Maine Owl

Dictator follows to the great beyond a million Indonesians, his own citizens that he killed with U.S.-backed violence

Here is a contrast in evils. In the last post, I pointed how President George W. Bush in his January 28, 2003 State of the Union message described how he knew evil when he saw it. Well, how about this case? Suharto, who ruled Indonesia with an iron fist for 32 years from 1966 to 1998, filled mass graves at a rate of perhaps threefold that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Is that evil?

Judge for yourself. A full examination of Suharto's horrors broadcast on Democracy Now! today, along with plenty of specific detail on how the U.S. supported the massacres both politically and through provision of weapons. I'll just refer readers to that. Make up your own mind.

But I do want to re-post a piece I did for the old blog on September 30, 2005--the 30th anniversary of events that led to Suharto acquiring power and that were portrayed in a pretty good 1982 Mel Gibson film, The Year of Living Dangerously. It was one of the better pieces I did there over the years, if I don't say so myself. Here then, is a reprise of that post:

It's that simple"


"I did not raise my hand to protect private companies."

Ron Paul has reached at least one U.S. soldier who has served in Iraq. I consider it extremely brave what the fellow in this video has done: He demolishes a meaningless jingoistic platitude, "honor", from a Republican debate by telling it like it is in Iraq. He speaks of war profiteering and deep bitterness over the scores being made by contractors while his job was to be the guy with the target painted on his body.

The huge leap he succeeds in making here, one that seems impossible for most Americans, is that Iraqis who fight the U.S. are not "terrorists" but patriots fighting an invader, no less than what we would do ourselves if faced with a foreign occupation army.

Iraq is a horrible example of 21st-century neocolonialism where a country is dismantled and a population is broken so that an avaricious world power can fulfill its perceived strategic goals. Ron Paul may be doing a better job of injecting this truth into the public and even the military consciousness than the left peace movement has done for five years.

Update: Winter Patriot has a good, long post up hitting the problem of confusing "publicity with reality" in U.S. newspeak. This prevents anyone "official" here from suggesting there might be an indigenous, secular, patriotic resistance to occupation in Iraq. Even the "better" Democrats, like Wexler, are deeply infected.

More evidence raises questions about Pentagon narrative

According to the now-ubiquitous Pentagon-approved story of Iraq these last few months, everything is going swimmingly with violence "down" and people returning to their homes to lead a normal life. A piece yesterday in the Bangor Daily News follows this narrative.

But here's some additional evidence to consider, as reported at the site run by Dahr Jamail:

Awoken to a New Danger
Inter Press Service - By Ali al-Fadhily and Dahr Jamail

BAGHDAD, Jan 14 (IPS) - The newly formed 'Awakening' forces set up by the U.S. military are bringing new conflict among people.

For months now the U.S. military has been actively building what it calls 'Awakening' forces and "concerned local citizens" in an effort to reduce attacks on occupation forces.

Members of the forces, which comprise primarily former resistance fighters and tribal groups, are paid 300 dollars monthly. There are at present about 80,000 recruits to these groups. The U.S. military plans to cap the number at 85,000.

According to the U.S. military, 82 percent of the members are Sunni.

The forces, which are opposed by the Iraqi government led by U.S.-appointed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, are also being strongly criticised by Sunni residents in Baghdad and other cities.

"The armed groups called 'Awakening' are now the only powerful players in many Sunni areas in Baghdad, and so they show their power the way others did," Qussay al-Tai'i, a lawyer from Saydiya town southwest of Baghdad told IPS. "It seems that violence has become routine procedure for American soldiers, Iraqi security men and now the so-called Awakening fighters."

Witnesses from the area who have recently fled to Baghdad told IPS that more than 200 residents have been arrested by Awakening fighters supported by the al-Muthanna battalion of the Iraqi army.

"They came and arrested my 14 and 17-year-old sons," said Hajja Um Ahmed. "I told them my sons are only schoolboys who did nothing wrong, but they pushed me away."

Saydiya residents are worried that some of the detainees will be executed as others were in Fallujah and other areas where 'Awakening' fighters have taken over.

"They will kill them in cold blood and throw their bodies in garbage dumps," the terrified father of a 35-year-old detainee, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "They told my son when they took him that they would cut off his head, and it seems that they meant it."

"They have spread their spies all over the area and threatened us with arrest if we ever talk about this to the press," a merchant who did not give his name told IPS. "You too must be careful because they really hate journalists."

The Sunni religious group, The Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), has condemned the detentions, and says the occupation forces and the current government are responsible for the safety of the detained.

"We draw the world's attention to the new wave of detentions and executions by this new toy of the occupation," Sheikh Hatam Ali of the AMS told IPS in Baghdad. "Thousands of Iraqis are being detained, tortured and executed while the U.S. occupation and its illegitimate so-called Iraqi government tell the world lies about reconciliation and justice among Iraqis." U.S. military units apparently did not interfere with raids conducted by the Iraqi army and the 'Awakening' fighters in Saydiya. The raids have added to the large numbers of people detained.

In November 2007, the International Committee of the Red Cross announced that around 60,000 people were currently detained in Iraq. "They are still waiting for their problem to be solved, and the Iraqi government does not seem willing to solve it," Luqman Mohammad, a journalist and human rights activist in Baghdad told IPS. "This country needs a comprehensive solution by the whole international community."

'Awakening' forces have been widely criticised for corruption and for brutal tactics. Many speak of them as "gangs", "criminals", "dogs of the Americans", and "thieves." But the Bush administration, and many media outlets in the west, credit the 'Awakening' forces with bringing stability to volatile areas.

What?! SIXTY THOUSAND people detained? "Awakening" enforcers ruling through violence? If this is the kind of "success" the U.S. military has achieved this year by funding and arming these former-enemy militias, why did the U.S. bother to remove Saddam Hussein? It seems they have adopted both Saddam's personnel and methods for enforcement in Iraq.

BDN Profile of Navy officer from local area tells an incomplete story

A front-page story in the Bangor Daily News today describes the work of a 50-year-old captain in the US Navy who grew up on Mount Desert Island and serves as a reconstruction adviser for the city of Fallujah in Iraq:

Bangor: Navy officer from Maine helping Iraq city rebuild
By Toni-Lynn Robbins - Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - Bangor Daily News

BANGOR - ...

McLaughlin, 50, deployed to Iraq in June with an embedded provincial reconstruction team, where he serves as the governance and public works adviser for the city of Fallujah. He works directly with Iraqis to help rebuild the city’s business sector and promote economic development.

On Tuesday, he attended a council meeting during which the panel discussed improving the quality of life for the residents of Fallujah — initiatives that include improving water and sewer systems, trash removal and the availability of electricity, McLaughlin said in a satellite interview. The council’s drive to improve city infrastructure destroyed by war and violence is encouraging, McLaughlin said, as is the group’s increased focus on rebuilding rather than simply security.

"It has been an interesting change," McLaughlin said about the council meetings. "They have literally gone from three-hour meetings where 70 percent of the time Americans were doing the talking [about security issues], whereas today they were just discussing quality of life and we spoke for maybe five minutes."

...

McLaughlin said he no longer wears heavy body armor while attending the city council meetings, and he often has luncheons with the mayor and chief of police to discuss security and rebuilding. Losing the body armor is a large step in the right direction, he said, especially since the first four council chairmen were assassinated.

In the historically violent city just 43 miles west of Baghdad, even the recent assassination of Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto did not seem to have a large effect on the population, McLaughlin said.

"Their country has had a violent past. They haven’t reacted to world events as we might have heard in the U.S.," he said. "Those kinds of events haven’t affected them quite like you would imagine."

...

"Those normal, economic incentives for growth that we take for granted in the U.S. are taking hold pretty quickly here," he said. "I found that Iraqis, like others worldwide, have the incentive to work and do well and want the economic prosperity to take back their country."

Here I will not disparage anything Captain McLaughlin is doing. And, I support every decent effort to rebuild Fallujah, even if I do believe there could be a better vehicle for Iraq reconstruction than the US military. However it's done, Iraq certainly needs clean water, sewers, electricity, and all of its infrastructure repaired.

But there are two aspects of this article I find very troubling.

It's a boondoggle to be sure, but the Democratic candidates agree American troops must "protect" it

Gerald at Turn Maine Blue has a good post up recounting how lack of Congressional oversight of the construction of the massive US embassy in Iraq has led to terrible mismanagement, corrupt contracting, and shoddy construction. Guess who has been for many years now either chair of or ranking member of a key senate committee charged with oversight of all manner of government contracts? Why, US Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, of course!

Gerald's essential point is that, "The situation in Iraq couldn't be more f'd up, and now we expect our diplomats to live and work in a situation like this. Why do I have the feeling that this is just the tip of the iceberg."

Yes, but I want to take a slightly different tack.

Evidently the Republican candidates would bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Greenwald has an incredible array of the reactionary jingoism. The speedboat incident was well-tailored for the South Carolina primary debate.

Fred Thompson took the cake with this applause line, "...one more step, you know, and they would have been introduced to those virgins they're looking forward to seeing."

The incident also worked for President Bush, as while in Kuwait he warned Iran of "serious consequences" if it did attack US warships in the Strait of Hormuz. The AFP story linked plays up the "weekend face-off" as if these speedboats were some kind of military threat.

Apparently Vice Admiral Cosgriff of the US Navy is the only American official, candidate, or commentator who has a level head:

Admiral Cosgriff: Neither anti-ship missiles nor torpedoes, and I wouldn't characterize the posture of the US 5th Fleet as afraid of these ships or these three US ships afraid of these small boats. Our ships were making a normal transit of the Strait of Hormuz. They followed the procedures they've been trained to follow to increase their own readiness in the face of events like this, and as the Iranian behavior continued during this interaction, our ships stepped through there, increased readiness, the pace. And I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats.

Of course he does not explain why a fleet of large, heavily-armed American ships need to lurk near the coast of Iran. And it's just a wee bit suspicious that this media event happens just as President Bush went on the teevee in Israel promising to defend against an Iranian strike.

Democracy Now! says that the US position on the incident has started to "unravel."

Update: Juan Cole posted "US Video of Iran Speedboats Doctored; Iranians Charge Fabrication"

Poland and Czech Republic uniting and growing balls, if slowly, after Iraq bamboozle

Poland and Czech Republic Team Up in Missile Defense Talks With U.S.
By JUDY DEMPSEY - New York Times - Published: Jan. 11, 2008

BERLIN — The governments of Poland and the Czech Republic agreed Thursday to coordinate their negotiations with the United States over its request to place elements of an antiballistic missile shield in those countries.

The change of strategy was aimed at giving the two countries more bargaining power in talks next week in Washington and at easing tensions with Russia, Polish officials said.

There seems to be resentment and skepticism building in the two countries about the Bush Administration pressure to move obviously useless yet highly provocative missiles into their territories.

Down in the article, the source of the bitterness seems apparent:

But Poland sent thousands of soldiers to Iraq and hundreds more to Afghanistan, expecting in return some reward in the form of contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, or funds to upgrade its armed forces. But the United States provided little in the way of financial assistance and expected Poland to foot the heavy bill for sending its troops to Iraq, Polish Defense Ministry officials in previous administrations have complained.

So the prolonged Polish deployment in Iraq, not yet wound down despite huge public disapproval, has not brought the accelerated "economic activities, investment activities in Poland" then Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski figured would come when he met President Bush in the White House during the pre-war run-up.

What's the meaning of "violence is down"?

Here's how well the "surge"--the whole bloody occupation, actually--is working:

US launches massive Iraq air raid
BBC - Thursday, 10 January 2008

US bombers and fighter jets have dropped 40,000lb (18,144kg) of bombs on suspected al-Qaeda targets on the edge of Baghdad in a 10-minute air strike.

The attack on the Arab Jabour district, said to be a safe haven for al-Qaeda in Iraq, was part of the wider Operation Phantom Phoenix launched on Tuesday.

Nine US soldiers have been killed since the start of the operation.

It comes as a World Health Organization survey says 151,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 invasion.

Somehow I doubt this neighborhood was some sort of terrorist enclave. Sure, plenty of U.S. enemies there, but that's not the same thing. If they are our enemies, we made them that way.

For a reason why Iraqis might become enemies of the U.S., one needs only absorb the fact of the measure of bombing taken against them. Just think how Americans reacted to 9/11. An equivalent pattern would be for Iraq now to invade New York and declare certain neighborhoods "Zionist safe havens" and then bomb the hell out of them.

The Bush PR strategy has been remarkably effective. I'm sort of amazed. The major effect has been a whole lot of people have stopped caring about what's going on in Iraq. They've heard "violence is down", so everything must be okay. The surge "worked."

Beyond the bogus syllogism that the "surge" has done it, nobody needs to ask WHY violence is down in some areas, or even if it really is down--horrific violence is occurring like the US aerial bombing of neighborhoods as described above, and the under-reported Turkish strikes in N Iraq.

There are answers to why there's an apparent drop: (1) Large swaths have been ethnically cleansed already; (2) The US has bought off and co-opted its enemies in western Iraq--almost signaling a return to
the days of the 80s when the US allied strongly with the chiefs of Saddam's forces--basically the guys who ran the place forever until the US invaded; and (3) The Sadrists have more or less stood down (see 1 above).

This piece tries to explain what a "decrease" in violence in Iraq actually has meant lately, and how the notion is used by the wingnut war crowd.