Thursday, June 29, 2006

 

NYT: Bush's Use of Authority Riles Senator

 
 
 
 
 
 
June 28, 2006

Bush's Use of Authority Riles Senator

WASHINGTON, June 27 — Senators on the Judiciary Committee accused President Bush of an "unprecedented" and "astonishing" power grab on Tuesday for making use of a device that gave him the authority to revise or ignore more than 750 laws enacted since he became president.

By using what are known as signing statements, memorandums issued with legislation as he signs it, the president has reserved the right to not enforce any laws he thinks violate the Constitution or national security, or that impair foreign relations.

A lawyer for the White House said that Mr. Bush was only doing his duty to uphold the Constitution. But Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, characterized the president's actions as a declaration that he "will do as he pleases," without regard to the laws passed by Congress.

"There's a real issue here as to whether the president may, in effect, cherry-pick the provisions he likes and exclude the ones he doesn't like," Mr. Specter said at a hearing.

"Wouldn't it be better, as a matter of comity," he said, "for the president to have come to the Congress and said, 'I'd like to have this in the bill; I'd like to have these exceptions in the bill,' so that we could have considered that?"

Mr. Specter and others are particularly upset that Mr. Bush reserved the right to interpret the torture ban passed overwhelmingly by Congress, as well as Congressional oversight powers in the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Michelle Boardman, a deputy assistant attorney general, said the statements were "not an abuse of power."

Rather, Ms. Boardman said, the president has the responsibility to make sure the Constitution is upheld. He uses signing statements, she argued, to "save" statutes from being found unconstitutional. And he reserves the right, she said, only to raise questions about a law "that could in some unknown future application" be declared unconstitutional.

"It is often not at all the situation that the president doesn't intend to enact the bill," Ms. Boardman said.

The fight over signing statements is part of a continuing battle between Congress and the White House. Mr. Specter and many Democrats have raised objections to the administration's wiretapping of phones without warrants from the court set up to oversee surveillance.

Last month, Mr. Specter accused Vice President Dick Cheney of going behind his back to avoid the Judiciary Committee's oversight of surveillance programs.

"Where will it end?" asked Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Where does it stop?"

The bills Mr. Bush has reserved the right to revise or ignore include provisions that govern affirmative action programs, protect corporate whistle-blowers, require executive agencies to collect certain statistics, and establish qualifications for executive appointees.

Senators and two law professors before the panel said that if the president objected to a bill, he should use his power to veto it — something he has not done in his six years in office.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the expansion of executive power would be the "lasting legacy" of the Bush administration. "This new use of signing statements is a means to undermine and weaken the law," she said.

What the president is saying, she added, is "Congress, what you do isn't really important; I'm going to do what I want to do."

Ms. Boardman said the president had inserted 110 statements, which senators said applied to 750 statutes, compared with 30 by President Jimmy Carter. The number has increased, she said, but only marginally, and only because national security concerns have increased since the attacks of Sept. 11 and more laws have been passed. She acknowledged that the increase might be construed as "a lack of good communication" with Congress.

But Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said the committee was making too much of the statements. "It is precedented," he said, "and it's not new."

Senators said they had been expecting a higher-ranking official from the office of legal policy, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, chastised the White House for not sending "anybody who would have authority to speak on this."

"But then, considering the fact that they're using basically an extra-constitutional, extra-judicial step to enhance the power of the president, it's not unusual," he said.


Monday, June 26, 2006

 

NYT: The Road From My Lai

 

June 23, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

The Road From My Lai

Little Rock, Ark.

WHEN I went to war as a junior officer in Iraq 15 years ago, we faced a far different enemy for far less time than today's troops are dealing with — four days back then, into our fourth year now. Yet in those first weeks in the desert before Desert Storm, back when we fully expected Iraq's several armored divisions to drive into Saudi Arabia and crush the two divisions we had on the ground, two soldiers under my command digging a fighting position lost their heads. One pulled a knife on the other. Fortunately, other soldiers pulled them apart.

It's impossible to imagine the frustration and stress on American soldiers in Iraq today — impossible, or maybe it's simply not something we willingly work to imagine. Then the news breaks. My first thought on hearing about the alleged atrocities at Haditha — and of the announcement this week that murder charges are being brought against eight American servicemen for killing an Iraqi civilian at Hamdania in April — was "Duh." If we didn't know this day was coming, we were fools.

I would like to ask those troops accused of war crimes in Iraq what they know about My Lai 4, the site of the most famous American atrocity in Vietnam. In the late 1990's, I did a brief stint in the Army Reserve commanding a company whose job was supporting active-duty basic training units. I recall no mention of My Lai in our classroom instruction.

These days, when I teach a college course on American war literature, My Lai inevitably comes up. Inevitably, a fair number of students raise their hands to be reminded, possibly even introduced, to that dark day in 1968. These young men and women attend a prestigious liberal arts college and probably won't find themselves in places like Haditha or Hamdania. But they should be reasonably expected to know more about American history than their peers whom we do send with guns to Haditha and Hamdania.

I am slightly encouraged by our military's new commitment, announced in the wake of the Haditha reports, to ensure that coalition forces in Iraq receive training in ethics and values. But the cynic in me groans. Not another dull, forgettable one-hour block of instruction on ethics like I endured in my years of officer training. Who needs to be told not to run a bayonet through a baby?

According to Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, such training "should provide comfort to those looking to see if we are a nation that stands on the values we hold dear." With all due respect to the general, does he really think that such training will appease those who believe the Americans at Haditha and Hamdania, and our soldiers and agents elsewhere, are guilty of atrocities? Regardless of the results of official inquiries and courts-martial, the damage has been done. In the Muslim (and much of the non-Muslim) court of opinion, the verdict is already in.

Of course, learning about My Lai is hardly assurance against similarly criminal behavior; no more than graphic images of car accidents prevents reckless driving. And focusing on it today can create other problems. One is that we allow it to become representative, and to prejudice our perceptions of all American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam. The other is that we treat it as singular — an aberration for that war or for any American wars.

We already feel similar tensions regarding the reports out of Iraq. While General Pace assures us that "99.9 percent of the servicemen and servicewomen" are behaving properly and humanely, too many Iraqis report registering no surprise in learning about the alleged atrocities.

So are we saviors or monsters? The truth, as it always does, lives somewhere between. Our military is as thoroughly professional as scrappy guerrilla forces usually are not. But to pretend our soldiers never mistreat others would be a gross lie. After an article in The New York Times Magazine last year about American soldiers accused of drowning an innocent Iraqi and their battalion commander's cover-up, I got an e-mail message from one veteran of the current war that the treatment of that Iraqi differed from the treatment of others only in degree and result, not in kind.

Apologists for My Lai — and presumably future apologists for Iraq atrocities — are quick to lecture: That's war, buddy. You should see what the other guy does. I object to this argument because it smells like rationalization. It permits us to accept the unacceptable. It resists aspiring to a better way. The very idea of "wartime atrocity" is a 20th-century development, the most progressive and hopeful legacy of the world's bloodiest century.

There is hope. I can't imagine a Haditha or Hamdania version of "The Battle Hymn of Lieutenant Calley," a tribute to the officer responsible at My Lai that cracked the Billboard Top 40 in 1971. Its lyrics ran: "Sir, I followed all my orders and I did the best I could. / It's hard to judge the enemy and hard to tell the good. / Yet there's not a man among us who would not have understood."

Despite the calls to prosecute up the chain of command (indeed, up to President Bush himself) for the alleged crimes in Iraq, I sense more collective sympathy with the novelist William Eastlake's remarks to West Point cadets about My Lai, as quoted in the Encyclopedia of American War Literature: "You cannot say after wiping out a village, 'My superior told me to do it.' You're big boys now. Behave yourselves. Don't blame all your sins on General Westmoreland."

Last fall, around the time the Haditha events occurred, another veteran of the current war, a National Guard second lieutenant, confessed to me his war crime. His platoon was searching a home where an Iraqi man was sobbing uncontrollably for the loss of his brother. "Would somebody shut him up?" the lieutenant shouted, throwing in an expletive for good measure.

That was his crime. He cried telling me the story. I think he recognized that he had crossed a line. I think he realized how easily such an outburst can become a shove or a slap, a poke with a rifle muzzle or a kick in the ribs, a gun butt to the head. This man was no weakling; he had risked his life for his men. I respect him immensely for owning up to his remorse and, in the process, in his own small way, raising the standard for wartime behavior. There's hope.

Alex Vernon, an English professor at Hendrix College in Conway, Ark., is the author of the memoir "Most Succinctly Bred."




Sunday, June 25, 2006

 

NYT: Homeland Insecurity



June 25, 2006
'Failed States,' by Noam Chomsky

Homeland Insecurity

THIS latest philippic from Noam Chomsky sets out to overturn every belief about their country Americans hold dear. The self-image of the United States as a beacon of freedom and democracy, lighting the way for the rest of the world, is a lie, Chomsky says, and it always has been. "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy" aims to expose the rot of the shining city on a hill, from its foundations to its steeples.

At the book's center is the avowed American mission to spread democracy throughout the world. Chomsky concedes that, rhetorically at least, this has been the nation's goal since Woodrow Wilson, but he insists the words are utterly at odds with American deeds. In its many foreign interventions, Washington has acted to frustrate the will of the people, often by supporting those engaged in the most chilling violence. The United States has overthrown democratic governments in Iran, Chile, Guatemala "and a long list of others." Elsewhere it has paid lip service to procedural democracy while doing all it could to rig the outcome. There is, Chomsky says, a "rational consistency" to this inconsistency between words and actions. The record shows that the United States does indeed back democracy abroad — "if and only if it is consistent with strategic and economic interests."

These are not, Chomsky insists, the interests of the American people, but of the corporate elite that dominates the country and its policy making. For, he says, the United States is not a democracy, if that word is reserved for a society where the people's will is done.

Take health care. Chomsky has the data to show that the American system is economically inefficient, much costlier than more socialized models abroad and deeply unpopular with a majority of Americans, who are ready to pay for increased government intervention even if that means higher taxes. That democratic majority remains unheard, however, because "the pharmaceutical and financial industries and other private powers are strongly opposed." That is why the mainstream news media, a perennial Chomsky target, say publicly funded health care lacks political support: the majority might back it, but not the people who count.

Chomsky employs the same linguistic deconstruction for media definitions of prosperity. The experts may say the economy is healthy, as it is for the top 1 percent, whose wealth rose by 42 percent from 1983 to 1998. But it is not healthy for the majority, whose wages have stagnated or declined in real terms, nor for those going hungry in America because they cannot afford to buy food.

Much of this will be familiar to veteran Chomsky readers, but in this book he supplies a new twist. What, he asks, is a failed state? It is one that fails "to provide security for the population, to guarantee rights at home or abroad, or to maintain functioning (not merely formal) democratic institutions." On that definition, Chomsky argues, the United States is the world's biggest failed state. This sounds like a hyperbolic charge, ludicrously overblown — but he goes far toward substantiating it. He is especially strong on pointing up Washington's woeful efforts to protect Americans from terror attacks, in one instance lavishing more resources on the imaginary threat from Cuba than on the all-too-real menace of Al Qaeda.

And if a rogue state is defined by its defiance of international law, then the United States, Chomsky says, has long been the rogues' rogue. It has ignored the Geneva Conventions by its treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo and of Iraqi civilians in Falluja; violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty by its development of new weapons when it should be making good-faith efforts to get rid of the old ones; flouted the United Nations Charter, which allows the use of force only when the "necessity of self-defense" is "instant" and "overwhelming," standards hardly met by the 2003 invasion of Iraq; and defied the World Court, which in the 1980's held Washington guilty of "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua, a ruling the United States simply rejected. Scholars like to speak of American exceptionalism, but with Chomsky the phrase takes on new meaning: America exempts itself from the rules it demands for everyone else. This is not a double standard, but flows from what Chomsky, quoting Adam Smith, calls the single standard: the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: . . . All for ourselves, and nothing for other people."

Throughout "Failed States" Chomsky writes in this vein of fierce excoriation. No one is exempt, according to him. The whole system is rotten, including traditional liberal heroes. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy are all faulted for their pursuit of international dominance, from Roosevelt's plans to firebomb Japanese cities more than a year before Pearl Harbor to Kennedy's war in Vietnam. Even the framers of the Constitution are condemned. Chomsky disapprovingly quotes James Madison's insistence that the new Republic should "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." He doesn't much like The New York Times either.

If there is a crumb of comfort for his readers, it is this: Americans are not a uniquely evil people. On the contrary, imperialists throughout history have behaved in the same way, from the Greeks to the British, always telling themselves they were driven by noble purpose — even as their elites wreaked havoc for their own material gain.

There are flaws in this book. It is dense, with almost every paragraph broken up by extensive quotations. And it is unrelenting, the invective interrupted only by the occasional flash of bitter wit. Like any polemicist, Chomsky is selective in his material: for example, he cites rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court that have injured Palestinians rights, but ignores those that have respected them.

Too often Chomsky fails to cast those outside the United States as active moral agents in their own right. He argues, with justification, that the American invasion of Iraq has unleashed a wave of terrorism in that country — but he has little interest in the bombers and beheaders themselves. Their actions are merely the inevitable products of decisions taken in Washington. He is also too airily dismissive of liberal interventionists, those who would like to see American power deployed to thwart genocide; in Chomsky's eyes, they are mere patsies for imperialism.

Similarly, his view of politics can be too mechanistic; sometimes he writes as if whole national debates are mere staged distractions, planned by the powers that be. And while he spends 260-odd pages presenting his critique, he offers only two paragraphs of solutions (an imbalance, it should be said, he is aware of).

Still, maybe it's sufficient for a prophet to tell the people they are in a wilderness; he shouldn't be expected to point the exact way out. Chomsky's ambitions, after all, are high enough. It's hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light.

Jonathan Freedland is an editorial page columnist for The Guardian of London.



Saturday, June 24, 2006

 

NYT: Fear Invades a Once-Comfortable Iraqi Enclave

 

 

 

"If the Americans want to destroy Iraq, they are on the right path,"

    
Fear Invades an Iraqi Enclave
Joao Silva for The New York Times

A guard outside shuttered shops in the once prosperous Mansour neighborhood in Baghdad, where violence has surged in recent months.

June 24, 2006

Fear Invades a Once-Comfortable Iraqi Enclave

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 23 — Mansour is Baghdad's Upper East Side. It has fancy pastry shops, jewelry stores, a designer furniture boutique and an elite social club.

But it is no longer the address everyone wants.

In the past two months, insurgents have come to Mansour to gun down a city councilman, kidnap four Russian Embassy workers, shoot a tailor dead in his shop and bomb a pastry shop.

Now, Mansour, a religiously mixed area just three miles from the fortified Green Zone, feels more like wartime Beirut than Park Avenue, and its affluent residents worry that the wave of violence that has devoured large swaths of Baghdad has begun encroaching on them.

"It's falling to the terrorists," said Hasaneen F. Mualla, director of the Hunting Club, Mansour's social center. "They are coming nearer to us now. No one is stopping them."

For most of the past six months, Iraq drifted without a government and its security forces largely stood by and watched at crucial moments, like the one in February when Shiite militias killed Sunnis after the bombing of a sacred shrine.

Now, as Iraqi leaders in the Green Zone savor their recent successes — the naming of the first full-term government since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraq's most wanted guerrilla leader — Iraqis outside its walls are more frightened than ever. Neighborhood after neighborhood in western Baghdad has fallen to insurgents, with some areas bordering on anarchy. Bodies lie on the streets for hours. Trash is no longer collected. Children are home-schooled.

The paralysis that shut down life in western Baghdad is creeping ever closer to the heart of the city, and Iraqis in still-livable areas are frantic for the government to halt its advance, something the new leadership pledged to do when it started its new security plan for Baghdad last week.

"It's like a cancer, spreading from area to area," said a guard at Delta Communications, a Mansour cellphone shop that has been shuttered since a bomb blast in front of it last month.

Mansour is an area of stately homes, elaborately trimmed hedges and people who can afford guards. In recent weeks, that has not seemed to matter. Homemade bombs have struck two sport utility vehicles belonging to the former Iraqi exile leader, Ahmad Chalabi, a Mansour resident, twice in the past month. Gangs have kidnapped the United Arab Emirates ambassador and the Russian Embassy workers, whom Al Qaeda claimed to have killed this week. The Hunting Club now tells wedding parties to bring guards.

"These middle- and upper-class families, these guys are not willing to fight," one resident said. "It's like cutting into butter."

The neighborhood has long been tormented by kidnappings; criminal gangs know where the money is. But the violence in the past two months feels more commonplace, and in many ways more relentless, aimed broadly at businesses and neighborhood mainstays.

One victim was the Khassaki Sweet Shop, a fixture on Mansour Street since the 1980's, famous for its plump baklava, candied almonds and cream-filled honey rolls displayed behind a sparkling glass storefront. On May 28, a teenager placed a bag in front of the shop, and moments later it exploded, shattering glass, scattering pastries, and sending a large chunk of shrapnel flying over the head of the cashier.

Earlier this month, workers were building an ugly brick protective wall in front of the shop. A small piece of cloth that read "open" hung above the gaping entrance.

"Ruined! Destroyed!" the owner said angrily. "It's not a first-class shop anymore."

The owner, who refused to give his name, blamed the Americans for the security troubles, an opinion expressed by many in Mansour — Shiite and Sunni alike.

"If the Americans want to destroy Iraq, they are on the right path," said the owner, a Shiite, who stood scowling behind a candy counter. He displayed a pistol jammed in his waistband. "If they can't improve things, they should just leave us alone."

A man waiting in line disagreed: "But not now, we're still in a mess."

The owner shook his head in disgust.

Residents of Mansour have good reason to be afraid. The wave of insurgent crime has already sunk neighborhoods in western Baghdad into anarchy. In Dawra, it is impossible to collect the bodies of the murdered because of sniper fire.

Ali Aziz, a Shiite, had to hastily load the body of his friend into the back of a pickup in Dawra in late April, after the police refused to respond to pleas from the man's widow. He waited until he had reached the safety of a police station to put the body in a coffin.

"There is no government there," said a computer programmer who moved earlier this month from another western Baghdad neighborhood, Amiriya, after four murders on his block. "I want to go to my home, to bring some clothes, but I can't go there. My own country, my own home, and I can't go there."

In Mansour, by contrast, life has not shut down entirely, but has slowed from a bustle to a trickle. An internal American Embassy security document, recently posted on the Internet by The Washington Post, quoted an Iraqi employee who had said Mansour was "an unrecognizable ghost town."

Threats have closed a number of shops on Mansour Street, and the emptiness in the early afternoon is palpable. Earlier this month, two jewelry shop owners were sitting in the back room of a house in the afternoon, watching a World Cup soccer game. Just days before, they had shut their shops when they received telephone calls from a man threatening to bomb them if they did not pay money. It was the day, coincidentally, that Mr. Zarqawi was killed.

"I thought it was one of my friends joking," said one owner, Omar, who declined to give his last name. He later checked the phone number with a friend, who said he had received three calls from the same number. Omar never considered going to the police.

Now he barely recognizes his life. He washes his car, and goes shopping. He naps in the middle of the day. He is losing about $500 every day he keeps the store closed.

Some shop owners said insurgents had told Shiite merchants to take down pictures of Shiite saints, but Omar scoffed at the idea that the threats, which have closed down a number of businesses, had mostly sectarian motives.

"It's all about money," he said, the Dutch and Serbian soccer teams flashing on the screen behind him. "The pictures are just an excuse."

Fatalism and dark humor infuse conversations around dinner tables and among friends in Mansour.

"Someone was wearing shorts, and someone else said, 'Well, at least we know that when Zarqawi's people arrive, you'll be the first one they grab,' " one foreign resident said, because such dress might seem immodest.

Even so, Iraqis expressed some hope that the new government's security program would produce meaningful results. Last week, a smiling Iraqi Army soldier stood waving cars by a makeshift checkpoint near Mr. Chalabi's compound, across from the Hunting Club. Mr. Mualla, the club's director, said the area had been quiet since the program began.

A major problem is the state itself. With the central government weak, powerful Iraqis — rich men, political leaders, tribal sheiks — manipulate it with ease, using their influence to enlist Iraqi police officers and soldiers to do their bidding. Smaller-time criminals buy uniforms. As a result, it can be all but impossible to differentiate between criminals and official forces.

Consider the case of Iraqna, one of the country's largest cellphone providers, whose shop in Mansour was raided in early April by about 10 Iraqis in army uniforms. The soldiers — or criminals dressed to look like them, or some combination of the two — locked 60 employees on two floors in a room, rummaged through drawers and took phones and wallets. Two Iraqis were killed.

Company executives are still puzzling over whether the forces were legitimate government ones (none have admitted to it) or thieves dressed as soldiers. Alain Sainte-Marie, the company's chief executive, said he had filed a criminal complaint in court to force the state to get to the bottom of what happened.

"Witnesses said it was a raid done by official troops," Mr. Sainte-Marie said, in the company's elegant headquarters with a spiral staircase in a fortified area of Mansour. "To tell you frankly, the way that it happened, I still have doubts."

The branch is now closed, and Mr. Sainte-Marie is reviewing new security plans. For aesthetic reasons, he has balked at suggestions for giant chunks of concrete.

"It has to stay friendly," he said. "I won't accept it to look like a bunker."

Mr. Mualla, the Hunting Club director, sips ice-cold water in his renovated office in the back of the club and worries. Business — receptions and banquets — is down by about half over the past two months. Weddings are now booked just a week in advance, not a month.

"I'm tired," he said. "I'm very tired of controlling the situation. Nobody is helping me."

Hosham Hussein and Sahar Nageeb contributed reporting for this article.


Friday, June 23, 2006

 

NYT: For Diehards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over + NYT: Officials Discuss Report on Munitions



 
Allison V. Smith for The New York Times

Dave Gaubatz with an Iraq flag at his home in Denton, Tex. He has identified four sites where chemical weapons are said to be buried.

 
June 23, 2006

For Diehards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over

WASHINGTON, June 22 — The United States government abandoned the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq long ago. But Dave Gaubatz has never given up.

Mr. Gaubatz, an earnest, Arabic-speaking investigator who spent the first months of the war as an Air Force civilian in southern Iraq, has said he has identified four sites where residents said chemical weapons were buried in concrete bunkers.

The sites were never searched, he said, and he is not going to let anyone forget it.

"I just don't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands," Mr. Gaubatz, of Denton, Tex., said.

For the last year, he has given his account on talk radio programs, in Congressional offices and on his Web site, which he introduced last month with, "A lone American battles politicians to locate W.M.D."

Some politicians are outspoken allies in Mr. Gaubatz's cause. He is just one of a vocal and disparate collection of Americans, mostly on the political right, whose search for Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons continues.

More than a year after the White House, at considerable political cost, accepted the intelligence agencies' verdict that Mr. Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990's, these Americans have an unshakable faith that the weapons continue to exist.

The proponents include some members of Congress. Two Republicans, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania held a news conference on Wednesday to announce that, as Mr. Santorum put it, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.

Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said.

Such official statements are unlikely to settle the question for the believers, some of whom have impressive credentials. They include a retired Air Force lieutenant general, Thomas G. McInerney, a commentator on the Fox News Channel who has broadcast that weapons are in three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.

"I firmly believe that, and everything I learn makes my belief firmer," said Mr. McInerney, who retired in 1994. "I'm amazed that the mainstream media hasn't picked this up."

Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.

"And we think we know which ship," Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.

The weapons hunters hold fast to the administration's original justification for the war, as expressed by the president three days before the bombing began in 2003. There was "no doubt," Mr. Bush said in an address to the nation, "that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

The weapons hunters were encouraged in February when tapes of Mr. Hussein's talking with top aides about his arsenal were released at the Intelligence Summit, a private gathering in northern Virginia of 600 former spies, former military officers and hobbyists.

"We reopened the W.M.D. question in a big way," said John Loftus, organizer of the conference.

In March, under Congressional pressure, National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte began posting on the Web thousands of captured Iraqi documents. Some intelligence officials opposed the move, fearing a free-for-all of amateur speculation and intrigue.

But the weapons hunters were heartened and began combing the documents for clues.

Mr. Gaubatz, 47, now chief investigator for the Dallas County medical examiner, said he knew some people might call him a kook.

"I don't care about being embarrassed," he said, spreading snapshots, maps and notebooks documenting his findings across the dining room table in an interview at his house. "I only brought this up when the White House said the hunt for W.M.D. was over."

Last week, Mr. Gaubatz achieved a victory. He presented his case to officers from the Defense Intelligence Agency in Dallas. The meeting was scheduled after the intervention of Mr. Hoekstra and Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Weldon spoke with Mr. Gaubatz last month in a lengthy conference call.

Mr. Hoekstra "has said on many occasions that we need to know what happened to Saddam's W.M.D.," his spokesman, Jamal Ware, said. Mr. Hoekstra "is determined to make sure that we get the postwar intelligence right," Mr. Ware added.

The authoritative postwar weapons intelligence was gathered by the Iraq Survey Group, whose 1,200 members spent more than a year searching suspected chemical, biological and nuclear sites and interviewing Iraqis.

The final report of the group, by Charles A. Duelfer, special adviser on Iraqi weapons to the C.I.A., concluded that any stockpiles had been destroyed long before the war and that transfers to Syria were "unlikely."

"We did not visit every inch of Iraq," Mr. Duelfer said in an interview. "That would have been impossible. We did not check every rumor that came along."

But he said important officials in Mr. Hussein's government, with every incentive to win favor with the Americans by exposing stockpiles, convinced him that the weapons were gone.

Mr. Duelfer said he remained open to new evidence.

"I've seen lots of good-hearted people who thought they saw something," he said. "But none of the reports have panned out."

The hunt clearly appeals to the sleuth in Mr. Gaubatz, who was in the Air Force for 23 years, much of it investigating murder, drug and other criminal cases for the Office of Special Investigations. He retired in 1999 and worked as an investigator for Target, the retail chain, but soon returned to the investigations agency as a civilian.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Mr. Gaubatz spent a year learning Arabic and in February 2003 was sent to Saudi Arabia and then Iraq after the war began.

Stationed near Nasiriya, he and a colleague headed out in a utility vehicle at 6 a.m. and spent their days talking with anyone they saw — Bedouin tribesmen, farmers, hospital workers, former military officers, police officers and city bureaucrats.

Eventually, by his account, Iraqis led him to four places where they said they thought that chemical weapons were hidden in underground bunkers or, in one case, under the Euphrates River.

"We were very excited," he recalled. "We could hardly wait to get back and do our reports."

An official of the investigating agency who was granted anonymity to discuss a former employee said Mr. Gaubatz was known as "a gung-ho, good agent."

When the sites identified to him were not searched, he said, he called the 75th Exploitation Task Force every other day, and later the Iraq Survey Group, pleading with whoever answered to send a team with heavy digging equipment.

He recalled: "They'd say, 'We're in a combat zone. We don't have the people or the equipment.' "

His informants grew angry. "They said, 'We risked our lives and our families to help you, and nothing's happened,' " Mr. Gaubatz recounted.

He was disillusioned.

"I didn't imagine it would be a battle to get them to search," he said. "One of the primary reasons for going into combat was the W.M.D."

Mr. Gaubatz came home in mid-July 2003, and settled in with his wife, Lorrie, a teacher, and their daughter, Miranda, 7. He continued to lobby for searches, but his Iraqi informers and Air Force colleagues have told him that there were no searches, he said.

At his two meetings last week with officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency — meetings that the agency confirms occurred but will not otherwise discuss — he reviewed satellite photographs of the supposed weapons sites with the officers.

"They're very interested," he said.

Yet, he added, "I'm still afraid they might not follow through."

He has revised his Web site to put the nation on notice. "My Web site will remain open," he wrote, "until the sites are searched."

 

---------

 

June 23, 2006

Officials Discuss Report on Munitions

WASHINGTON, June 22 — An unclassified summary of an Army report released to Congress on Wednesday and discussed further by intelligence officials on Thursday says that since 2003 allied forces in Iraq have recovered "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent."

Intelligence officials who briefed reporters on Thursday and who were granted anonymity provided these details of the findings:

¶All the chemical weapons found to date were manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and have been found in "small numbers" in various places.

¶The munitions are "generally in poor condition" and "are not in condition to be used as designed."

¶Nonetheless, the projectiles contain chemicals that could be dangerous or even lethal to small numbers of people if incorporated in an improvised explosive device or released by other means.

¶Insurgents have publicly expressed the desire to use chemical weapons and could conceivably acquire such aged shells on the black market.

The officials said military and intelligence agencies had no evidence of unconventional weapons produced in Iraq after 1991 or of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons that President Bush and other top administration officials cited as a potential threat in justifying the invasion in 2003.


Thursday, June 22, 2006

 

USA Today: Revived Taliban waging 'full-blown insurgency'

 

 

 

U.S. soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, carry military equipment, in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan.


Revived Taliban waging 'full-blown insurgency'

Updated 6/20/2006 9:52 AM ET

 

PANJWAI DISTRICT, Afghanistan — In their biggest show of strength in nearly five years, pro-Taliban fighters are terrorizing southern Afghanistan — ambushing military patrols, assassinating opponents and even enforcing the law in remote villages where they operate with near impunity.

"We are faced with a full-blown insurgency," says Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia.

Four and a half years after they overthrew the Islamic militia that had controlled much of Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces have been forced to ramp up the battle to stabilize this impoverished, shattered country. More than 10,000 U.S., Canadian, British and Afghan government troops are scouring southern and eastern Afghanistan in a campaign called Operation Mountain Thrust.

Even before fighting heated up this spring, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, warned Congress that the insurgents "represent a greater threat" to the pro-U.S. government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai "than at any point since late 2001."

More than 500 people — mostly insurgents — have died since mid-May in the fiercest fighting since the fall of the Taliban regime. Since Operation Enduring Freedom began in October 2001, more than 300 U.S. troops have died, 165 of them killed in action. NATO's 36-country International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has lost 60.

Despite the damage they can do, the insurgents do not have enough support to topple Karzai, who was elected two years ago and enjoys international support. "We are not in a situation yet where the Karzai government is threatened," says Joanna Nathan, Afghan analyst for the International Crisis Group, a non-profit research organization. But in places where they are strong, the insurgents have been able to harass government operations and relief efforts — so much so that reconstruction has come to a virtual standstill in the south and east.

"It is hurting us," says Afghan Finance Minister Anwar ul-Haq Ahady. "We build a school, and they come and they burn it. We build a clinic, and they come and burn it. We build a bridge, and they knock it down. Security is the No. 1 issue."

Fears of new 'training camp'

The fear is that an ungovernable Afghanistan will revert to what it was before the overthrow of the Taliban: a failed state that can spread instability across Central Asia and be used as a launchpad for international terrorism. "If the Taliban get their way, Afghanistan will again become a training camp for terrorists," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told CBC, Canada's public broadcaster, this month.

The influence of the fundamentalist Islamic militia is obvious in Panjwai district, in the heart of Taliban country. Villagers in this dry, dusty plain 15 miles west of Kandahar say they are trapped between the Taliban and the U.S. and Afghan troops hunting them. If they cooperate with the coalition or with the Afghan government, they risk Taliban reprisals.

Just outside Makuan village here, Noor Mohammed, deputized as a security guard at a radio tower, goes to work in plainclothes. "If I wear a uniform, they will kill me," he tells Canadian army Capt. Jonathan Snyder, 24, who is patrolling the area two days after a Canadian convoy was ambushed nearby. Snyder is exasperated: "You shouldn't fear for your life," he tells the frightened man. "They should be fearing for their lives because of you."

The insurgency is a loose alliance of Taliban guerrillas, followers of former prime minister and fundamentalist warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, al-Qaeda terrorists recruited from across the Islamic world, opium traffickers and local fighters whose murky motives are rooted in tribal politics.

Taliban commander Mullah Dadallah told al-Jazeera television last month that the insurgents can call on 12,000 fighters. In an interview, Taliban leader Naseeruddin Haqqani says there also are hundreds of suicide bombers. The Taliban's claims probably are exaggerated, Rashid says, but they can draw on hundreds of fighters.

The insurgency began a few months after U.S.-led forces drove the Taliban out of the Afghan capital, Kabul, in November 2001. It became more effective two years ago, when insurgents switched to new tactics, including breaking up into small groups of 10 fighters or less, attacking "soft" civilian targets and limiting head-on confrontations with coalition and Afghan troops.

Like their counterparts in Iraq, the insurgents use the Internet to pick up tips on making roadside bombs, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, has said. They increasingly rely on suicide bombers. Writing in The New York Review of Books this month, Rashid noted 40 suicide attacks in the past nine months vs. five in the previous five years.

Franchising terror

Insurgent leaders — such as Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Mohammed Omar; Jalaluddin Haqqani, father of Naseeruddin Haqqani; and Hekmatyar, who heads the radical Islamic Hizb-i-Islami group — "do not exert power the way a military general does," Seth Jones, an analyst for the California-based think tank RAND Corp., wrote in the spring edition of the journal Survival. Instead, they leave "tactical and operational" control to local cells, "which act as franchises."

Al-Qaeda, which supports the insurgency with training, supplies and occasionally manpower, operates much the same way.

The loose alliance opposed to the Karzai government and the U.S.-led reconstruction of Afghanistan has gained strength because:

• The insurgents have found sanctuary in Pakistan, "fairly brazenly" staying "beyond the reach of Afghan and international security forces," Nathan says. Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), supported the Taliban against rival Afghan factions when the fundamentalist movement formed in the mid-1990s. Pakistan's military regime wants to counter the separatist instincts of Pashtun tribesmen who live in both countries. The government's pro-Taliban policy changed under U.S. pressure after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Rashid says Pakistan has done nothing to eliminate Taliban forces operating openly out of Baluchistan, a Pakistani province opposite southern Afghanistan. The reason, he says, is that the Baluchistan insurgents are "pure Taliban" — remnants of the ISI-supported fundamentalist regime that ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. The insurgents based in Waziristan, by contrast, include many foreign jihadi fighters and members of al-Qaeda — fighters the United States has pressured Pakistan to pursue. "That suited the Pakistanis quite well," Rashid says.

• Ordinary Afghans won't risk their lives to support Karzai's government, which many view as weak and corrupt. Afghanistan's problem is "not necessarily the strong enemy," Eikenberry said in Washington last month. "It's the very weak institutions of the state."

The government also is widely seen as corrupt and dominated by warlords linked to the bloody civil war during the 1990s. "Day by day, corruption, bribery and narcotics go up," says Noor ul-Haq Ulumi, a member of the Afghan parliament from Kandahar. "Weak governors we have every place. They think only about their benefit, not their country's benefit."

• The United States and its allies have scrimped on money and manpower, critics say. Rashid says Iraq has distracted the United States from the difficult tasks of subduing the Taliban and rebuilding Afghanistan. "For Afghanistan, the results have been too few Western troops, too little money and a lack of coherent strategy," Rashid wrote in The New York Review of Books.

According to RAND, international aid to Afghanistan equals $57 per person, compared with $679 in Bosnia and $206 in Iraq. RAND also found that Afghanistan has one soldier for every 1,000 people vs. seven in Iraq, 19 in Bosnia and 20 in Kosovo. RAND's Jones reckons Afghanistan needs 200,000 Afghan and foreign troops and police officers to establish order. The country has about 120,000.

Insurgents test the resolve of NATO forces in the process of taking over combat responsibility from U.S. forces in southern Afghanistan. The incoming NATO commander, British Lt. Gen. David Richards, insists NATO forces "will deal most robustly" with insurgents.

Rashid says the rules of engagement are "incredibly unclear."

"They bifurcate NATO into countries that will fight and countries that won't fight, and that's a dangerous thing," Rashid says.

The insurgents are eager to bloody the NATO newcomers, to find out which ones will fight and to target those that won't. "This is a testing time, a transition time, and is likely to be messy," Nathan says.

Insurgents "are betting that the West doesn't have the political will to remain in Afghanistan for the long run," Jones wrote. "Proving them wrong is the key challenge."

Sending troops to back Karzai's government and keeping them there is "a sacrifice worth making," Nathan says. "Sept. 11 demonstrated what happened last time the international community abandoned Afghanistan."

Contributing: Zafar M. Sheikh in Islamabad, Pakistan; wire reports

Posted 6/19/2006 11:31 PM ET
Updated 6/20/2006 9:52 AM ET

 

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

 

NYT: Detainees in Despair

     


 

 
June 14, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Detainees in Despair

Lyon, France

I WAS released from the United States military's prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in July 2004. As I was about to board a plane that would take me home to France, the last detainee I saw was a young Yemeni. He was overwhelmed by emotion.

"In your country, Mourad, there are rights, human rights, and they mean something," he said. "In mine they mean nothing, and no one cares. So when you're free, don't forget what you've been through. Tell people that we are here."

I now know that this Yemeni was not among the three prisoners who committed suicide at Guantánamo last weekend, but since then his words have been echoing in my head. Although I'm now a free man, the shared pain endlessly takes me back to the camp.

In the early summer of 2001, when I was 19, I made the mistake of listening to my older brother and going to Afghanistan on what I thought was a dream vacation. His friends, he said, were going to look after me. They did — channeling me to what turned out to be a Qaeda training camp. For two months, I was there, trapped in the middle of the desert by fear and my own stupidity.

As soon as my time was up, I headed home. I was a few miles from the Pakistani border when I learned with horror about the attacks of 9/11. Days later, the border was sealed off, and the only way through to Pakistan and a plane to Europe was across the mountains of the Hindu Kush. I was with a group of people who were all going the same way. No one was armed; most of them, like me, had been lured to Afghanistan by a misguided and mistimed sense of adventure, and were simply trying to make their way home.

I was seized by the Pakistani Army while having tea at a mosque shortly after I managed to cross the border. A few days later I was delivered to the United States Army: although I didn't know it at the time, I was now labeled an "enemy combatant." It did not matter that I was no one's enemy and had never been on a battlefield, let alone fought or aimed a weapon at anyone.

After two weeks in the American military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, I was sent to Guantánamo, where I spent two and a half years. I cannot describe in just a few lines the suffering and the torture; but the worst aspect of being at the camp was the despair, the feeling that whatever you say, it will never make a difference.

You repeat yourself over and over again to interrogators from the military intelligence, the F.B.I., the C.I.A. The first time you hear "Your case is being processed," your heart, seizing on the hopeful possibilities in those words, skips a beat. After months of disappointment, you try to develop an immunity to hope, but hope is an incurable disease.

I remember once an interrogator warming me up during several sessions for a polygraph test I was going to take, that was, according to him, infallible. After I took the test, I was left alone in the interrogation room; an hour later, the interrogator returned. "Congratulations," he said grimly. "You have passed the test." And he gave me a box of candy.

In the outside world, I thought, the difference between telling the truth and lying, between committing a crime and not committing it, is the difference between being in jail and being free. In Guantánamo, it is a box of candy.

I was eventually released and I will go on trial next month in Paris to face charges that I've never denied, that I spent two months in the Qaeda camp. I have a court date, I'm facing a judge, and I have a lawyer, unimaginable luxuries in Guantánamo. I didn't know the three detainees who died, but it is easy for me to see how this daily despair and uncertainty could lead to suicide.

During my captivity, I saw many acts of individual rebellion, from screaming to hunger strikes and suicide attempts. "They are smart, they are creative, they are committed," said Rear Adm. Harry Harris, who commands the camp. "They have no regard for life, neither ours nor their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us."

I am a quiet Muslim — I've never waged war, let alone an asymmetrical one. I wasn't anti-American before and, miraculously, I haven't become anti-American since. In Guantánamo, I did see some people for whom jihad is life itself, people whose minds are distorted by extremism and whose souls are full of hatred. But the huge majority of the faces I remember — the ones that haunt my nights — are of desperation, suffering, incomprehension turned into silent madness.

I believe that a small number of the detainees at Guantánamo are guilty of criminal acts, but as analysis of the military's documents on the prisoners has shown, there is no evidence that most of the 465 or so men there have committed hostile acts against the United States or its allies. Even so, what I heard so many times resounding from cage to cage, what I said myself so many times in my moments of complete despondency, was not, "Free us, we are innocent!" but "Judge us for whatever we've done!" There is unlimited cruelty in a system that seems to be unable to free the innocent and unable to punish the guilty.

Mourad Benchellali has written a book about his experience in a Qaeda camp andat Guantánamo Bay, with Antoine Audouard, who assisted in the writing of this article and translated it from the French.



Monday, June 19, 2006

 

Michael Berg: Father's Day Reflections on a Lost Son

 
Father's Day Reflections on a Lost Son...

Of all of the holidays a grieving father can be confronted with after the death of his child, Father's Day is for me the most difficult.

My son Nick died in Iraq on May 7, 2004. He is buried next to my father, who had died just a year and a half before. That is not the way its supposed to be. Im supposed to go somewhere between my father and my son. My mother is on the other side of my father, and my mothers parents are nearby. My proud immigrant grandparents died first, then my parents died many years later. That is the way it is supposed to be.

I want to make sure no father suffers the loss of their son or daughter in Iraq or a future illegal war of aggression. I urge all those who oppose the military occupation of Iraq and do not want to see future wars of choice to sign the Voters' Pledge at www.VotersForPeace.US. Nearly fifty thousand people have already signed. It will let politicians know that we will not support pro-war candidates in the future.

There is a lot else going on that is not the way it is supposed to be. Our leaders are not supposed to lie to us. Yet that is precisely what George Bush and company have done. They told us to beware of weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and Al Qaeda infiltration of Iraq. We now know these were all lies, yet still my son and the loved ones of 150,000 other grieving souls lost their lives because of them.

I have no excuse. Though I doubted the veracity of George Bushs words, I did too little too late.

My son Nick was an independent contractor, not associated with Haliburton, Bechtel, Lockheed-Martin, or the U.S. military. Nick was murdered in retaliation for the atrocities committed at the Abu Ghraib prison: murders, rapes, and torture of Iraqi citizens. Though Donald Rumsfeld says he took responsibility for those atrocities, no consequences were felt by him, but they were by my son and everyone who loved him. George Bush ordered Alberto Gonzalez to rewrite definitions of torture essentially ordering these sins, and he did so with impunity. This is not the way its supposed to be either.

Nick was arrested by George Bushs military without reason and then illegally detained for thirteen days. While he was in custody, the revelations of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal became public. These revelations ignited the resistance in Iraq and made it impossible for Nick to get home alive. When Nick did arrive home, it was to the military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, a base from which I and all other loved ones of the invisible deceased are barred. This is not the way its supposed to be either.

We learn more and more of the truth of what is happening in Iraq every day. We learn what is happening to America and our allies as a result of the voters of these United States electing the wrong men and women: unjustifiable wars, the undermining of vital social programs, willful neglect of the maintenance of the infrastructure of our nation, and dangerous "ignorance" of climate change that could result in unprecedented disaster. This is the legacy of these leaders. Neither of the two largest political parties in this country are doing anything to make things the way they are supposed be.

On March 17, 2006, I joined many others, both conservatives and liberals, in taking the first steps to put things right. I had the honor to be the first person to sign the Voters Pledge for Peace.

The Voters' Pledge on the Voters for Peace website is a project comprising many of the major organizations in the antiwar movementUnited for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Gold Star Families for Peace, Code Pink, and Democracy Risingas well as groups with broader agendas like the National Organization for Women, Progressive Democrats of America, AfterDowningStreet.com, and magazines including the American Conservative and the Nation. The goal of this coalition is to build a base of antiwar voters that cannot be ignored by anyone running for office in the United States. We want millions of voters to sign the pledge and say no to pro-war candidates.

You can help right now by visiting www.VotersForPeace.US and immediately signing the Voters' Pledge, which states:

I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign.

And after you sign it, send it to everyone you know and urge them to do the same. Together we can change the path of the United States and move ourselves in a new direction toward the way its supposed to be, so that all fathers, all mothers, all Americans will be able to face the next Father's Day, Mother's Day, and Independence Day with the pride these holidays deserve.





Sunday, June 18, 2006

 

NYT: For Iraqis, Exodus to Syria and Jordan Continues



 
Joao Silva for The New York Times

The passport office in Baghdad has been inundated with applicants, as Iraqis seek safety from the violence.

 
June 14, 2006
Refugees

For Iraqis, Exodus to Syria and Jordan Continues

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 13 — In one of the first comprehensive tallies of Iraqis fleeing Iraq since the American-led invasion, an American refugee advocacy group has counted 644,500 Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan in 2005.

The figure, provided by the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, a nongovernmental group based in Washington, is equal to about 2.5 percent of Iraq's population, and substantiates the overwhelming evidence of an exodus that has been accumulating in Iraqi passport offices and airline waiting rooms in recent months.

It was part of a survey of refugees around the world that was conducted by the committee and was scheduled for release on Wednesday. The number includes Iraqis who have been in Syria and Jordan since the invasion in 2003 but had not previously been counted as refugees, and those who arrived over the course of 2005.

The committee has counted Iraqi refugees in the past, but the most recent figure is by far the largest to date — more than triple the 213,000 recorded in 2004 — and the first big surge since the American invasion. At first, Iraqis living abroad began returning home. But as the war became increasingly deadly, more Iraqis chose to leave.

In all, as of the end of 2005, 889,000 Iraqis have moved abroad as refugees since 2003, according to the group's tally, more than double the 366,000 counted at the end of 2004.

"It's the biggest new flow of refugees in the world," said Lavinia Limón, the committee's president.

The survey bases its count on figures from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other sources, including local nongovernmental organizations and embassies. For that reason, the group considers its count more detailed than that of the United Nations, which offered a rough tally of 2.7 million Iraqis, including 1 million who fled under Saddam Hussein and another 1.2 million who left their homes but remained in Iraq.

In Baghdad, evidence of the departures abounds. Faris al-Douri, a travel agency director, said on Tuesday that airline tickets are booked weeks in advance, and that airlines have added flights to Jordan and Syria. Passport offices are packed.

"As if we were giving out cars, not passports," said Maj. Gen. Yassen al-Yassiry, director of passports for the Iraqi government.

The government issued two million passports from July 2004 to the end of 2005, he said. Some of those were for Iraqis taking holidays, but many were for migration. The government does not track the numbers of citizens leaving for abroad.

The roads to Syria and Jordan, the two most common destinations for Iraqis fleeing the war, are fraught with dangers. Monkath Abdul Razzaq, a middle-class Sunni Arab headed to Syria, watched dolefully as thieves plucked $11,000 from a hiding place in his car. Assad Bahjat, a Christian, also reported being held up on the road to Syria, after waiting for a gun battle to cease near the volatile city of Ramadi.

"Wherever we are, we thank God for every day," Mr. Bahjat said in an e-mail message after reaching the heavily Christian town of Sednaia, "because we are alive and not dead."

Sahar Nageeb contributed reporting for this article.



Thursday, June 15, 2006

 

NYT: War and Other People's Children



May 29, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Consider the Living

Pretty soon this war in Iraq will have lasted as long as our involvement in World War II, with absolutely no evidence of any sort of conclusion in sight.

The point of Memorial Day is to honor the service and the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in the nation's wars. But I suggest that we take a little time today to consider the living.

Look around and ask yourself if you believe that stability or democracy in Iraq — or whatever goal you choose to assert as the reason for this war — is worth the life of your son or your daughter, or your husband or your wife, or the co-worker who rides to the office with you in the morning, or your friendly neighbor next door.

Before you gather up the hot dogs and head out to the barbecue this afternoon, look in a mirror and ask yourself honestly if Iraq is something you would be willing to die for.

There is no shortage of weaselly politicians and misguided commentators ready to tell us that we can't leave Iraq — we just can't. Chaos will ensue. Maybe even a civil war. But what they really mean is that we can't leave as long as the war can continue to be fought by other people's children, and as long as we can continue to put this George W. Bush-inspired madness on a credit card.

Start sending the children of the well-to-do to Baghdad, and start raising taxes to pay off the many hundreds of billions that the war is costing, and watch how quickly this tragic fiasco is brought to an end.

At an embarrassing press conference last week, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain looked for all the world like a couple of hapless schoolboys who, while playing with fire, had set off a conflagration that is still raging out of control. Their recklessness has so far cost the lives of nearly 2,500 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, many of them children.

Among the regrets voiced by the president at the press conference was his absurd challenge to the insurgents in 2003 to "bring 'em on." But Mr. Bush gave no hint as to when the madness might end.

How many more healthy young people will we shovel into the fires of Iraq before finally deciding it's time to stop? How many dead are enough?

There is no good news coming out of Iraq. Sabrina Tavernise of The Times recently wrote: "In the latest indication of the crushing hardships weighing on the lives of Iraqis, increasing portions of the middle class seem to be doing everything they can to leave the country."

The middle class is all but panicked at the inability of the Iraqi government or American forces to quell the relentless violence. Ms. Tavernise quoted a businessman who is planning to move to Jordan: "We're like sheep at a slaughter farm."

Iraqis continue to be terrorized by kidnappers, roving death squads and, in a term perhaps coined by Mr. Bush, "suiciders."

The American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, acknowledged last week that even at this late date, there are parts of western Iraq that are not controlled by American forces, but rather "are under the control of terrorists and insurgents."

Now we get word that U.S. marines may have murdered two dozen Iraqis in cold blood last November.

No one should be surprised that such an atrocity could occur. That's what happens in war. The killing gets out of control, which is yet another reason why it's important to have mature leaders who will do everything possible to avoid war, rather than cavalierly sending the young and the healthy off to combat as if it were no more serious an enterprise than a big-time sporting event.

Nothing new came out of the Bush-Blair press conference. After more than three years these two men are as clueless as ever about what to do in Iraq. Are we doomed to follow the same pointless script for the next three years? And for three years after that?

Leadership does not get more pathetic than this. Once there was F.D.R. and Churchill. Now there's Bush and Blair.

Reacting to the allegations about the murder of civilians, the commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Michael Hagee, went to Iraq last week to warn his troops about the danger of becoming "indifferent to the loss of a human life."

Somehow that message needs to be conveyed to the top leaders of this country, and to the public at large. There is no better day than Memorial Day to reflect on it. As we remember the dead, we should consider the living, and stop sending people by the thousands to pointless, unnecessary deaths.


--------------

June 1, 2006

War and Other People's Children (5 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Consider the Living" (column, May 29):

It is fitting that Bob Herbert reminds us that when politicians and commentators tell us that we can't leave Iraq now, "what they really mean is that we can't leave as long as the war can continue to be fought by other people's children."

It is time to confront every one of the war's supporters, be they the president, the vice president, members of Congress and commentators on Fox News Channel, about the conversations that they have had with their own children concerning service in this war.

The war in Iraq has demanded the ultimate sacrifice by nearly 2,500 service members and their families, but this sacrifice has not been shared equally by the children of the war's supporters.

It is time to get personal with our politicians and commentators about their support for the war. It is both hypocritical and immoral to favor a war that is fought only by other people's children.

Scott Caplan
New York, May 29, 2006

To the Editor:

As the sister and the father of a marine on his third tour in Iraq, we heartily applaud Bob Herbert's column.

He suggests that if the children of the well-to-do were sent to Iraq, the war would come to a quick end.

We believe that if the military were made up of people of all classes, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

Bring back the draft. Only then we will choose our wars more carefully.

Rebecca Kanner
Michael Kanner
St. Paul, May 29, 2006

To the Editor:

Thank you, Bob Herbert, for "Consider the Living."

Time and again, it is said that it is very easy for us who sit safely in our comfortable, middle-class homes to condemn the service members fighting overseas, supposedly for freedom but perhaps for the ulterior motives of the people in charge.

And new allegations of moral transgression encouraging that condemnation seem to spring up every day, like the Abu Ghraib scandal or more recently, the apparent murder of two dozen Iraqi civilians by American marines.

Regardless of our personal opinions, it is essential that we respect those who give their lives and those who have given them in defense of our country.

But we must "consider the living" and respect the lives of the women and men in the armed forces. What better way to respect their lives than to protect them by bringing them home?

Julia A. Moorman
Princeton, N.J., May 29, 2006

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd ("Live From Baghdad: More Dying," column, May 31) notes that President Bush "has not attended a single funeral." He has missed nearly 2,500 chances to show personal respect.

It should be mandatory that each of the officials who flung us into this miserable war should be the ones to knock on the family door and deliver the bad news, accompany the family to the funeral, and write a personal letter on the occasion of each death.

Certainly these foolish people can do that before they are severed from further public service.

Harold House
Westhampton, N.Y., May 31, 2006

To the Editor:

Maureen Dowd noted how tragically anonymous this war is.

I understand that it is virtually impossible for us to know anything about the Iraqis who have been killed, but I don't understand why any American must remain anonymous.

Every newspaper worth its salt should print the names of those who have been killed or wounded on the front page each day.

The Times printed short biographies of those who died on 9/11. Why can't the same be done daily for our troops?

Zdena Nemeckova
Fair Lawn, N.J., May 31, 2006







Wednesday, June 14, 2006

 

The Guardian: A tunnel without end

 
 
A tunnel without end

The US version of the Guantánamo suicides is disgraceful. The cause of death was gross injustice

Zachary Katznelson
Monday June 12, 2006
The Guardian


On Friday night, three prisoners in Guantánamo Bay committed suicide. Two Saudis and one Yemeni hanged themselves. In a desperate attempt at spin, the US claims this was an act of war or a public relations exercise. The truth is quite different. Islam says it goes against God to kill yourself. So what would drive a man to take his own life, despite his religious beliefs? The answer shames the US and its allies, Britain prominently included.

The 460-plus men in Guantánamo Bay have been held for longer than four years. Only 10 have been charged with a crime. Not one has had a trial. The men are not allowed to visit or speak with family or friends. Many have suffered serious abuse. Most are held on the basis of triple and quadruple hearsay, evidence so unreliable that a criminal court would throw it out. Yet the US says it can imprison the men for the rest of their lives. Imagine yourself in this environment, told you will never have the chance to stand up in a court and present your side of the argument. What would you do if no one would listen, if you had been asking for justice for four years and had nothing in return? How hopeless would you become?

Of these three men, little is known. They were in Camp I, a maximum-security area where prisoners are denied even a roll of toilet paper. But we do not know the dead men's stories. While most of the men in Guantánamo have lawyers who fight for their right to a fair trial, these men did not. Until May, the US refused to even tell us who was in Guantánamo. But before it finally released the names of everyone there, the Bush administration secured passage of a law barring lawsuits by the prisoners held in Guantánamo. That means that at last we know the prisoners' identities, but can do nothing legally to help them. The men who committed suicide found themselves in just this legal black hole. They had no legal recourse, just the prospect of a life in prison, in isolation, with no family, no friends, nothing. They took their lives.

So what now? President Bush stated this week that he wants to close Guantánamo, that he wants to give the men trials. Well, let's have them - immediately. The US has had over four years to gather evidence against the men. Surely that is enough time to prove guilt. And now it is time to show the world the evidence. As Harriet Harman, the British constitutional affairs minister, said yesterday, Guantánamo must be opened up to review or shut down. Will Britain do what is necessary to make this a reality? Because this is about even more than the fate of 460 people, it is about whether the US and its allies will lead the world by democratic example, or whether they will continue to give lip service to human rights and open societies, while denigrating those cherished notions with their actions.

If the men in Guantánamo (and the other US prisons around the world, such as the one at the Bagram air force base in Afghanistan, where over 600 men languish in Guantánamo's hidden twin) did something wrong, by all means punish them. But if they did not, they must be sent home.

Mohammed El Gharani, our client at Reprieve, was only 14 when he was seized in a mosque in Pakistan. He was only 15 when he arrived in Guantánamo Bay. Already twice this year he has tried to kill himself, once by hanging, once by slitting his wrists. Let us pray there is movement by the US to finally do justice, before Mohammed, truly only a child, or anyone else in Guantánamo Bay commits suicide.

· Zachary Katznelson is senior counsel at Reprieve, which represents 36 Guantánamo Bay detainees zachary@reprieve.org.uk


Tuesday, June 13, 2006

 

Ted Rall: How Did You Vote on the War, Daddy?



How Did You Vote on the War, Daddy?

By Ted RallTue Jun 6, 8:06 PM ET

Pro-War Pols Don't Deserve a Political Future

DENVER--The congressmen and senators who lined up to cast their yeas and nays on October 11, 2002 knew that they were casting one of the most, if not the most, important votes of their political careers. Public Law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502, the result of the vote to authorize the Bush Administration to attack Iraq, would have incalculable moral, economic and geopolitical implications for the long-term future of the United States. But not every congressman put the interests of his country ahead of his career prospects. With George W. Bush still riding high in the polls less than a year after 9/11, it took courage and foresight--the ability to see a future in which the public would sour on Bush and his wars--to defy him.

As is often the case during times of crisis, when history tests the mettle of men and women, courage and foresight were in short supply. Fewer than a third--156 out of 529--dared to vote no.

Four years later, the Iraq war resolution reads like a classic of embarrassingly brazen propaganda. It says that Iraq posed a "threat to the national security of the United States," something that anyone with access to a map knew couldn't possibly be true. (Iraq's longest-range missiles had a maximum range of 500 miles.) It includes the debunked statements that Iraq had "a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" [presumably a reference to Bush's phony Niger yellowcake uranium claim].

It's obvious to the 59 percent of Americans who think the war was a mistake that the 296 representatives and 77 senators who voted for this ridiculous tripe showed a spectacular lack of good judgment. As a result, nearly 2500 American troops are dead. So are 200,000 Iraqis. Between 18,000 and 48,000 U.S. troops have been wounded. We have no idea how many Iraqis have been crippled--perhaps over one million. Nearly $300 billion--more than 100 times the total amount spent to protect American cities from another 9/11--has been wasted.

If Iraq were a stock, it would be Enron. Thousands killed and billions spent, but what return have we received on our investment? The contempt of the entire world, radicalizing Muslims, soaring debts and the disturbing confirmation that our troops include mass murderers as well as torturers and concentration camp guards. Iraqi resistance fighters, outgunned and outmanned, own the cities and roadways.

Are we losing? Only an optimist would say that. We lost before we started.

This mess was predictable. In fact, I predicted it. So did many others. Still, the 374 politicians who voted for the war can reasonably argue, this dismal outcome wasn't set in stone. Smarter execution of the war--emphasizing the security of Iraqi civilians over our own troops, staying away from charlatans like Ahmed Chalabi, protecting Iraq's Sunni minority--might have mitigated some of the chaos.

Only a total idiot, however, could have bought the most bald-faced lie in the 2002 war resolution: conflating Iraq with the 9/11 terrorists. Accusing Iraq of "continuing to aid and harboring terrorist organizations" like Al Qaeda, the resolution contains 19 variants of the word "terrorism" and 10 references to "September 11, 2001." But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq couldn't have been involved because Saddam was a socialist secularist whose Iraq encouraged women to work in top jobs, whereas Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda are radical Islamists seeking to establish a medieval caliphate where the only good woman is veiled behind a burqa. Saddam and Al Qaeda were mortal enemies. Everyone knew that.

Now that the political winds have changed, our wormy "leaders" are backing away from having voted for the war in October 2002.

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," probable 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton backtracked in a fundraising letter to Democrats. "Americans should argue about the war," now allows John McCain, a slimy Republican who argued on the senate floor in 2002 that "giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war."

Hecklers are tormenting Clinton and McCain at campaign appearances with reminders of their pro-war votes. "I think I was wrong to vote for the war," admits John Edwards, who will probably watch '08 from the sidelines in preparation for a run in 2012 or 2016.

Second-tier Democratic hopeful Mark Warner, reflecting the militant moderation of state-controlled media, warns against speaking ill of the politically brain-dead: "I don't think any U.S. senator, regardless of party, if they had known there weren't WMD, that we were going to get selected leaks, I don't think they would have voted for it. Second-guessing people who made a valiant attempt at judgment is not where I am at."

It ought to be. It ought to be where we're all at. Our elected representatives are paid to make the right choices for our country and its future. They deserve to be held accountable when they fail to measure up. Especially when it's important. Especially when it's easy to make "a valiant attempt at judgment."

On October 11, 2002, 156 congressmen and senators stood up for decency and common sense. The others, who proved they were too stupid and short-sighted to do the right thing when it counted, should resign. They don't deserve our votes, much less a shot at the White House.

(Ted Rall is the editor of "Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists," a new anthology of webcartoons.)



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?