've seen so far. Whether it would work may be another thing, but all of the countries he suggested as being part of a multinational force certainly do have a stake in a civil war in Iraq not becoming the spark that inflames the entire Middle East.
The likelihood that Bush and his team would ever embrace such a sensible plan is fairly remote, though. These are true believers, unencumbered by pesky little things like reality.
April 9, 2006 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
For an insider's view of what the current situation in Iraq really is like, another good source is the anonymous Iraqi blogger, riverbend, whose blog is Baghdad Burning. She was recently awarded a Bloggie for the Best African or Middle Eastern Weblog by the sixth annual Weblog Awards, and a book based on the writings in her blog, has just made the short list for a prestigious British award for non-fiction writing, the Samuel Johnson Prize.
A taste:
April 9, 2006 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
And Cole has something to say on another topic of discussion here - Good plan gone bad or just a bad plan to begin with?
This was a reckless strategy from the very beginning. The French didn't play games. The Russians didn't play games. Bush played games with the world. Bush lied and hundreds of thousands died.
Those who supporte the war should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
April 9, 2006 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Administration has made a series of outrageous statements like the "garlands of flowers" statement over the years. Count 'em. Let's look at these statements not as indications of what the Admin believes but as a throwaway explanation which will be accepted by its supporters as code for "we don't really give a f**k what happens to civilians; we have other, more pressing agendas."
I figure: always look at probable outcomes and start with the assumption that the outcome -- however outrageous it looks to you and me -- is desired. Then ask: what purpose does chaos serve?
There's a long history -- goes 'way back -- of a desire for control of the Middle East/Central Asia. One important piece of the puzzle which has been missing up until now: sufficiently tight grip on domestic politics and opinion to go for it.
Yeah, we need to throw them out. We have six months to nail a crucial election. Quite apart from the politics, are we even sure our votes will count? Or does the steady stream of outrage continue to entertain us so entirely that we're not making sure democracy is still working here? That there is still a leash to put them on?
April 9, 2006 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Looking for a solution to the greatest strategic disaster in US History?
Roadmap begins here:
April 9, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard a person that used to work for the Pentagon in targeting explain their criteria (sorry, can't attribute it exhaustively, heard it on "This American Life").
He said they had some latitude in choice of ordinance and delivery method, including drop angle, that was employed to limit civilian casualities. They assmued, as a starting point, 3-30 collateral casualities, and tried to achieve the lower number. If collateral looked likely to be higher than the high number the target was declined.
Add up the reported 50,000 bombs dropped to date and mutiply by three for a minumum collateral casualty count.
April 9, 2006 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Corvid
Pardon me for stepping into this, but when you question whether Jexster believes that brutal dictatorships are necessary in the Arab world, I wonder whether you're implying that it should be up to any of us to decide that. Is that what you're suggesting?
April 9, 2006 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Before we figure out what is to be done, I think it is best to figure out what it is we are to do something about. And since we were speaking of Saudis,
April 10, 2006 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Before we figure out what is to be done, I think it is best to figure out what it is we are to do something about. And since we were speaking of Saudis,
April 10, 2006 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
What is unfolding in Iraq? Bad execution or big mistake?
April 10, 2006 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a particularly stunning admission by a Saudi ofifical that they view it in their best interest for Iraq to remain in civil war indefinitely. This would seem to be a crimp in any plans like Kerry's to solve the problem through a regional conference. I am currious to know what Steve thinks about the ramifications of his source's statement.
April 10, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understood that one of the many reasons Bush (41) did not move to oust Saddem was that the Saudis, the royal family being very close to the Bushes, wanted Hussein in power. He both suppressed his own Shia and was a buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
April 10, 2006 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink