Iraq Reporter Schizophrenic in Disneyland

What if you spoke regularly of "haji food," "haji music" and "haji homes"? What if your speeding convoys ran over civilians often enough that no one thought to report the incidents? What if your platoon was told pointblank: "The Geneva Conventions don't exist at all in Iraq, and that's in writing if you want to see it"; or, when you shot noncombatants, it was perfectly normal to plant "throwaway weapons" by their bodies, arrest those civilians who survived, and accuse them all of being "insurgents"? What if your buddy got his meal-ready-to-eat standard spoon and asked you to take a photo of him pretending to scoop the brains out of a dead Iraqi? Or what if the general attitude among your buddies was: "A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi.... You know, so what?"

These examples -- and many more like them -- can be found in a remarkable breaking story in the new issue of the Nation magazine. In a months-long investigation, Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian interviewed 50 U.S. combat veterans who had been stationed in Iraq. They were intent on exploring "the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians" (as well as on those soldiers). The article, "The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness," offers Americans a look behind the bombings and carnage in the headlines at just what kind of a war American troops have found themselves fighting -- focusing on the degradation that is essential to it and will accompany those troops home.

It is the perfect companion to the piece independent reporter Dahr Jamail has written for Tomdispatch today, which gives a sense of what anybody, even a journalist exposed to such "apocalyptic violence" and despair, is likely to bring home with him. Even more important, through a series of wrenching emails Jamail has received recently from Iraq, you get a small sense of what the dark and horrific war the American vets described to Hedges and al-Arian, a war only escalating in brutality, looks like to the Iraqis -- the ones who stand in danger of getting run over by those speeding convoys, or are at the other end of the kicked-in door, or the racism, or simply the anger and frustration of isolated soldiers in a strange and hostile land.

Jamail's new book on the Iraq he saw but most Americans, soldiers or journalists, didn't -- Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq -- is being published in October. Like Hedges and al-Arian, he offers a sense of an ongoing war you almost never hear about on the nightly news. Tom

Iraq on My Mind
Thousands of Stories to Tell -- And No One to Listen
By Dahr Jamail

"In violence we forget who we are" -- Mary McCarthy, novelist and critic

1. Statistically Speaking

Having spent a fair amount of time in occupied Iraq, I now find living in the United States nothing short of a schizophrenic experience. Life in Iraq was traumatizing. It was impossible to be there and not be affected by apocalyptic levels of violence and suffering, unimaginable in this country.

But here's the weird thing: One long, comfortable plane ride later and you're in Disneyland, or so it feels on returning to the United States. Sometimes it seems as if I'm in a bubble here that's only moments away from popping. I find myself perpetually amazed at the heights of consumerism and the vigorous pursuit of creature comforts that are the essence of everyday life in this country -- and once defined my own life as well.

Click here to read the rest of this dispatch.

Whistle Blower Who Challenged Cheney Seeks Federal Aid

Whistle Blower Who Challenged Cheney Seeks Federal Aid

Whistle Blowing Against the US Government is like Going to the Feds about the Mafia.
The only problem is sometimes the government lets you live in a worse hell than death.

Whistle-Blower's Fight For Pension Drags On
By Lyndsey Layton
The Washington Post

Saturday 07 July 2007

Former defense official seeks private relief bill.

From a cramped motor home in a Montana campground where Internet access is as spotty as the trout, Richard Barlow wakes each morning to battle Washington.

Once a top intelligence officer at the Pentagon who helped uncover Pakistan's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, Barlow insisted on telling the truth, and it led to his undoing.

He complained in 1989 that top officials in the administration of President George H.W. Bush - including the deputy assistant secretary of defense - were misleading Congress about the Pakistani program. He was fired and stripped of his security clearances. His intelligence career was destroyed; his marriage collapsed.

Federal investigations found Barlow was unfairly fired, winning him sympathy from dozens of Democratic and Republican lawmakers and public interest groups. But for 17 years, he has fought without success to gain a federal pension, blocked at every turn by legal and political obstacles also faced by other federal intelligence whistle- blowers.

"This case has been put before the Congress to right a wrong, and for various reasons, they've failed to do it," said Robert Gallucci, dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and an expert in nonproliferation. "It's infuriating."

Barlow, 52, and his supporters want funding added to the defense authorization bill to be debated by the Senate when it returns from recess next week. The mechanism Barlow hopes to use - a private relief bill that benefits a specific individual - is increasingly rare and, in his case, still faces hurdles.

Gallucci has known Barlow since the late 1980s, when Barlow was tracking the work of A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist amassing materials to produce nuclear weapons. Some of the men setting policy at the Defense Department at the time of Barlow's firing - Stephen J. Hadley, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney - resurfaced in the current Bush administration, which Democrats and others have accused of shaping intelligence on the Iraq war to fit political goals.

Barlow's intelligence work began at the CIA, where he analyzed nuclear programs in other countries. He contributed to the National Intelligence Estimates and presented findings to national security agencies, the White House and congressional committees. He received the CIA's Exceptional Accomplishment Award in 1988.

The next year, he became the first intelligence officer for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, charged with analyzing nuclear weapons developments involving foreign governments. He answered to Gerald Brubaker, the acting director of the Office of Non- Proliferation. Supervising Brubaker was Victor Rostow, the principal director. Rostow reported to Deputy Assistant Secretary James Hinds, who reported to Assistant Secretary Stephen J. Hadley.

At the time, the government was poised to sell $1.4 billion worth of new F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan to help the mujaheddin fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. But Congress, through two laws passed in 1985, had forbidden the sale of any equipment that could be used to deliver nuclear bombs.

Barlow wrote an analysis for then-Secretary Dick Cheney that concluded the planned F-16 sale violated this law. Drawing on detailed, classified studies, Barlow wrote about Pakistan's ability, intentions and activities to deliver nuclear bombs using F-16s it had acquired before the law was passed.

Barlow discovered later that someone rewrote his analysis so that it endorsed the sale of the F-16s. Arthur Hughes, the deputy assistant secretary of defense, testified to Congress that using the F-16s to deliver nuclear weapons "far exceeded the state of art in Pakistan" - something Barlow knew to be untrue.

In the summer of 1989, Barlow told Brubaker, Rostow and Michael MacMurray, the Pakistan desk officer in charge of military sales to Pakistan who prepared Hughes's testimony, that Congress had been misled.

Within days, Barlow was fired.

"They clearly didn't want the nonproliferation policy to get in the way of their regional policy," Gallucci said. "They were worried someone like Rich [Barlow], in his stickler approach, would insist that if there's going to be testimony on the Hill about the F-16 aircraft, that the answers be full and truthful. He was a thorn in their side, and they went after him. And they did a very good job of screwing up his life."

In a 2000 deposition provoked by Barlow's subsequent lawsuit, Hadley said he remembered underlings proposing to terminate an employee in August 1989 but did not recall "someone named Richard Barlow." In a separate deposition, Wolfowitz also testified he could not recall Barlow. But Wolfowitz told Congress in 1990 that the retaliation Barlow faced was wrong and the government was legally obligated to keep Congress informed about Pakistan's nuclear capability.

"There have been times on that issue when I specifically sensed that people thought we could somehow construct a policy on a house of cards that the Congress wouldn't know what the Pakistanis were doing," Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

After a 1993 joint probe, the inspector general at the State Department concluded that Barlow had been fired as a reprisal, while the inspector generals at the CIA and the Defense Department maintained that the Pentagon was within its rights to fire Barlow. Congress directed the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) to conduct its own investigation, which was completed in 1997 and largely vindicated Barlow.

Barlow's security clearances were restored, but he was unable to get rehired permanently by the government because of the cloud over his record, he said. Instead, he has worked as a contractor for a range of federal agencies, including the CIA, the State Department, the FBI and Sandia National Laboratories.

That left him without the $89,500 annual pension and health insurance that Barlow believes the government owes him.

He faces no organized opposition now but has so far been stymied by government inertia, the passage of time, congressional procedural errors, and endless debates over how much money he's due and the proper legislative vehicle for his pension.

Twenty Senators and eight legislative committees have considered his case over the years without resolving it, suggesting a larger dilemma: No process exists to compensate fired whistle-blowers in the intelligence field, and those who retaliate against them face no criminal penalties.

A 1998 law instead allows employees of the CIA, parts of the Defense Department, the FBI and the National Security Agency to notify their agency's inspector general that they intend to disclose a matter of "urgent concern" to congressional intelligence committees. But there is no remedy if they suffer retaliation for using this legal channel.

"There just isn't a venue for someone like him," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit organization that investigates and exposes corruption. "He was trying to prevent lies to Congress about something of global importance. And he didn't even go to Congress - all he did was suggest that Congress not be lied to."

Brian and Gallucci believe that had Barlow's alarms been heeded in 1989, Khan might have been deterred from building the world's largest atomic black market - a network that has since supplied nuclear weapons technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

Some Hill staffers say they worry that granting Barlow a pension will cause hundreds of other injured whistle-blowers to demand similar treatment. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a known champion of whistle-blowers who supports Barlow's quest, is contacted each week by four new whistle-blowers looking for help, said his spokeswoman, Beth Levine. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is considering sponsoring legislation providing Barlow a pension or a lump-sum payment, a staffer said.

Bingaman attempted to sponsor a private relief bill for Barlow once before, in 1998. But another senator persuaded colleagues to refer it to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which hears lawsuits that seek money from the federal government in excess of $10,000. During the case, which lasted four years, the Justice Department invoked a "state secrets" privilege to block the court from seeing most of Barlow's evidence, according to Barlow's pro bono lawyer, Joseph Ostoyich.

In 2002, the court found that Barlow was not entitled to protection under whistle-blower laws. "It was a galling situation," Ostoyich said. "There was plenty of evidence ... and all of [it] ... was taken out of the court's hands. I've never seen anything like it." Barlow's original pro bono attorney, Paul C. Warnke, who was President Jimmy Carter's chief arms-control negotiator, died in 2001.

An attempt several months ago by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) to sponsor a private relief bill for Barlow encountered resistance from House Armed Services Committee lawyers who said there was no precedent for it, according to her staff. Next, she tried to offer a simple resolution stating that Congress supported Barlow in his efforts, but that was thwarted by the Rules Committee, which was juggling more than 100 other requests deemed more pressing.

Since his most recent employment contract at Sandia ended, Barlow has been living in a motor home that he parks in Montana during the summer and drives to Arizona or California in the winter. Most of his possessions, including 200 pounds of documents related to his fight, are sitting in a storage locker he rents for $100 a month.

Most weekdays, he pushes his cause in cellphone calls and e-mails to Washington from his motor home, dogging Hill staffers with a tenacity that seems bottomless and can be off-putting. "This is such an extraordinary case," Brian said. "He was trying to say 'Wait a minute, Congress needs to be told the truth because they're making important decisions about nuclear proliferation,' and the guy is living in a trailer."

US Soldiers "Firing Blindly" on Civilians

US Soldiers "Firing Blindly" on Civilians

US Raids Baghdad Slum; 26 Iraqis Die
By Hamid Ahmed
The Associated Press

Saturday 30 June 2007

Baghdad - American soldiers rolled into Baghdad's Shiite Sadr City slum on Saturday in search of Iranian-linked militants and as many as 26 Iraqis were killed in what a U.S. officer described as "an intense firefight."

But residents, police and hospital officials said eight civilians were killed in their homes and angrily accused U.S. forces of firing blindly on the innocent. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki condemned the raids and demanded an explanation for the assault into a district where he has barred U.S. operations in the past.

Separately, two American soldiers were charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqis, the U.S. military said Saturday. And in Muqdadiyah, 60 miles north of the capital, police said a suicide bomber blew himself up near a crowd of police recruits, killing at least 23 people and wounding 17.

A U.S. soldier was killed Friday and three wounded when a sophisticated, armor-piercing bomb hit their combat patrol in southern Baghdad, the military announced a day later.

The U.S. military said it conducted two pre-dawn raids in Sadr City, killing 26 "terrorists" who attacked U.S. troops with small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs. But Iraqi officials said all the dead were civilians.

An American military spokesman insisted all of those killed were combatants. "Everyone who got shot was shooting at U.S. troops at the time," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver. "It was an intense firefight."

U.S. troops detained 17 men suspected of helping Iranian terror networks fund operations in Iraq, a military statement said. There were no U.S. casualties.

Witnesses said U.S. forces rolled into their neighborhood before dawn and opened fire without warning.

"At about 4 a.m., a big American convoy with tanks came and began to open fire on houses - bombing them," said Basheer Ahmed, who lives in Sadr City's Habibiya district. "What did we do? We didn't even retaliate - there was no resistance."

According to Iraqi officials, the dead included three members of one family - a father, mother and son. Several women and children, along with two policemen, were among the wounded, they said.

The assault brought quick criticism from al-Maliki. "The Iraqi government totally rejects U.S. military operations ... conducted without a pre-approval from the Iraqi military command," al-Maliki said in a statement released by his office. "Anyone who breaches the military command orders will face investigation."

Sadr City is the Iraqi capital's largest Shiite neighborhood - home to some 2.5 million people. It is also the base of operations for the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The fighters are blamed for much of the sectarian killing in Baghdad.

Last year, al-Maliki banned military operations in Sadr City without his approval after complaints from his Shiite political allies. But he later agreed that no area of the capital was off-limits, after President Bush ordered reinforcements to Iraq as part of the Baghdad security operation.

Houses, a bakery and some other shops were damaged by U.S. tank fire during the assault, Iraqi officials said. In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, Sheik Salah al-Obaidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr condemned Saturday's raids: "The bombing hurt only innocent civilians."

A policeman wounded in the raid, Montadhar Kareem, said he was on night duty when U.S. troops moved in and "began bombing houses in the area."

"The bombing became more intense, and I was injured by shrapnel in both my legs and in my left shoulder," Kareem said from a gurney at Al Sadr General Hospital.

Hours afterward, a funeral procession snaked through Sadr City. Three coffins were hoisted atop cars.

One resident who goes by the nickname of Um Ahmed, or "mother of Ahmed," stood outside her home as mourners passed by.

"We are being hit while we are peacefully sleeping in our houses. Is that fair?" she cried. The woman gave only her nickname, fearing reprisal.

The U.S. military statement said American troops opened fire on four civilian cars during the assault - one that failed to stop at a checkpoint, and three that insurgents were using for cover as they shot at U.S. soldiers.

"Every structure and vehicle that the troops on the ground engaged were being used for hostile intent," Garver said. Some of the 26 dead were in civilian cars, some had been hiding behind cars and others had fired on U.S. troops from nearby buildings, he said.

In the murder case, the two American soldiers are accused of killing three Iraqis in separate incidents, then planting weapons on the victims' remains, the military said in a statement. Fellow soldiers reported the alleged crimes, which took place between April and this month near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, it said.

The U.S. military on Saturday identified the soldiers as Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley from Candler, N.C., and Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval from Laredo, Texas.

Hensley is charged with three counts each of premeditated murder, obstructing justice and "wrongfully placing weapons with the remains of deceased Iraqis," the military said. He was placed in military confinement in Kuwait on Thursday.

Sandoval faces one count each of premeditated murder and placing a weapon with the remains of a dead Iraqi, a statement said. He was taken into custody Tuesday while at home in Texas, and was transferred to military confinement in Kuwait three days later, it said.

Saturday's blast in Muqdadiyah ripped through a crowded market area where Iraqi police recruits were having coffee, police said.

One witness, 30-year-old Abu Omar, said he rushed to the area where his brother has a shop, and saw police loading mutilated bodies into the back of a pickup truck. Fire engines sprayed water onto burning storefronts, and ambulances evacuated the wounded, he said.

At least seven shops were destroyed by the explosion, and the market street soaked with blood, Omar said.

Finally, the Truth Comes Out

Senate Panel Questions C.I.A. Detentions - New York Times

Senate Panel Questions C.I.A. Detentions - New York Times

Wtf is with people? America is so Hung up On Reality TV they can't see what is really happening here.

WASHINGTON, May 31 — The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday questioned the continuing value of the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret interrogation program for terrorism suspects, suggesting that international condemnation and the obstacles it has created to criminal prosecution may outweigh its worth in gathering information.

The committee rejected by one vote a Democratic proposal that would essentially have cut money for the program by banning harsh interrogation techniques except in dire emergencies, a committee report revealed.

“More than five years after the decision to start the program,” the report said, “the committee believes that consideration should be given to whether it is the best means to obtain a full and reliable intelligence debriefing of a detainee.”

It added: “Both the Congress and the administration must continue to evaluate whether having a separate C.I.A. detention program that operates under different interrogation rules than those applicable to military and law enforcement officers is necessary, lawful and in the best interests of the United States.”

The sweeping report, which accompanies the annual bill authorizing the activities of all of the spy agencies, reflects a striking reassertion of aggressive oversight since Democrats took control of Congress this year. Some Republicans joined in the skeptical language about several spying programs, and the report as a whole was approved 12 to 3, with the backing of all eight Democrats and four of the seven Republicans.

The committee declared that it would block changes sought by the Bush administration in the law governing domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency unless it received long-sought administration documents on the secret surveillance program, including orders signed by President Bush.

The report criticized the intelligence agencies’ ballooning use of contractors, saying the outsourcing had created conflicts of interest because some major purchasing programs are themselves run by contractors, some of which have ties to vendors. It said a government employee cost taxpayers $126,500 a year on average, or half the $250,000 price tag for a worker supplied by a contracting company.

“People are leaving the intelligence agencies for more lucrative job offers with contractors, who send them back to the agencies at far higher cost,” said Andy Johnson, the committee’s staff director.

The committee said half of space-related programs, mostly involving spy satellites, had shown cost overruns of 50 percent or more. Such overruns do “severe damage” to the intelligence effort, the committee said, and its proposed bill would require that the president personally certify the necessity of such programs when costs grow more than 40 percent above original estimates.

But the most novel element of the report is the assessment of the C.I.A. detention program, which the committee has rarely discussed in public. While only the chairman and the vice chairman were briefed on the program during the first five years after it was created following the 2001 terrorist attacks, all committee members have now been briefed for the first time, the report said.

The report acknowledged that the secret detention program “has led to the identification of terrorists and the disruption of terrorist plots.” But it says that achievement must now “be weighed against both the complications it causes to any ultimate prosecution of these terrorists, and the damage the program does to the image of the United States abroad.”

Mr. Johnson, the staff director, said the committee’s chairman, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, was concerned that the program might be hurting the battle against terrorism by “alienating moderate Muslim and Arab communities around the world.”

Elisa C. Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First and a longtime critic of the C.I.A. program, said the panel’s statement showed that Congress “is no longer willing to blindly accept the assertion that the C.I.A. secret interrogation program using unlawful techniques serves the national interests of this country.”

But the committee stopped short of using its budget authority to shut down the program. In a closed session on May 23, two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, proposed barring spending on interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual, which bans physical pressure or pain. Under their proposal, the only exception would have been when the president determined “that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat.”

The amendment failed when Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, joined all the Republicans in voting no.

A C.I.A. spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said the program “has helped our country and others disrupt plots and save lives” and has been “conducted lawfully,” with the approval of “multiple elements of our government, not just the C.I.A.”

More Articles in Washington »

Achtung! Are We the New Nazis?

Achtung! Are We the New Nazis?

Gott Mit Uns.

I felt a little shock and awe, actually disbelief, seeing the antique belt buckle for the first time. Worn by a Nazi German soldier, the aluminum, World War II era buckle carried the imperial eagle of the Third Reich above the familiar Swastika. Surrounding the eagle and Swastika was the motto, "Gott Mit Uns," or "God With Us."

Certainly the Nazi Germans, villains in history and Hollywood movies, couldn’t really have believed in God, could they? Certainly the common German soldier fought with great courage, discipline and fervor, following orders given by the High Command. Yet the Nazis fought a ruthless war against smaller countries, attacking them after planting false evidence, overpowering them with a combination of vicious air strikes and crushing armored superiority and then installed corrupt or cruel puppet leaders.

The Nazis demonized and then destroyed their enemies, after first intimidating and then liquidating their domestic opponents. The German propaganda machine cranked out misinformation and outright lies in the state-supported media, suppressing the truth and threatening anyone who dared to speak or print opposition to the war regime.

Lutheran minister and German war veteran Martin Niemoller mirrored middle-class German society of that time: “First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by then there was no one left to speak up for me.”

Presently, American military veterans—rank and file former soldiers mostly--are speaking out against American Imperialism, as well as ministers, artists, reporters, scientists and educators. But the powerful alliance of media monopolies and corporate-financed political leaders sway public opinion to war. In America, as was the case in Nazi Germany, the imperceptible slide to tyranny increases in direct proportion to the number of voices of conscience that are ignored

Is it curious or ironic how Blitzkrieg resembles Shock and Awe? Is it curious or ironic how Wolf Blitzer and Charles Krauthammer provide the running commentary for the war? Is it curious or ironic how Rumsfeld and Rommel are so similar, how each needed a desert for a dramatic stage? Yes, I know, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated to the “free” media our “humanitarian” method of war, but then German general Erwin Rommel or Joseph Goebbels could have said the very same thing to the German press.

Are we the New Nazis? Could it happen here? Has it already begun? Absurd, you say. God is on our side. The God of Christians and Jews.

The last time I checked, the Pope was vehemently against the unprovoked war with Iraq, as were most ministers and priests. The National Council of Churches, with 50 million members in 36 denominations, opposed the war. The Catholic Church, with nearly 64 million Americans, did not support the war. Many American Jews did not support the war. Yet according to all reports, we’ve “won” a war and the rumors are we may have another couple of other wars very soon.

God is on our side, but which one? The vengeful God, the one guiding our radioactive armor-sheathed battle tanks as they slice through families of frightened civilians? Or the merciful one, providing protection to those same civilians? Is ours the God of the Gospels and Torah--or the horrible, hydra-like god of cluster bombs? Do our coins--comparable to the Nazi belt buckles-- really carry the motto, “In God We Trust"?

Assuming the support for this war was a mile wide and an inch deep-- generally the case in polls and wars--how many Christian soldiers will continue to take up arms against the “infidel” simply on the summons of Militant Christian Bush and Uber-Zionist Paul Wolfowitz? An instructive book, A Quick And Dirty Guide To War, gives an overview of the entanglement awaiting our armies of occupation. Although the authors fail to mention the term “Islamic Jihad,” they clearly describe the Middle East morass and the fact that Afghanistan has NEVER been conquered by an outside foreign power. America, by the way, is superpower number four to try, and our influence extends only as far as the outskirts of Kabul.

In a prolonged, stepping-stone war of conquest and vendetta, thinly disguised as “liberation,” how many American soldiers will suffice? If the Russians in Afghanistan could not pacify a region at their doorstep with over 150,000 troops, using Gestapo tactics, what makes American leaders think they can do better, using twice the troops over twice the area? Yes, we have the invincible Abrams M1A2 main Battle Tank (MBT), just as the Germans had the invincible Panzer Mark VI Tiger MBT in 1943. But like the Germans, we eventually have to emerge from our tanks, and what then? How many patriotic sons and daughters, heroically fighting for so many American lost causes, will emerge from the backwoods, single-stoplight towns, kids like Jessica Lynch, to serve as very vulnerable yet heavily-armed overseers in impoverished Mesopotamia?

"Do we have ten million men willing to fight and save petroleum resources?" asks Anthony Gancarski in a recent Counterpunch column. "How many millions would it take to provide an occupation force sufficient to pacify the region? Is there any hope of attaining such a fighting force without conscription?"

The answer is NO.

The draft is a done deal if the war spreads. The New York Times recently reported that America’s military power, measured in military spending, exceeded that of all NATO countries combined--plus China, Russia, Japan, Iraq and North Korea--but the need for military men will surpass the capacity of the all-volunteer army if “liberation” spreads to Syria and Iran, as our chief Chickenhawks intend. Former CIA director James Woolsey, handpicked by the Pentagon for the role of Pasha in post-war Iraq, publicly stated to a group of avid young Republicans at UCLA, "This Fourth World War [starting with Iraq and leading God knows where], I think, will last considerably longer than either World Wars I or II did for us." Hopefully the students who weren’t scared shitless listening to Woolsey--a name apropos to the imperial designs of this obscene military machine--already have their student deferments ready to file, following the example of our current leaders, many of whom happily avoided the Vietnam War.

Behind this Middle East escapade lurks a cadre of militant Christians, Zionist Jews, and brazen corporate opportunists, all equally embedded in the idea of an Imperialist Grand Design. Yet such Imperial hubris wrecked Napoleon’s France, destroyed Hitler’s Germany and recently ruined the Soviet Union--bled white in Afghanistan—a dissection ably assisted by our recent Mujahadeen ally, Osama bin Laden.

This recent preemptive strike precedent for America is a page taken from the Third Reich playbook. In 1939, the Germans attacked Poland, a fourth-rate military power, having used a phony excursion by Polish soldiers as a ploy for invasion. Our excuse for attacking another fourth-rate power--the search for weapons of mass destruction--worked wonderfully well in Iraq, yet not even Hitler was so draconian as to expose his own troops to the risk of chemical attack or the exposure of depleted uranium. Thus far more than 10,000 American troops who fought in the first Gulf War have died from Gulf War Syndrome, while the House of Representatives voted recently to cut $25 billion from assistance to disabled veterans, according to Veterans For Common Sense. Truly, the pride over our recent “victory” in Iraq--while cause for celebration in shortening the war and ridding the world of one dictator--does not lessen but increases the possibility of other preemptive attacks against far more dangerous foes. Hitler pulverized Poland and Belgium but wrecked half the world when he continued his mad designs against stronger opponents.

The barbarism of conquered Baghdad mirrors the Nazi blueprint for dealing with foreign art and culture: Loot the art and burn the culture. Yet even The German High command never allowed or conspired in the wholesale eradication of French culture to the degree the American Army appeared to do in Baghdad. Reporter Robert Fisk stated in an interview, “We claim that we want to preserve the national heritage of the Iraqi people, and yet my own count of government buildings burning in Baghdad before I left was 158, of which the only building protected by the United States Army and the Marines were the Ministry of Interior . . . and the Ministry of Oil.”

Fisk also noted, “The looting was on a most detailed, precise and coordinated scale . . . and within a few days those priceless heritage items of Iraq’s history (those not destroyed by systematic arson) were on sale in Europe and in America. I don’t believe that happened by chance.”

The Nazis, great plunderers of European art, would have been envious of the speed and cohesion of the entire operation. Understandably, they would have been aghast at the waste, however.

Will our soldiers soon be sporting “God With Us” belt buckles over protective, Darth Vader body armor, wielding depleted uranium weapons in the Cradle of Civilization? How many My Lai-style atrocities—already occurring as I write this--or Beirut-type barracks bombings will we accept before we realize our occupation in Iraq is West Bank supersized? Before we commit too many more American troops to the Middle East--future victims of suicide shock and awe bombings or civilian slaughters like the one that happened in al-Fallujah--God-fearing American citizens should ask whether this Bush administration plans to continue expanding this empire at the point of a gun.

Truthfully, to the rest of the world, we already are the New Nazis.

Douglas Herman, a USAF veteran, served in the Vietnam era. Captain James Herman, the author's father, fought the Nazis during World War II.

Injustice to Honest Marines?

This is really screwed up, and one of the many reasons I am disgusted with this country.

Dear IVAW Supporter,

I am writing to let you know about an urgent issue that is affecting several of our IVAW members.

Adam Kokesh and Liam Madden are both very active members and former Marines.  Because of their outspoken opposition to the war, the Marine Corps is threatening to revoke their honorable discharges and change them to other than honorable. 

We cannot allow this suppression of free speech to occur!  Adam and Liam need our help to pay for legal defense and travel to their hearings.  Adam just found out his hearing is in Kansas City on June 4th, less than two weeks away!

Attached below is a letter from Adam, describing his situation and asking for your help.  Besides financial contributions, we also need people who are in the Kansas City area to gather support for Adam before his June 4th hearing. 

Please contact me at Kelly@ivaw.org if you are in the area and would like to find out how you can help.  I will keep you updated on both Adam and Liam's cases as they unfold.

Thank you so much for your time and support, it really means everything to our veterans who dare to speak the truth.

In Peace,
Kelly Dougherty
Former Sergeant Army National Guard
Executive Director
Iraq Veterans Against the War

May 22, 2007

Dear Friend of Iraq Veterans Against the War,

My name is Adam Kokesh and I need your help. Because of my involvement in IVAW, I have been singled out and called for a military hearing to be made an example of for those of us who have spoken out against the war. I have been an active member of IVAW for a mere four months, but have already garnered enough attention to be perceived as a threat by those using our military to maintain political support for the occupation of Iraq.

I was honorably discharged after serving over six years, and two tours in Iraq, last November.  I am part of the Inactive Ready Reserve until June 18, 2007, less than a month away. After my discharge, I moved to Washington, DC to get a Masters in Political Management at GWU, and joined IVAW. I have since appeared on behalf of IVAW speaking at concerts, universities, and high schools. I have written about my views on the occupation and my military experience for the IVAW website and on my blog.

Most notably, I participated in Operation First Casualty on March 19th. This was a mock combat patrol through Washington, DC in order to bring home the truth of the occupation of Iraq, because the first casualty of war is the truth. I appeared in my uniform, without my name, without rank, and without the patch that says US MARINES. I received an email of warning about possible violations of the UCMJ for appearing in uniform at a political event. Instead of ignoring it like everyone I know who has received similar emails, I wrote a strongly worded reply admonishing the Major who was "investigating" me for wasting time on such trivial matters. The text of that email is posted here.

I soon received a package from the Marine Corps informing me of a separation hearing to re-separate me with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. A scan of the complete package can be seen here. I have sought private counsel for this hearing, as is my right. I intend to bring as many witnesses as possible to testify to both the character of my service and the nature of my involvement with IVAW. The Marine Corps only made it known to us today that the hearing will be held on June 4, in a mere 13 days. They have also decided to activate me for the hearing and hold it in Kansas City, home of the Marine Corps Mobilization Command.

This case is important because the intimidation of servicemen and women who speak out will suppress the truth about the Iraq occupation. With the help of IVAW, I intend to fight this to the end and stand up for the rights of all members of our armed forces. Please support this effort by mailing a check made out to IVAW with "Adam Kokesh Legal Defense Fund" in the memo to PO Box 8296, Philadelphia, PA 19101 or by going here, clicking on "Donate Now" and including "Adam Kokesh Legal Defense Fund" in the Special Project Support window. Please feel free to email me with any questions or comments.

Sincerely,


Adam Kokesh

Jessica Lynch Sets the Story Straight

Setting the Record Straight

Jessica Lynch tells Congress what really happened to her in Iraq.

Susan Walsh / AP

Lynch arrives to testify before Congress on April 24

By Julie Scelfo

Newsweek

Updated: 42 minutes ago

April 24, 2007 - Jessica Lynch became a national hero in 2003 after she was dramatically rescued by a team of Special Ops soldiers from an Iraqi hospital where she was believed to be a prisoner of war. Her story was compelling not only because she was a 19-year-old supply-unit clerk who had stumbled into an attack during convoy travel with her unit, but because she was portrayed by military authorities as having valiantly fought back against her attackers even as her unit was surrounded and her comrades were killed and injured. The legend quickly unraveled, however, after Lynch returned to the States, recuperated from her substantial injuries (broken arm and leg bones, damage to her back and kidneys, and a six-inch laceration to her head) and began to speak out about what had really happened. Today, Lynch testified before a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing probing the source of misleading information about Lynch and about the death of Army Ranger Specialist Patrick Tillman in Afghanistan. NEWSWEEK's Julie Scelfo spoke with Lynch, who turns 24 on April 26, about her experiences.

Excerpts:

---

NEWSWEEK: Why did you decide to testify?
Jessica Lynch: Mainly it was about me just getting out the truth. I’ve spent the past four years trying to tell everybody the real truth, and not the stories they put together. They were false, ya know?

What was the greatest misinformation about you?
The whole Rambo story, that I went down fighting. It just wasn’t the truth.

So what really happened?
I didn’t even get a shot off. My weapon had jammed. And I didn’t even get to fire. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the back of our [Humvee], which made Lori [Piestewa], my friend, lose control of the vehicle, and we slammed into the back of another truck in our unit.

Who is to blame for spreading the misinformation?
Well, I think really the military and the media. The military, for not setting the record straight and the media for spreading it, and not seeking the true facts. They just ran with it instead of waiting until the facts were straightened out.

What do you hope Congress achieves with today’s hearing?
I hope it [helps] the Tillman family get the accurate information that they deserve. They need to know what happened to their son and why they were lied to.

Do you feel like this is a pattern, misinformation from the military?
Well, it kind of seems like that’s the way it’s been happening. I hope they can learn from mistakes and correct this and not let other family members and soldiers have to deal with the things that my family and I went through.

What was the hardest part of having misinformation spread?
Knowing that it wasn’t the truth. I just, I had to get [the truth] out there. I wouldn’t have been able to live with myself knowing that’s not exactly how it happened.

You said during your testimony you weren’t there for political reasons. But do you have an opinion about how the administration used your story and Tillman’s story for political gain?
I don’t know because there’s no way of knowing why this stuff was even created in the first place. Only the people who created it would have the answers.

So how is your recovery going?
I still have a lot of problems, a lot of injuries. I will probably never heal or be the same again. But I’m OK with it, and I’ve learned to cope with it in my own way.

You said in your testimony that Iraqi nurses actually tried to return you once to the Americans. What happened?
We were fired upon, and [the] driver of the ambulance had to turn around and brought me back to the hospital.

So the Iraqis were trying to return you?
Yeah, hopefully that’s what they were doing. That’s what I was told they were doing. We were headed to a checkpoint and we were fired upon.

If the Iraqis wanted to give you back, why did the military stage a big rescue? Couldn’t they just knock on the hospital door?
I don’t know. I hope that they had my interests in mind, and were wanting to get me out of there.

Do you feel like you were exploited by the military?
No, I don’t. I felt sort of like that in the beginning, yes. But now, four years later, I don’t.

During today’s testimony Pat Tillman’s brother, Kevin, says he feels his brother’s death was “exploited” for political reasons.
I agree, they did that in a way. Pat Tillman's situation was similar to mine but completely different. He didn’t have the opportunity to come home and tell the truth and set the record straight like I did.

The World Can't Wait - Olympia Dukakis

Adel Hamad Detainee

Get involved at projecthamad.org

Project Hamad

Get involved at projecthamad.org

Resisting the Drums of War

Enough said. Was criminal's at large.

Fallujah Fears a 'Genocidal Strategy'

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

FALLUJAH, Mar 30 (IPS) - Iraqis in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad are reporting regular killings carried out by U.S. forces that many believe are part of a 'genocidal' strategy.

Since the mysterious explosion at the Shia al-Askari shrine in Samara in February last year, more than 100 Iraqis have been killed daily on average, without any forceful action by the Iraqi government and the U.S. military to stop the killings.

U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces working with them are also executing people seized during home raids and other operations, residents say.

"Seventeen young men were found executed after they were arrested by U.S. troops and Fallujah police," 40-year-old Yassen of Fallujah told IPS. "My two sons have been detained by police, and I am terrified that they will have the same fate. They are only 17 and 18 years old."

Residents of Fallujah say the local police detention centre holds hundreds of men, who have had no legal representation.

Others are killed by random fire that has long become routine for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. Sa'ad, a 25-year-old from the al-Thubbat area of western Fallujah was killed in such firing.

"The poor guy kept running home every time he saw U.S. soldiers," a man from his neighbourhood, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "He used to say: Go inside or the Americans will kill you." Sa'ad is said by neighbours to have developed a mental disability.

He was recently shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when they opened fire after their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb.

Last week, U.S. military fire severely damaged the highest minaret in Fallujah after three soldiers were killed in an attack. What was seen as reprisal fire on the minaret has angered residents.

"They hate us because we are Muslims, and no one can argue with that any more," 65- year-old Abu Fayssal who witnessed the event told IPS. "They say they are fighting al- Qeada but they are only capable of killing our sons with their genocidal campaign and destroying our mosques."

Others believe occupation forces have another sinister strategy.

"It is our people killing each other now as planned by the Americans," Abdul Sattar, a 45- year-old lawyer and human rights activist in Fallujah told IPS. "They recruited Saddam's security men to control the situation by well-known methods like hanging people by their legs and electrifying them in order to get information. Now they are executing them without trial."

IPS has obtained photographs of an elderly man who residents say was executed last month by U.S. soldiers.

"Last month was full of horrifying events," a retired police officer from Fallujah told IPS. "Three men were executed by American soldiers in the al-Bu Issa tribal area just outside Fallujah. One of them was 70 years old and known as a very good man, and the others were his relatives. They were asleep when the raid was conducted."

Another three men from the same tribe were executed similarly in ar-Rutba town near the Jordanian border. Their tribe did not carry out the usual burial ceremony for fear that more people would be killed. Instead, a cousin performed a religious ceremony in Amman in Jordan.

"Seven people were executed in al-Qa'im recently, at the Syrian border," Khalid Haleem told IPS on telephone from al-Qa'im. "They were gathering at a friend's place for dinner when Americans surrounded the house, with armoured vehicles with helicopters covering them from the air. Those killed were good men and we believe the Americans were misinformed."

Adding to the violence are U.S.-backed Shia militias which regularly raid Sunni areas under the eyes of the U.S. and Iraqi army. Residents of Fallujah, Ramadi, and especially Baghdad have regularly reported to IPS over the last two years that Shia militiamen are allowed through U.S. military cordons into Sunni neighbourhoods to conduct raids.

Last month, residents report, more than 100 men aged 20 to 40 were executed by Shia militias in Iskandariya 40 km south of Baghdad and Tal Afar 350 km northwest of the capital. Another 50 were detained by the Iraqi Army's fifth division, that many believe is the biggest death squad in the country.

A U.S. military spokesperson in Baghdad told IPS that their troops "use caution and care when conducting home raids" and "in no way support Shi'ite death squads and militias."

In the face of the U.S.-backed violence, most Iraqis now openly support attacks against occupation forces.

"The genocidal Americans are paying for all that," a young man from Fallujah told IPS. "They seem to be in need of another lesson by the lions of Fallujah and Anbar." He was referring to the intensive resistance attacks in and around Fallujah that have killed dozens of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers this month.

According to the U.S. military, at least 1,194 U.S. soldiers have died in al-Anbar province since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The number is far higher than in any other province in Iraq.

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

One Picture Sits Over Differing Surveys

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

BAGHDAD, Mar 26 (IPS) - The two surveys, one following the other, told quite different stories about Iraq. But Iraqis did not need to look at either to know what their own story is like.

The Sunday Times of London published the results of a survey Mar. 18 carried out by the British firm Opinion Research Business that claimed that most Iraqis prefer life under the new government to life under Saddam Hussein.

Another published the same day, sponsored by USA Today newspaper, the ABC news channel in the United States, BBC and the German television network ARD, found that six in ten Iraqis thought their lives were going badly, and only a third expected anything would get better in a year's time.

But Iraqis were not looking at the surveys - they do not need to. Life around them tells its own story.

"Our government and its American friends don't know much about us," 35-year-old teacher Razzaq Ahmed from Ramadi told IPS. "All they care about is their war against al-Qaeda."

And residents say the government seems to care little about the rights of Iraqi people, their right to life itself. One event after another drives home that message to people.

The killing of 18 boys at a football field in Ramadi last month has left Iraqis fuming. Ramadi, 100 km west of Baghdad, is capital of the restive al-Anbar province.

The United Nations Children's Agency UNICEF said in a statement that "the loss of so many innocent children at play is unacceptable." A statement from the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called the killing of the boys "a brutal act" that "reveals the ugly face of terrorists."

The killing of the boys at the football field was bad enough, but confusion arising from several contradictory statements infuriated people further. By one account the boys died after a car bomb was detonated near them. Another report said the U.S. forces set off an explosion near a football field to get rid of some material.

There is no evidence that U.S. forces were responsible for killing the boys, but the confused reports inflamed anger against them nevertheless.

"Americans say it is al-Qaeda that did it," Suha Aziz, mother of a four-year-old boy killed a year ago in U.S. military fire told IPS. "But it is their responsibility to maintain peace in Iraq, no matter who does what."

Surveys differ, but most Iraqis seem agreed now in their opposition to the U.S.-led occupation. That includes many leaders from al-Anbar who negotiated with the U.S. military earlier.

"They were only fishing for collaborators through the so-called negotiations," a Ramadi tribal chief told IPS. "The security situation is getting worse and worse and if the Americans do not kill us, then it is for sure that they cannot protect us."

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, an occupying power has a duty to ensure public order and safety in the territory under its authority. The duty attaches as soon the occupying force exercises control or authority over civilians of that territory.

International law also stipulates that the occupying force is responsible for protecting the population from violence by third parties, including newly formed armed groups.

Occupation forces have under the law the duty to ensure local security, which includes protecting persons, including minority groups and former government officials, from reprisals and revenge attacks.

U.S. troops are having a hard time protecting themselves. Al-Anbar has seen some of the strongest resistance against U.S. occupation forces. Security operations in the area, including two massive assaults on Fallujah, have done nothing to calm down the uprising. U.S. bases near Fallujah regularly face mortar attacks.

"The situation in al-Anbar province is still as bad as ever with so many players who are all armed and dangerous," Shakir Ali from Haditha, 200km west of Baghdad, told IPS. "The new militia formed by the U.S. and Iraqi authorities are trying to prove their power at the expense of our citizens."

Officials continue to paint an upbeat picture. Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, the U.S. commander in charge of Baghdad's security told reporters Mar. 20 that residents were pleased with new measures taken.

"Security has been improved, and people can get back to the business of life and not have to worry about getting in and out of their cars, going to market," Fil said. "But we've got a ways to go and we're really just on the front edge of this thing."

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

Another Casualty: Coverage of the Iraq War

Dahr Jamail | March 23, 2007

Editor: Erik Leaver, IPS and John Feffer, IRC

Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org

Iraq is the most dangerous place in the world for journalists. Along with names and dates, the Brussels Tribunal has listed the circumstances under which Iraqi media personnel have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This extremely credible report cites 195 as dead. If non-Iraqi media representatives are included, the figure goes beyond 200. Both figures are well in excess of the media fatalities suffered in Vietnam or during World War II.

The primary reason why reporting from Iraq is dangerous for all journalists is the horrific security situation. Iraqi journalists reporting from the streets are in perpetual danger. If any of the countless militias does not want a certain story made public, it will make sure that the journalist has filed his or her last story. Not to mention the scores of reporter deaths which have been the combined handiwork of the Iraqi government, occupation forces and/or criminal gangs.

Despite President Bush’s assertion that life in Iraq is improving, a senior Iraqi journalist was found dead in the capital on March 3, 2007. On the same day the body of the managing editor of Baghdad’s al-Safir newspaper, Jamal al-Zubaidi, was found shot in the head.

The Realities of Repression

The United States continues to claim that its military operations in Iraq bring freedom and democracy. But such freedom apparently doesn’t extend to Iraqi journalists. Several journalists critical of the United States or the U.S.-backed Iraqi government have been killed. For instance, on March 4, 2007 gunmen killed prominent journalist Mohan al Zaher in his home. That Sunday, his column concluded with the lament, “...if this is the democracy that we (Iraqis) dreamt of.” His earlier articles questioned U.S. policies in Iraq.

The U.S. military has also conducted direct raids on media establishments and representatives. During the invasion, on April 8, 2003, a U.S. warplane bombed the al-Jazeera bureau in Baghdad, killing 35-year-old journalist Tareq Ayoub. Britain’s Daily Mirror later cited the “top secret” minutes of a meeting during November 2004 where George W. Bush attempted to get British Prime Minister Tony Blair to consent to the bombing of the al-Jazeera headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

More recently, on February 23, 2007, U.S. soldiers raided and ransacked the offices of the Iraq Syndicate of Journalists (ISJ) in central Baghdad. The soldiers arrested ten armed guards and seized ten computers and 15 small electricity generators meant to be donated to families of killed journalists. Youssif al-Tamimi of the ISJ in Baghdad told one of my close colleagues, “The Americans have delivered so many messages to us, but we simply ignored all of them. They killed our colleagues, shut down our newspapers, arrested hundreds of us and now they are shooting at our hearts by raiding our headquarters. This is the freedom of speech we received.” Many Iraqis believe that the U.S. soldiers were conveying from their leadership to Iraqi journalists the message of zero tolerance for criticism of the U.S.-led occupation.

The U.S.-backed Iraqi government also directly controls the media. The Coalition Provisional Authority under the U.S. administrator, L. Paul Bremer, created the Media and Communications Commission as an instrument of control. This commission, incorporated into the Iraqi constitution, regulates licensing, telecommunications, broadcasting, information services, and all other media establishments. Under the authority of this commission, in July 2004, security forces of the interim Iraqi government raided and shut down the Baghdad office of the Arabic satellite channel al-Jazeera. Initially the network faced a month-long ban on reporting out of Iraq. In November 2004 the Iraqi government announced that any al-Jazeera journalist found reporting in Iraq would be detained. Subsequently the ban was extended indefinitely and continues today.

Another instance of blatant media repression by the Iraqi state took place on November 11, 2004. During the siege of Fallujah when Iraqi journalists along with this writer were reporting the killing of civilians and the use of prohibited weapons like white phosphorous by the U.S. military, Iraq’s Media High Commission issued a warning on the official letter head of the prime minister. The letter instructed reporters to, “Stick to the government line on the U.S. led offensive in Fallujah or face legal action” and also to “set aside space in your news coverage to make the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis, clear.”

The international NGO Reporters Without Borders, which advocates freedom of the press, releases an annual worldwide press freedom index. Countries are ranked on the basis of surveys designed to record any kind of harassment of journalists and state violence against them that forces them to flee or abandon their work. In 2002, under Saddam Hussein and his draconian control of the media, Iraq ranked a dismal 130. In 2006, after three years of U.S. occupation, Iraq fell to 154. The NGO has also declared Iraq to be among the world’s worst hostage market, with 38 journalist kidnappings in three years.

Direct Manipulation

Currently there are two main channels for information on Iraq: the Pentagon and the Iraqi stringers who work for Arab media outlets. For audiences unfamiliar with Arabic or alternative news sources on Iraq, the only available news comes from daily press releases by the U.S. military that are parroted by the establishment media.

Another dubious source of information is the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi television station al-Iraqiyah that began broadcasting in May 2003. In January 2004, the U.S. Defense Department awarded the Florida-based Harris Corporation a 12-month contract to manage the Iraqi Media Network, including al-Iraqiyah, and provided the physical infrastructure for the expansion of the network.

The U.S. military also hired the Washington-based public relations firm Lincoln Group to manipulate Iraqi public opinion in favor of the United States. The group’s covert program, worth millions of dollars, included various media activities that faked independent journalism in order to conceal the fact that it was U.S. state and military propaganda. Former Lincoln Group employees claim that U.S. military officials were aware of payments to Iraqi newspapers to print pro-U.S. articles and editorials.

Such state control has a boomerang effect. False news generated for the Iraqi public in local papers also comes to the United States as “news.” This indirect state-meddling abroad, coupled with direct repression of the media at home, is also reflected in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. In 2002, the United States ranked 17th. In 2006, after six years of Bush administration, the rank has fallen to 56th.

Covering the War at Home

Unlike in Iraq, the problem in the United States began before the 2003 invasion. In the prestigious New York Times, Judith Miller dutifully parroted the propaganda issued by the Bush administration about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction during the lead-up to the invasion. Quoting one anonymous source after another, she became a highly effective vehicle of the Bush administration in disseminating misinformation and lies about Saddam Hussein’s possession of and attempt to acquire WMDs.

Later, during an interview with PBS Frontline conducted on July 13, 2006, in the presence of her lawyer, Miller brazenly defied criticism of her WMD coverage saying, “I didn’t feel that I had anything to apologize for with my WMD coverage.”

Once the invasion was launched, anchorman Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News announced to viewers nationwide, “One of the things that we don’t want to do...is to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq because in a few days we’re going to own that country.”

The Pentagon’s “embedded” program where mainstream media journalists volunteer to act as propagandists requires a journalist to sign a contract giving the military control over her or his output which amounts to total censorship. Embedding continues to this day, as does corporate ownership of the media. Together they ensure coverage of the occupation that is biased in favor of the state as the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has exposed.

Corporate ownership of the media has much to do with the transformation of nationally televised news personalities into cheerleaders for war. Take the example of the Associated Press. Its board of directors includes the CEOs and presidents of ABC, McClatchy, Hearst, Tribune, and the Washington Post. Two of the directors belong to extremely conservative policy councils like the Hoover Institute, a Republican policy research center located on the campus of Stanford University and referred to as “Bush’s brain trust.” Douglas McCorkindale, another member of the AP board, is on the board of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contract company. The board of AP displays a clear tilt toward right-wing conservative views, represented by a huge corporate media network of the largest publishers in the U.S.

Today in the United States, our media is more homogenized than ever. Only six corporations control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, General Electric, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and Bertelsmann. These corporations also happen to be heavy financial supporters of the elite political groups (Republicans and Democrats alike) that control this country. They put politics ahead of responsible journalism.

“As news outlets fall into the hands of large conglomerates with holdings in many industries, conflicts of interest inevitably interfere with news gathering,” according to FAIR. “Independent media are essential to a democratic society, and...aggressive antitrust action must be taken to break up monopolistic media conglomerates.”

Until that happens in the United States, media coverage of Iraq is likely to worsen. As for Iraqi journalists, promises of free speech and freedom of the press--just like the earlier promises of liberation, economic opportunity, and freedom for the Iraqi people--will not materialize before the end of the U.S. occupation of the country.

Dahr Jamail has reported from inside Iraq and is a Middle East expert. He writes for Inter Press Service, The Asia Times, and is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.

Give Us Some Real Political Leaders

Inter Press Service
Ali al-Fadhily*

Read story on website

BAGHDAD, Mar 15 (IPS) - Many Iraqis are now looking to local political leadership to fill wide gaps in a fractured government that is failing to provide security and basic needs.

"Iraqis feel lost amongst too many political currents that blew their country away with their narrow sectarian and personal interests," Mohammad Jaafar, a Baghdad-based politician formerly involved in the interim government told IPS.

"I am ashamed to say that I am or even was an Iraqi politician after all the damage to our country that we caused. It is entirely our fault and there is no question about that."

Many politicians feel similarly.

"The only solution for the Iraqi dilemma is to change the whole crew of politicians including myself," Thafir al-Ani, Iraqi MP for the Sunni al-Tawafuq List told IPS earlier. "We must admit that we have failed our people, and so we should make way for newcomers who may improve the situation."

Iraqis have been confused by the turbulent political machinations since Saddam Hussein was overthrown in March 2003 following a U.S.-led invasion. Saddam had been placed in political power by a CIA-backed coup in 1968.

The Coalition Provisional Authority led by L. Paul Bremer took over the administration of Iraq after the invasion, followed by a U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. This body was then followed by an interim government led by Iyad Allawi, a former CIA asset.

Iraqis then voted Jan. 30, 2005 to bring in a government they expected would call for a U.S. withdrawal and bring stability and security to the war-torn country.

Instead, the country burns in violence, with very little reconstruction. Much of the population lives in survival mode. This has made people angry with the current government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Iraqis dream of a new face who will lead them to security and prosperity -- even if he were a new dictator," Aziz Nazzal, an Iraqi analyst based in Baghdad told IPS.

"Iraqis have tried kings, communists, Arab nationalists, dictators and now Islamists, but have never found a system that could tap the huge potential of Iraq in a way that fulfills people's hopes for a developed and safe country."

Many are also frustrated with their religious leaders, most of who find a place in the current government.

"We followed our religious leaders and trusted them for four years thinking they would lead us ashore after our long sufferings," Foad Hussein, a teacher now working as a taxi driver in Baghdad told IPS. "But all we got is death and terror. They seem interested only in protecting their personal interests and their close family members."

What may emerge now as a grassroots movement is beginning to call for a shift towards local politics.

"Let's go home and do something" -- that is a call often heard now at refugee centres. Some believe the answer may lie in tribal arrangements; others want political leaders "who did not get their hands dirtied" in the current mess.

"Tribes in Iraq are not sectarian and our chiefs of tribes are the best interim solution," Mukhlis al-Bahadly from the Sadr City area of Baghdad told IPS. "They are the ones who can lead us until this country finds its way out of this mess."

There is little hope that this can happen while Iraq is occupied by the United States.

"We know who the good people are and we will choose them if we ever have the chance, but they refuse to participate in any solution under occupation," said Sheikh Jassim al- Badri, a cleric from Baghdad. "Clean hands could not eat out of the same plate with the occupation, but they will definitely take their positions as soon as the occupation leaves or some acceptable arrangement is agreed."

Rumours run of "shadow governments" being formed abroad, but Iraqis have little faith in people who fled and left them to face the situation.

General Nizar al-Khazraji, former chief of staff in the previous army, former minister for foreign affairs Naji al-Hadithi and some others are said to have formed such 'governments' abroad to replace the current government when the time comes.

No one is sure yet what, and who, will work.

"We need a leader who really cares for us," a 55-year-old teacher from Baghdad who asked to be referred to as Fatima told IPS. "They all say they love us, but where is that love? All they did was drag us into poverty and a war between our brothers."

And some have just left it to God.

"Only God can save us by giving us a man who really cares for us," said 35-year-old Jamal Hakki from the Ghazaliya district of Baghdad. "All humans in other countries are either against us or with themselves while we face our destiny on our own."

*(Ali al-Fadhily files in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our specialist writer on Iraq and the Middle East who is based in the U.S.)

Security Meet Ends, Insecurity Does Not

Inter Press Service
Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily

Read story from website

BAGHDAD, Mar 12 (IPS) - The security conference held last Saturday in Baghdad produced statements, drew mortar fire, and brought little hope of security.

The conference, which was attended by representatives from 13 countries including Syria, Iran and the United States, was held inside the heavily fortified "green zone" in central Baghdad.

Representatives from Iraq's six neighbouring countries (Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Syria) and delegates from the five permanent UN Security Council countries (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France) were present along with several Arab representatives.

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani was reported to have observed the conference on video from his bed at the al-Hussein Medical City in Amman, Jordan.

International media were invited to show that the meeting was intent on bringing security to Iraq. That plan backfired after mortar shells landed within 50 metres of the conference centre, shattering glass panes in the building.

Conflict arose within the conference itself. Iran demanded a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. The United States accused Iran of assisting Shia militias.

"The whole world was there including some resistance fighters who, for the first time, responded to an Iraqi government call to attend a meeting," Yassen Abdul Rahman, a lawyer and anti-occupation activist who attended the conference told IPS.

"The heroes of the resistance were represented by the shower of mortar missiles that broke the glass that separated the conference from the reality of the situation outside."

Iraqis seemed divided over the value of the conference.

"We cannot afford to give up hope," activist on women's issues Ahlam al-Lami told IPS. "Those at that meeting are representatives of the whole world, and they are responsible for bringing back life to us. We might just give them an excuse to escape their responsibility if we say there is no hope."

Others were less optimistic.

"Those who met inside the green zone are so persistent at keeping (Iraqi Prime Minister) Nouri al-Maliki and his gang in power in Iraq that they are polishing their U.S.-made shoes with international wax for a better appearance," health expert Dr. Abdul-Salam al-Janabi told IPS.

Some Iraqi leaders accused the U.S.-backed Iraqi government at the conference of exploiting sectarian and ethnic differences to the advantage of the occupation forces.

"It is the same sectarian picture given once more by the Iraqi government," a senior staff member of the Iraqi ministry of foreign affairs told IPS.

United Iraqi Alliance leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who also leads the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shia group close to Iran, accused some Arab countries of supporting "terrorism."

In a speech before the conference, Hakim attacked Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa who had called on the UN Security Council to support a proposed amendment of the new Iraqi constitution. The amendment move, backed by opposition groups, could lead to a challenge to the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

Mussa had also called for disbanding of the local militias and expansion of political dialogue in order to achieve more balance in Iraq.

The ruling coalition is showing cracks. Hakim's Shia coalition members have developed serious differences in strategies. These led recently to withdrawal of the al-Fadhila Party from the Prime Minister's United Iraqi Alliance. Party leaders quit, citing "faulty sectarian policies."

The move destabilised Iraq's teetering government further.

Many Arab political analysts believe that this conference was yet another attempt by the U.S. administration to buy time in Iraq while it prepares to deal with Iran.

The U.S. military currently has two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region. This is the first time such a force has been positioned there since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

(Ali al-Fadhily is our Baghdad correspondent. Dahr Jamail is our specialist writer who has been covering Iraq and the Middle East for several years.)