Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Thursday, June 01, 2006


The new U.S. atrocity in Iraq, the alleged murder of two dozen Iraqis by revenge-seeking Marines in the city of Haditha, appears likely to follow the course of other Iraq war-crimes cases, such as the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Some low-level and/or mid-level soldiers will be court-martialed and marched off to prison.

George W. Bush will offer some bromides about how the punishment shows that the Unted States honors the rule of law and how the punishment is further proof of America's civilized behavior when compared with the enemy's barbarity. It's also likely the U.S. news media won't pace too much blame on Bush.

But the commn thread from the bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003 through Abu Ghraib to Haditha is that Bush cavalierly sent young Americans into a complex fighting conflict with false and alarmist rhetoric ringing in their ears.

Through clever juxtaposition, Bush's speeches linked Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror ttacks and later blurred the distinction between Iraq's home-grown insurgency and the relatively small number of al-Qaeda terrorists operating in Iraq.

Again and again, in 2002-2003, Bush rhetorically fused the names Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden, as Bush rushed the United States into war. Then, in fall 2005---around the time of the alleged Haditha atrocity on Nov. 19, 2005---Bush was framing the Iraq conflict as a war to stop terrorists from creating "a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia," which would threaten the American mainland.

Though these claims lacked credible intelligence---Hussein and bin-Laden were bitter enemies and al-Qaeda remains a fringe layer in the Muslim world---Bush's message apparently sank in with impressionable young soldiers and Marines trying to understand why they needed to kill Iraqi's.

As a result of Bush's incessant propaganda, a poll of 944 U.S. military personnel in Iraq---taken in January and February 2006---found that 85 percent believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks." Seventy-seven percent said a chief war goal was "to stop Saddam from protecting al-Qaeda in Iraq."

***Our military has really brainwashed these troops. They are still living in 2001!

Bush had not only misled the American public, but he had confused the American troops assigned to carry out the complicated occupation on Iraq, a nation with a history, language and culture foreign to the vast majority of U.S. soldiers. By exaggerating the threat that Iraq posed to the United States, Bush also set the condition for atrocities.

Milosevic Precedent

While every soldier is responsible for his or her own actions in a war, it is the duty of the top levels of the chain of command---including the Commander in Chief---to take every possible precaution to ensure that troops on the ground do not commit war crimes.

***Let's us not forget about Senator Kerry being called a liar, when he testified to the atrocities that were going on in Vietnam, that Bush and his republican cronies always denied! Now it's happening again, on Bush's watch. Everything that Karry said about the war in Vietnam, is a mirror image of what is happening today in both Iraq and Afghanastan. Why was this so unbelievable to the Republicans?

Indeed, commanders and politicians who lay the groundwork for abuses often are held responsible along with the actual perpetrators. The late Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial at the Hague NOT for direct participation in the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the 1990s, but for aiding and abedding the crimes.

Milosevic's violent rhetoric and deceptive propaganda were two factors cited in his indictment. One count alleged that the fiery Serb leader "controlled, manipulated or otherwise utilized Serbian state-run media to spread exaggerated and false messages of ethnically based attacks by Bosnian Muslims and Croats against Serb people intended to create an atmosphere of fear and hatred among Serbs."

In Bush's Iraq case, his legal responsibilty is parallel though the facts are far from incidental. The Yugoslavian conflict was essentially a sectarian civil war which involved ethnic cleansing and massacres.

Bush's Iraq invasion violated international law and longstanding principles, including the Nuremberg ban on aggressive war and a similar prohibition in the United Nations Charter to which the United States was a founding signatory.

In 2002, however, claiming a unilateral American right to invade any country that may pose a threat to U.S. security in the future, Bush took the law into his own hands. He brushed aside requests from allies, even from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to get clearance from the U.S. Security Council before launching the invasion.

Bush and his neoconservative advisers judged that U.S. military preeminence in the post-Cold War world put them beyong the reach of international law---and that public acclaim for a successful conquest of Iraq would silence any remaining critics.

But Bush's actions put U.S. troops in a particularly difficult and dangerous predicament. Not only would the entire U.S. chain of command be implicated in an illegal aggressive war, but there would be fewer legal safeguards in the event civilians were killed, a certainty given the level of firepower.

Though rarely mentioned by the major U.S. news media, this additional danger for U.S. troops was noted by some Internet outlets, including this writer, which published an editorial on March 17, 2003, two days before the invasion, stating:

"If George W. Bush orders U.S. forces to unleash his 'shock and awe' onslaught against Iraq without United Nations sanction, he will be opening American servicemen to a kind of double jeopardy. First, they will be risking their lives in a combat strategy far riskier than is publicly acknowledged. Second, any significant taking of civilian life could leave both officers and enlisted men liable for future war-crimes charges."

Civilian slaughter

Not surprisingly, there were violations of the rules of war from the onset, such as the aerial bombing of a civilian Baghdad restaurant where faulty U.S. intelligence suggested that Hussein might be having dinner.

As it turned out, Hussein was not there, but the attack killed 14 civilians, including seven children. One mother collapsed when rescue workers pulled the severed head of her daughter out of the rubble.

Other U.S. bombings inflicted horrendous death and destruction on civilains. In one attack, Saad Abbas, 34, was wounded, but his family sought to shield him from the greater horror. The bombing had killed his three daughters---Marwa, 11; Tabarek, 8; and Safia, 5---who had been the center of his life.

"It wasn't just ordinary love," his wife said. "He was crazy about them. It wasn't like other fathers." [NYT, April 14, 2003]

The horror of the war was captured, too, in the fate of 12-year-old Ali Ismael Abbas, who lost his two arms when a U.S. missile struck his Baghdad home. Ali's father, Ali's pregnant mother and her siblings were all killed.

As we evacuated a Kuwaiti hospital, becoming a symbol of U.S. compassion for injured Iraqi civilians, Ali said he would rather die than live without his hands.

The slaughter extended to the battlefield where the outmatched Iraqi army sometimes fought heroically though hopelessly against the technologically superior U.S. forces. Christian Science Monitor reporter Scott Tyson interviewed U.S. troops with the 3rd Infantry Division who were deeply troubled by their task of mowing down Iraqi soldiers who kept fighting even in suicidal situations.

"For lack of a better word, I felt almost guilty about the massacre," one soldier said privately. "We wasted a lot of people. It makes you wonder how many were innocent. It takes away some of the pride. We won, but at what cost?"

Commenting upon the annihilation of Iraqi forces in these one-sided battles, Lt. Col. Woody Radcliffe said, "We didn't want to do this. Even a brain-dead moron can understand we are so vastly superior militarily that there is no hope. You would think they would see that and give up."

In one battle around Najaf, U.S. commanders ordered air strikes to kill the Iraqis en masse rather than have U.S. soldiers continue to kill them one by one.

"There were waves and waves of people coming at (the U.S. troops) with AK-47s, out of this factory, and (the U.S. troops) were killing everyone," Radcliffe said. "The commander called and said, 'This is not right. This is insane. Let's hit the factory with close air support and take them out all at once.'" [Christian Science Monitor, April 11, 2003].

Bloody Occupation

Three weeks into the invasion, Hussein's government collapsed, but Bush's short-sighted plan for the occupation left U.S. forces stretched thin as they tried to establish order.

Sometimes, jittery U.S. soldiers opened fire on demonstrations, inflicting civilian casualties and embittering the population. In Fallujah, some 17 Iraqis were gunned down in demonstrations after U.S. soldiers claimed they had been fired upon. Fallujah soon became a center of anti-American resistance.

As the Iraqi insuregency began to spread---and Americans began dying in larger numbers---military intelligence officers encouraged prison guards to soften up captured Iraqis by putting them in stress positions for long periods of time, denying sleep and subjecting them to extremes of hot and cold.

Some of the poorly trained prison personnel---like those on private Lynddie England's night shift as Abu Ghraib---added some of their own bizarre ideas for humiliating captured Iraqis, like forcing them naked into pyramides.

But even some of the strange techniques, such as adorning Iraqi men with women's underwear, could be traced to wider practices against other detainees. Army Capt. Ian Fishback and two sergeants alleged that prisoners were subjected to similat treatments by the 82nd Airborne at a camp near Fallujah and that senior officers knew it.

***This was all ordered from higher-ups! They probably got it from one of their Republican think tanks regarding what would humiliate the Iraqi people after experts took a look at their culture. Most troops don't think like that. They are "taught" that.

Fishback blamed the pattern of abuse on the Bush administration's vague orders about when and how Geneva Convention protection applied to detainees, a problem that extended from the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a network of shadowy U.S. prisons around the world.

***And don't think that the vagueness of these orders weren't done intentionally too by Bush!

"We did not set the conditions for our soldiers to succeed," said Fishback, 26, who served tours in Afghanastan and Iraq. "We failed to set clear standards, communicate those standards and enforce those standards. [NYT, Sept. 28, 2005]

This is the end of part one....


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home