Thursday, the 5th of February, 2009: 21 Iraqis Killed, 19 Wounded

More occupation related deaths. Iraqis continue to be killed and to suffer as a result of the occupation. Anti-war.com keeps close track of reported deaths, here: updates

February 5, 2009
Thursday: 21 Iraqis Killed, 19 Wounded

A suicide bombing in Diyala province overshadowed today's release of provincial election results. Attacks against political candidates and other officials continued as well. Overall, at least 20 Iraqis were killed and 17 more were wounded across Iraq. No Coalition deaths were reported.

...

So sad to see the violence. And to know that it's all unnecessary: sickening.

Divest from the Occupation

I am working with a group called TESC Divest Campaign. We believe that the situation in Israel and Palestine amounts to apartheid. Palestinians are horribly oppressed by the Israeli State. The State of Israel is, more and more, denying Palestinians basic human rights and dignity. The UN has found Israeli actions in violation of international law time and time again.

We are working to pressure the Administration of The Evergreen State College—specifically the Evergreen Foundation, to make its investments transparent, in order to insure the students, faculty, staff, alumni and the overall community that Evergreen is not supporting the horrible oppression and dreadful treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

I believe that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories hurts not only Palestinians, but also Israelis very much as well! So this is a nonviolent way to promote a change in the situation.

One of the arguments, in fact the only argument, that I have heard in favor of the status quo is that the current situation is expedient. The Evergreen Foundation has fiduciary responsibility to provide access to scholarships and grants for Evergreen Students. And it does a good job. There is significant money available. The bulk of the Evergreen Foundation funds are now with the University of Washington Consolidated Endowment Fund. The Evergreen Foundation has no control over day to day investing policies and practices at the CEF.

There is no transparency. There is no way for a member of the public, or a member of the institution (outside of the investment circles,) to know what the CEF monies are being invested in.

There is no discussion of a change to this policy. What we need is an ethical investment policy. What we need are ethical investment practices. It makes no sense to educate students in the ways of stopping the dragon of harmful economic activity, while feeding the dragon in order to fund the students' educations...

It is like giving people the swords to kill the dragon (of harmful economic activity), meanwhile shoveling food into its face to feed the voracious furnaces of its appetite for domination, destruction and violence.

Stop feeding the dragon. Make it weak. Make it possible for the righteous swords of justice, trained in the halls of our higher institutions, to have the best chance of killing the beast. Starve the beast. Starve the evil dragon of destructive economic activities.

Basically what I am saying is that it is time to grow up and stop playing pretend. We are causing harm here! Our investments enable harmful economic activities! The current status quo is feeding the destructive economies of militarism and conquest. It's time to wake up and realize the true roots of injustice. To see the springs of our discontent percolating to the surface in our very own community. It is time to make basic changes to the system, so that we are no long part and party to these horrible realities of economic destructiveness, human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace.

What economic activities are more harmful than tyranny and military occupation and oppression of native peoples?

It's time to change. Yes, we can!

Let's evolve.

Let's revolutionize our relationships with each other and with the land. Let's learn to live with each other rather than at the sake of each other. Let's care for the Earth, not as though it is a commodity belonging to us - but as though it is a community to which we belong!

Okay. So. Where to start? How about: Who profits from the occupation? That seems like a good place.

I received an email from Jewish Peace News today pointing me to a site that seeks to answer just that question. Here's the link: http://www.whoprofits.org/

Onward!

p.s. I am using the "sword" as an icon, and a metaphor for the pen, as in the writing instrument (these days its moreso the keyboard), and a metaphor for the power of words—especially the word of truth. The pen is mightier than the sword. The pen has much greater potential for nonviolent change than the sword. ...Use the pen with a mind and an eye for justice. The truth will out. The truth will prevail.

Most Iraqis Want U.S. to Leave Iraq

This from Iraq Insider: http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com/ 2008/06/ more-on-yesterdays-historic-hearings.html

Two members of the Iraqi Parliament, Sheikh Khalaf al-Ulayyan (National Dialogue Front party) and Dr. Nadim al-Jaberi (Fadila party), presented a letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that was signed by members of the Iraqi parliament on behalf of parties representing a majority of the 275 Members. Their letter stated:

“Any agreement that is not ratified by the Iraqi legislative power is considered unconstitutional and illegal….Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the U.S. that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and without leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.”

According to www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2008/0308opinion.pdf:

72% of Iraqis oppose presence of U.S. Forces in Iraq, and over 53% believe that increased presence of U.S. Forces has had a worsening effect on the security situation:


99% of Iraqis support the eventual withdrawal of U.S. Forces - 38% favor immediate withdrawal:


61% of Iraqis believe that the ongoing presence of U.S. Forces is having a harmful (worsening) effect on the security situation in Iraq:

Permanent Bases in Iraq

I remember President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld saying that there would be no permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq. Now hear this.

from Tom Dispatch dotcom:

posted June 15, 2008 7:46 pm
Tomgram: Why We Can't See America's Ziggurats in Iraq

[Note for TomDispatch readers: Just a reminder. Today's post on the mega-bases in Iraq represents but one of the missing stories of the Bush years that TomDispatch has been dedicated to covering. The site's new book, The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire, just published, is, in essence, a striking history of the missing stories of our mad age, the stories the mainstream media chose to ignore. I urge TomDispatch readers to pick up a copy. It's a great way to support the site and -- if you care to give it to a friend -- to introduce others to a source of information that has, for years, been an "antidote to the mainstream media." If you can, do recommend the book and the site to your private e-lists and suggest, as well, that people consider going to TomDispatch.com to sign up -- in the window at the upper right of the main screen -- for the regular emails indicating that a new post has gone up. There will be surprises galore this summer as TomDispatch explores the Bush legacy and whether what the Bush administration has embedded in our lives can ever be unbuilt. You can also check out a video in which I discuss the issue of the missing mega-bases in Iraq, now finally in the news, by clicking here. Tom]

The Greatest Story Never Told
Finally, the U.S. Mega-Bases in Iraq Make the News
By Tom Engelhardt

It's just a $5,812,353 contract -- chump change for the Pentagon -- and not even one of those notorious "no-bid" contracts either. Ninety-eight bids were solicited by the Army Corps of Engineers and 12 were received before the contract was awarded this May 28th to Wintara, Inc. of Fort Washington, Maryland, for "replacement facilities for Forward Operating Base Speicher, Iraq." According to a Department of Defense press release, the work on those "facilities" to be replaced at the base near Saddam Hussein's hometown, Tikrit, is expected to be completed by January 31, 2009, a mere 11 days after a new president enters the Oval Office. It is but one modest reminder that, when the next administration hits Washington, American bases in Iraq, large and small, will still be undergoing the sort of repair and upgrading that has been ongoing for years.

In fact, in the last five-plus years, untold billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on the construction and upgrading of those bases. When asked back in the fall of 2003, only months after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer then "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, proudly indicated that "several billion dollars" had already been invested in those fast-rising bases. Even then, he was suitably amazed, commenting that "the numbers are staggering." Imagine what he might have said, barely two and a half years later, when the U.S. reportedly had 106 bases, mega to micro, all across the country.

By now, billions have evidently gone into single massive mega-bases like the U.S. air base at Balad, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. It's a "16-square-mile fortress," housing perhaps 40,000 U.S. troops, contractors, special ops types, and Defense Department employees. As the Washington Post's Tom Ricks, who visited Balad back in 2006, pointed out -- in a rare piece on one of our mega-bases -- it's essentially "a small American town smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." Back then, air traffic at the base was already being compared to Chicago's O'Hare International or London's Heathrow -- and keep in mind that Balad has been steadily upgraded ever since to support an "air surge" that, unlike the President's 2007 "surge" of 30,000 ground troops, has yet to end.

Building Ziggurats

While American reporters seldom think these bases -- the most essential U.S. facts on the ground in Iraq -- are important to report on, the military press regularly writes about them with pride. Such pieces offer a tiny window into just how busily the Pentagon is working to upgrade and improve what are already state-of-the-art garrisons. Here's just a taste of what's been going on recently at Balad, one of the largest bases on foreign soil on the planet, and but one of perhaps five mega-bases in that country:

Consider, for instance, this description of an air-field upgrade from official U.S. Air Force news coverage, headlined: "'Dirt Boyz' pave way for aircraft, Airmen":

"In less than four months, Balad Air Base Dirt Boyz have placed and finished more than 12,460 feet of concrete and added approximately 90,000 square feet of pavement to the airfield… Without the extra pavement courtesy of the Dirt Boyz, fewer aircraft would be able to be positioned and maintained at Balad AB. Having fewer aircraft at the base would directly affect the Air Force's ability to place surveillance assets in the air and to drop munitions on targets... The ongoing flightline projects at Balad AB consist of concrete pad extensions that will provide occupation surfaces for multiple aircraft of various types."

Or here's a proud description of what Detachment 6 of the 732nd Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron did on its recent tour in Balad:

"'We constructed more than 25,000 square feet of living, dining and operations buildings from the ground up,' said Staff Sgt. John Wernegreen… 'This project gave the [U.S.] Army's [3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment] and Iraqi army [soldiers] a place to carry out their mission of controlling the battlespace around the Eastern Diyala Province.'"

And here's a caption, accompanying an Air Force photo of work at Balad: "Airmen of the 407th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron pavement and equipment team repair utility cuts here June 11. The team replaced approximately 30 cubic meters of concrete over newly installed power line cables." ...

... read the rest, www.tomdispatch.com/post/174944/ why_we_can_t_see_america_s_ziggurats_in_iraq

McCain Unprepared for Office

John McCain has demonstrated a careless, callous, and negligent attitude in regard to the important issue of the occupation of Iraq.

From the NYT:

go to source

[...]

One of the chief concerns of the pragmatists is that Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is, and that while he speaks authoritatively, he operates too much off the cuff and has not done the deeper homework required of a presidential candidate.

In a trip to the Middle East last month, Mr. McCain made an embarrassing mistake when he said several times that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. (The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, a Sunni insurgent group.) He repeated the mistake on Tuesday at hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The worry about Mr. McCain is centered among a group of foreign policy realists who have long been close to him and who lost out to the hawks in the intense ideological battles of the first term of the current White House. The group includes former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.

[...]

U.S. Global Dominance and the National Interest

Is global dominance in the national interest of the USA? I wish there was consensus on what constitutes the national interest, because it seems that for some, wars of aggression can be fought in the national interest. After all, there are people who justify the invasion, conquest and occupation of a foreign country (which posed no threat to the USA) as part of the national interest. For example, let's say that Iraq has mineral resources, the control of which is necessary to the maintenance of US global dominance. Does the control of those resources justify aggression toward Iraq (keep in mind the consequential suffering of the civilian population of Iraq)? Is global dominance necessary to maintain the US lifestyle? - Maybe it is just that wars of aggression are the "American way." I don't think so.

There are those who will attempt to obfuscate the facts and say that the reason for the US occupation of Iraq is because of the terrorists. Well, don't let them fool you! The reason that there is terrorism in Iraq is precisely because Iraq is occupied by the US!

So, what is the national interest? For me, the national interest is having a healthy population; it is living in a sustainable and conscious manner. It is in the national interest to demonstrate respect for all life, for diversity and for future generations. For example, how better can we demonstrate respect for future generations than by living sustainably?

For President Bush, the national interest appears to be promoting and maintaining global dominance, including the ability for [the ultra (monetarily) wealthy] [changed to] prominent decision makers and powerful individuals to dominate discussion of what is in the national interest, and to dominate the global environment of finance and trade. (For President Bush, a smaller government comes with the price of corporatism...)

I am frustrated. Invading Iraq was not in the national interest; at least it was not in my national interest. Maintaining global dominance is also not in my lexicon of national interests. What would be in my national interest? How about fostering a cooperative and friendly, or neighborly, relationship with international partners? That would be interesting. But to play the part of an international bully is not for me, nor for the USA that I love. Woe that my country does such grievous harm in my name. Woe that people suffer for the sake of a supposed US "national interest."



Please see Bill Moyers Journal | Body of War
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/profile.html
[full video available online]

LTE re: protest and media

I just sent this off to The Olympian after some considerable wrangling with the word count. I like it. Except for the part in paragraph two, which is kind of confusing. I was trying to pack too many ideas into 250 words.

I intended to communicate that embedded reports have become the norm in the mainstream media. This allows untoward influence over the quality, context and content of journalistic reports.

Separately, though similarly, I intended to draw attention to the fact that the media reprints - as truth - with little to no question about the veracity of the statements, or the integrity of what are virtually anonymous sources, stories that originate from military communications personnel (who have incentive to portray the stories under a favorable, and hence oftentimes false, light.) A good example of this is the media reporting of what happened in and around Fallujah, Iraq soon after the opening days of the invasion/occupation in 2003. Dahr Jamail has compiled good reports about the discrepancy between on the ground reality and reports that the media was being fed by military sources and subsequently presenting as truth in a regurgitated form.

So here's my decidedly imperfect letter:

December 11th, 2007

To the Editor,

Certain prominent officials within the Bush Administration continue to perpetrate and to get away with a wrongful, aggressive and illegal war of occupation in Iraq. There are many factors which enable the Bush Administration's imperial aspirations; not least among them are the politics of fear and division, the leverage of a compliant Congress, and an apathetic Public.

But the Bush Administration may be most enabled in its pursuit of global dominance by a compliant and cooperative mainstream media. For example, embedded military reports are taken at face value with little to no question about the veracity of what are oftentimes virtually anonymous sources. In its compliance with the Bush Administration politics of fear and division, the mainstream media do the USA harm.

Iraq did not pose a threat to the USA prior to invasion.

Our nation's military and military personnel are being misused, and abused, in the service of an unjust and aggressive occupation.

The port blockades were an attempt to stop an unlawful occupation; one that is hurting the people of Iraq and the uniformed service personnel of the USA. To speak against the blockades is comparable to saying that a police officer should not drive in excess of the speed limit in order to apprehend a suspect.

Millions of people in Iraq suffer on a daily basis because of the war. Their suffering goes unreported or glossed over. Where are their voices in our media? Why don't we hear from those who are most impacted by this 'war?'

Thank you and sincerely,

Robert Whitlock

Olympia

[edit added Dec. 12:] Yes - the blockades were an attempt to hold the Bush Administration accountable for the wrongful making of war. They were, for me, an attempt to confine the military vehicles on port property until the commencement of a responsible, safe and complete withdrawal from Iraq.

The blockades were, for me, an attempt to serve the interests of justice by shutting down an intolerable and immoral crusade for control over the petroleum resource of Iraq, a crusade for geopolitical and economic dominance.

I think there is a valid argument to be made that the protests were legal because they were an attempt to hold an Executive Administration that has run riot with the military resources of the USA to account for its wrongdoing. Congress is delinquent. There is abundant evidence to reasonable conclude that prominent members of the Bush Administration have committed heinous and grievous wrongdoings in their respective quests for global dominance and personal power.

LTE, Surge, Occupation, Iraq, Baird

I sent a Letter to the Editors of my local newspaper, The Olympian, today. I have been meaning to send a letter on this topic for about 3 or 4 weeks now, but I have been struggling to find focus for it. I think it's because of the emotions that are involved. There is a lot of frustration and aggravation. My Representative to the US Congress, Brian Baird, after a visit to Iraq, has decided to come out in support of the Bush Administration "Surge" in troop levels and plan for Further Occupation. I am disappointed, heartbroken...really sad.

So I have been having difficulty writing this letter. Composing a short succinct, direct and to-the-point letter to the editors of my local paper has eluded me. But this morning the impetus struck, and somewhat hastily, as will be obvious after reading the letter I sent (below), I played around with it and drafted a letter, which I sent. Then I had to bike very fast to get to work on time. I made it in about 15 minutes, which included a 3-5 minute pit-stop at the bakery. It's a 3 1/2 mile ride. You do the math. I was going fast. (oh okay, it's about 20 mph.)

So that's a little bit of my day. Here's a letter that I sent to the local paper. I definitely could have taken a few deep breaths and a walk around the block before making a final edit prior to sending. I'll work on that... Anyway, I hope it gets the point across, and that it's not too hard to read. Sorry for the punctuation and other errors:

I attended Representative Brian Baird's September 21st Town Hall Meeting at Capital High School. I am concerned about Rep. Baird's change of direction, his explicit support for the surge. He reported having difficulty finding Iraqis who supported the surge. He didn't mention talking to ordinary Iraqis. In fact he didn't mention discussing the surge or occupation with any Iraqis in opposition.

Representative Baird claimed that withdrawal would result in a "bloodbath." I also, can imagine the spike in violence that a hastily executed withdrawal might cause. But it's also a possible that violence could be lessened, if the USA were to commence, in good faith, upon a responsible and complete, phased, withdrawal, say, over the course of one year. This idea of a responsible withdrawal was something that Rep. Baird did not seem to consider, nor has he indicated consideration in correspondence with him since the Town Hall Meeting.

The invasion was unnecessary. There was no threat, posed by WMD or otherwise, prior to the invasion. Supposed evidence of a WMD threat has reasonably been shown to have been contrived. The management of the occupation has been incompetent. The failures can be traced to the topmost command in Washington D.C.. Instead of supporting the Bush Administration policy, I want my Representative to represent me, and to support two things. One, hold the Bush Administration, and associated entities, to account for any malfeasance relating to the invasion and occupation. Two, I want a responsible withdrawal of US forces from Iraq to commence immediately.

Town Hall Meeting with Brian Baird

Rep. Baird was fixated on the notion that withdrawal would cause further violence. But he seems not to have considered that a responsible, safe and gradual withdrawal would most likely reduce the level of violence. Violence would be reduced because it is the presence of the USA in Iraq that is exacerbating much of the violence.

It was a good meeting. But Rep. Brian Baird is not facing the same reality as 90% of those who attended the meeting. The occupation is very unpopular in Olympia.

There were moments when tempers flared. There were outbursts. All in all it was interesting. I left before it ended. I was disappointed to learn that Rep. Baird didn't talk to any normal every day Iraqis before he made the decision to support the Surge. He talked to 11 parliamentarians and two Sheiks among the Iraqis that he consulted. He also met with members of the American government and military in Iraq prior to making his decision to lend his explicit support to the Surge and to the Occupation.

He feels that the USA has a responsibility in Iraq - a responsibility to right many wrongs. I agree with him that the USA has a responsibility. But he supports the US military role in providing these many reparations.

I disagree with him, and disapprove of his stance, insofar as my perception of the ability of the US military to accomplish the reconstruction mission. In fact, the mission is to hunt insurgents. But it is the presence of the US military that is feeding the insurgency. So it is a cyclical game of cat and mouse. The way out is to stop playing the game.

Change the mission. 1. Make the mission priority to reconstruct the civilian infrastructure.

2. Hand over the keys to the Iraqi government for real. Trust the Iraqi people to manage their own governmental/political process.

3. Hold the Bush Administration accountable. I support holding prominent war planning decision makers in confinement until such a time and place that a fair trial can be made for the assessment of any wrongdoings that may have been committed in re: the invasion and occupation of Iraq...

Rep. Brian Baird share a lot apparently in terms of our views of Iraq. We both believe that the USA has a responsibility to foster progress and change. But we differ fundamentally on the analysis of progress. His understanding seems very narrow and limited. He sees a few specific instances of progress and thinks that justifies the heavy handed military presence. - I think the military presence, in its current incarnation, is part of the problem.

Another thing that struck me was the defensive tone the Representative took from the very beginning.

Also - The Representative didn't listen very well to many of the comments and questions... He often provided (what were to me) unsatisfactory responses and answers. It was like something was missing... Something important. It was like he had well-thought out and rehearsed political responses to many of the citizens' comments. A lot of his statements sounded canned, phony and stale.

I am glad that I went and would be interested in hearing others' perspectives on how the Town Hall Meeting went.

Finally, I encourage the Representative to truly think over the ideas that were shared at the Mtg. and to not fear changing his position accordingly. There is no shame in admitting a wrong like this. It would be the honorable thing to do.

Waging offensive military campaigns in the name of resource acquisition is inhumane, immoral, illegal - fundamentally anathema to the tradition and spirit of the USA.

The fundamental reason for the US presence in Iraq is unjust. It is time to radically shift the military and diplomatic mission - or else to begin immediately a full scale, safe, responsibly and complete (likely over the course of one year) military withdrawal.

Not Enough Water in Baghdad

Reports have surfaced this week of a severe water shortage in Baghdad. Some have blamed insurgent activity for preventing repairs and maintenance to vital water systems and electrical systems (which support the water system.) However, the real failure is on the part of the occupying military force. The occupying military of the USA has not made it a priority to restore the civilian infrastructure in Iraq. The Iraqi people are paying the price and suffering horribly as a result of this "mismanagement." But more than a simple mismanagement it is. Because under rules imposed during the Geneva Convention, of which the USA is signatory, it is the responsibility of the occupying force to provide for the basic needs of the civilian population.

The US military is responsible for providing "security" in Iraq. The military is still an occupying force. Therefore the rules of the Geneva Convention are binding. And the US government and military is in breach of contract.

But even more so, this is a gross and heinous humanitarian. The situation in Iraq is deteriorating. And the blame can be placed on the US government.

Iraqi Parliamentarians Oppose Occupation

US mainstream media is loath to report on opposition within the ranks of the members of Iraq's Parliament regarding the occupation.

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland


On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote. Under Iraqi law, the speaker must present a resolution that's called for by a majority of lawmakers, but there are significant loopholes and what will happen next is unclear.

What is clear is that while the U.S. Congress dickers over timelines and benchmarks, Baghdad faces a major political showdown of its own. The major schism in Iraqi politics is not between Sunni and Shia or supporters of the Iraqi government and "anti-government forces," nor is it a clash of "moderates" against "radicals"; the defining battle for Iraq at the political level today is between nationalists trying to hold the Iraqi state together and separatists backed, so far, by the United States and Britain.

The continuing occupation of Iraq and the allocation of Iraq's resources -- especially its massive oil and natural gas deposits -- are the defining issues that now separate an increasingly restless bloc of nationalists in the Iraqi parliament from the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government is dominated by Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish separatists.

These Deaths are Unacceptable

Already 25 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the first 6 days of May.

Further occupation related deaths in Iraq are unacceptable. Not one more American soldier ought to lose his or her life. Not one more Iraqi ought to lose his or her life.

The occupation is plainly unjustified by any real national security need. There is no legitimate justification for the continued militaristic occupation of Iraq. The continued presence of the US military is a destabilizing influence. The US presence is exacerbating sectarian tensions.

The Bush administration must be opposed from establishing an ability for international oil corporations to exploit and reap profits off of the oil that exists under (and "floats") the nation of Iraq.

No blood for oil. The US federal government has made the world less safe from the threat of terrorism.

I, as an American Citizen, will not stand for this any longer. Immediate de-escalation and withdraw are necessary. Reparations must be made to the Iraqi people for the devastation of their lives and livelihoods.

The Occupation of Iraq: Not In My Name!

Anti-oil-exploition Nationalist MP's Attacked in Green Zone, Baghdad

From Raed in the Middle [go to original]:

The attack on the Iraqi parliament was very strange. I don't think it was a suicide bomber. Take a look at this video and note that the explosion is way bigger than what an explosive belt would do. Besides, why would anyone blow himself up to kill the only anti-occupation group in the greenzone?

The official spokesman of a secular group that lost an MP in the explosion announced that the attack was aimed at silencing "nationalist MPs who are against splitting
iraq and against the oil law".Looking at who was killed and injured in the attack, it seems like they were ALL nationalists. Also, considering that the parliament was just about to begin debating the oil law this week, the timing of the attack was very convenient for the bush/imf/separatists.
...
The only way to stop the growing violence in Iraq is to end all the foriegn intervention and give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

This attack was convenient and it stinks to hell. I wonder if anyone at the CIA knows what happened. I also agree that the best way to stop the violence is to end US maneuvers to dominate and exploit the Iraqi economy.

Counterinsurgency Warfare

go to original

Dead End

Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice

Posted on Monday, March 5, 2007. Originally from February 2007. By Edward N. Luttwak.
PROLOGUE

Modern armed forces continue to be structured for large-scale war, but advanced societies whose small families lack expendable children have a very low tolerance for casualties. Even supposedly warlike Americans gravely count casualties in Iraq that in three years have yet to reach 3,000—fewer than were lost in many a single day of battle in past wars. Fortunately, this refusal to spill the blood needed to fuel battles diminishes the likelihood that advanced societies will deliberately set out to fight one another (pas des enfants, pas des Suisses, pas de guerre) unless they are somehow able to convince themselves that a war could be entirely or very largely aerial and naval. Such wars, however, are difficult to imagine, except when islands are involved, as in a China-Taiwan war, which is very improbable for its own reasons. Air and naval forces can certainly be employed advantageously against any less advanced enemy incautious enough to rely on a conventional defense, conducted by regular forces, but in that context as well there must be severe doubts about the continued usefulness of the ground forces of advanced countries that are intolerant of casualties. It is easy enough to blockade the enemy, to successfully bomb all the right nodal points and shut down electrical, transportation, and communications networks. Air strikes can disable runways and destroy both sheltered and unsheltered aircraft, ballistic missiles, and nuclear installations. Air power can also sink warships, or rout any mechanized forces deployed in the open, as the United States did with Iraq in 1991 and partly in 2003, and as it could do with Iran. No real role would remain for ground forces except to dislodge the enemy from any territory he had occupied, or to occupy his own territory. That, however, is bound to cost casualties that might not be tolerated; it is also bound to provoke an insurgency.

In that event, naval forces cannot do much, because insurgencies rarely have an important maritime dimension (the Sri Lanka case is an exception) and riverine operations are usually minor. Air forces can have surveillance and transport roles, but insurgents rarely present targets of sufficient stability and sufficient contrast to be identified, designated, and effectively attacked from the air. That leaves almost everything to the ground forces, and when the advanced attack the less advanced, the more advanced forces will have large advantages in firepower, mobility, and operational coherence. But they will also have no visible enemy to fight, so that the normal operational methods and tactics of conventional warfare cannot be applied. True, there are the alternative methods and tactics of counterinsurgency warfare, but do they actually work? Insurgents do not always win, but their defeats can rarely be attributed to counterinsurgency warfare, as we shall see.
...

City of Olympia Bring Them Home Resolution

The City Council of Olympia Washington recently passed a historic resolution that calls on the President and Congress of the U.S.A. to immediately commence plans to end the occupation and bring all U.S. troops safely home from Iraq.

The resolution will be forwarded not only to Washington State's National Congressional delegation, but to the entire US congress, all 535 members. A nice touch, in my opinion.

Here is a link to a PDF of the draft resolution that was voted on (with a friendly amendment) and passed unanimously by the seven-person council this past Tuesday, Feb 6th, 2007: Full Text (minus friendly amendment.)

link to OMJP

link to City of Olympia
_