THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

U.S. Commanders See Possible Cut in Troops in Iraq
By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: April 11, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 10 - Two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the American-led military campaign in Iraq is making enough progress in fighting insurgents and training Iraqi security forces to allow the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year, senior commanders and Pentagon officials say.

Senior American officers are wary of declaring success too soon against an insurgency they say still has perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core fighters, plentiful financing and the ability to change tactics quickly to carry out deadly attacks. But there is a consensus emerging among these top officers and other senior defense officials about several positive developing trends, although each carries a cautionary note.

Attacks on allied forces have dropped to 30 to 40 a day, down from an average daily peak of 140 in the prelude to the Jan. 30 elections but still roughly at the levels of a year ago. Only about half the attacks cause casualties or damage, but on average one or more Americans die in Iraq every day, often from roadside bombs. Thirty-six American troops died there in March, the lowest monthly death toll since 21 died in February 2004.

Attacks now are aimed more at killing Iraqi civilians and security forces, and have been planned with sinister care and timing to take place outside schools, clinics and police stations when large daytime crowds have gathered.

Several top associates of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant whose network has claimed responsibility for many of the most deadly attacks, have been captured or killed in recent weeks. American commanders say it now takes longer for insurgents to regroup and conduct a series of attacks with new tactics, like the one on the night of April 2 against the Abu Ghraib prison that wounded 44 Americans and 13 Iraqi prisoners.

While senior commanders say the insurgency is still mostly driven by Iraqis, small numbers of foreign fighters who carry out most of the suicide bombings are still sneaking into the country, mainly from Syria.

The overall number of insurgents has remained virtually unchanged since last fall, even though hundreds, maybe thousands, have been killed or captured, suggesting that the insurgency can still attract the unemployed, disaffected and even enough true believers to keep the pool from drying up. American commanders also fear that the fledgling Iraqi government and security services are riddled with informants despite thorough vetting of applicants, officials say.

The American military's priority has shifted from waging offensive operations to training Iraqi troops and police officers. Iraqi forces now oversee sections of Baghdad and Mosul, with American forces on call nearby to help in a crisis. More than 2,000 American military advisers are working directly with Iraqi forces.

More Iraqi civilians are defying the insurgents' intimidation to give Iraqi forces tips on the locations of hidden roadside bombs, weapons caches and rebel safe houses. The Pentagon says that more than 152,000 Iraqis have been trained and equipped for the military or the police, but the quality and experience of those forces varies widely. Also, the Government Accountability Office said in March that those figures were inflated, including perhaps tens of thousands of police officers who are absent from duty.

0 Replies

From NYT.

Inquiries of Top Lobbyist Shine Unwelcome Light in Congress
By PHILIP SHENON

Published: April 11, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 10 - Jack Abramoff, one of Washington's most powerful and best-paid lobbyists, needed $100,000 in a hurry.

Mr. Abramoff, known to envious competitors as "Casino Jack" because of his multimillion-dollar lobbying fees from the gambling operations of American Indians, wrote to a Texas tribe in June 2002 to say that a member of Congress had "asked if we could help (as in cover) a Scotland golf trip for him and some staff" that summer. "The trip will be quite expensive," Mr. Abramoff said in the e-mail message, estimating that the bills "would be around $100K or more." He added that in 2000, "We did this for another member - you know who."

Mr. Abramoff did not explain why the tribe should pay for the lavish trip, nor did he identify the congressmen by name. But a tribe spokesman has since testified to Congress that the 2002 trip was organized for Representative Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Administration Committee, and that "you know who" was a much more powerful Republican, Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader and old friend of Mr. Abramoff's. Both lawmakers have said they believed that the trips complied with House travel rules.

The e-mail message of June 7, 2002, is part of a mountain of evidence gathered in recent months by the Justice Department, the Interior Department and two Senate committees in influence-peddling and corruption investigations centered on Mr. Abramoff, a former college Republican campaigner turned B-movie producer turned $750-an-hour Washington super-lobbyist.

Although there is no suggestion in public documents that any lawmaker is the target of a federal grand jury that is investigating Mr. Abramoff, disclosures about his lobbying activities have become embarrassing to prominent members of Congress.

In recent weeks, Mr. Ney, Mr. DeLay and other lawmakers have gone on the offensive against the suggestion that their actions on Capitol Hill were influenced by foreign travel or other gifts from Mr. Abramoff.

Disclosures about Mr. Abramoff and the grand jury investigation in Washington have come at an especially awkward time for Mr. DeLay, who is facing scrutiny by a state grand jury in Texas that has indicted two of his chief political operatives, including the director of his political action committee, on charges of illegal fund-raising. Mr. DeLay has blamed Democrats and the "liberal media" for stirring up old - and, he says, discredited - ethics accusations against him.

House Republican leaders say they stand behind Mr. DeLay, although there are signs of concern elsewhere in the party. A moderate Republican who has often tangled with the majority leader, Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, called on Mr. DeLay to step down from his leadership post, telling The Associated Press in an interview on Sunday that "Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting the Republican majority, and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election."

0 Replies

Al Quaeda did not exist before it was invented, by the FBI, during a prosecution of an egyptian terrorist in New York.

Osama bin Laden was an enemy of Saddam Hussein.

I think we should remember these things, while considering all the right-wing, largely irrelevant and frequently wrong, guff posted here.

Also this: when the republicans were involved in gerrymandering boundaries in Texas last year, some democrat politicians decided to take refuge in a neighbouring state, where they were outside the reach of the Texas legislature. This caused a bit of a fuss at the time.

These same people, with no power to interfere in a neighbouring state, think the have some (God given?) right to invade another country.

They have not.

0 Replies

Ican, you are aware that this part of the speech was based on intelligence that has been discredited meanwhile, aren't you?

near final part of his speech to UN, Powell wrote:

But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons.

Zarqawi probably oversaw a terrorist training camp. But it was not an al Qaeda training camp, but his own camp. His organization, al Tawhid, competed with bin Laden for trainees and members.

To call Zarqawi an 'associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden' is more than questionable.

So al Tawhid and al Qaeda were not allies, but competitors.

Furthermore, the camps in northern Iraq were not even al Tawhid camps, but Ansar al-Islam camps, were al Tawhid associates might have been tolerated.

Ansar al-Islam didn't come into existence before December 2001, and was led by Mullah Krekar, who denied any connection to bin Laden.

Never, ever, did the US ask Saddam to remove those Ansar al-Islam camps. Saddam wouldn't have had the means to do so. He did not control the northern part of his country. The US were able to keep arms from him. His military forces had not been rebuilt.

0 Replies

After the war: Iraqis face new lives

Two years after the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad, marking the fall of the city to US-led forces, BBC Arabic.com asked seven Iraqis for their thoughts on how life has changed for them since the conflict.

Here are their stories.

Follow link to read more.

0 Replies

"UK POISON CELL" MEMBERS FOUND NOT GUILTY

The "UK poison cell" that was cited by Secretary of State Colin
Powell as part of his February 5, 2003 presentation to the United
Nations to justify U.S. military action against Iraq has proved
to be yet another alarmist misrepresentation of elementary facts,
according to a judicial ruling in London last week.

A British jury found that the so-called "UK poison cell" was "not
guilty of conspiracy to murder by plotting ricin attacks and,
generally speaking, not guilty of conspiracy to do anything,"
wrote George Smith of GlobalSecurity.org, who served as an expert
witness in the trial.

The verdict followed a remarkable series of missteps and
misunderstandings by intelligence analysts, law enforcement
personnel and government officials.

Thus, for example, the supposed discovery of ricin in a London
apartment used by the "cell" was false. No genuine traces of
chemical or biological weapons were ever discovered.

Likewise, a purported recipe for purifying ricin that was found in
a Manchester raid in 2000 was not from an "al Qaeda manual," as
the U.S. government alleged, but derived ultimately from a
popular handbook published in the U.S. Moreover, observed Dr.
Smith, a chemist, the recipe would not achieve its intended
result.

The tangled tale, which is or ought to be a source of
embarrassment to both the U.S. and U.K. governments, is presented
by George Smith in "UK Terror Trial Finds No Terror," National
Security Notes, GlobalSecurity.org, April 11:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/nsn/nsn-050411.htm

Source: Secrecy News

0 Replies

I'm sure some of you will choose not to believe this, but I felt it was worth posting.

Quote:

My Army Recruitment Horror Story
by Amazing Rando
[Subscribe]

Mon Apr 11th, 2005 at 09:57:17 PDT

Ok, I'm a teenager, and I do all of that crazy teenager stuff in my spare time. Going to malls (but only with friends, as those places drive me insane), check out the latest action flick at the cinema (on an unrelated note, Sin City equals great neo film noir!), engage in various activities that I likely won't be proud of in ten years, that kind of stuff. All things considered, I live a fairly normal life. Well, as normal as anyone's life can be.
So imagine my surprise and horror when a group of Army Recruitment goons try intimidate my and my friends, almost using physical violence, into attending some recruitment meeting.

Diaries :: Amazing Rando's diary :: :: Trackback ::

My story beings at the local mall. All names and places have been removed for my own protection and anonymity. I'm with three friends, just hanging out, thinking about getting a job application from the mall's bookstore. The four of us are approached by three very average-looking guys. They're dressed pretty casually, looking about in the mid-twenties. One of them notices my Green Lantern shirt and says to me, "Hey man, Hal Jordan was the ****."

We strike up a conversation on comics, the return of Hal Jordan, and the DC universe in general. It's nice and pleasant. I'm thinking, Hey, these guys are all right!, because anyone who thinks that Hal Jordan is the best Green Lantern is ok in my book. Anyway, this guy asks us where we're all going to college next year, as it came up in conversation that we're all seniors from the local high school, the same one they claimed to have graduated from. He sounded off our college choices, mostly liberals arts schools in the northeast.

Then, out of nowhere, one of them has a brochure in his hands. It was like a magician, pulling a rabbit out of a hat. First nothing, then brochure. He hands it to me and says that we could all get our college paid for and invites us to an informational meeting the next weekend. The brochure looks like a technical college kind of thing, mentioning "fun work" in "technology fields for the jobs of tomorrow." Then I realize that the brochure is plastered with the old Army slogans: "Travel the World!," "Have your college paid for!," that kind of stuff. Except the brochure doesn't mention the Army or ANY branch of the armed services at all.

I ask the guy if it's for the Army, and he just smiles at me and says, "College isn't the only option out there, dudes." Ok, I'm done with this guy, I figure. I smile, say No thank you, sir, and motion to my friends. The head guy says he needs our names, phone numbers, and addresses, so we can be put into the "Not Interested Database." Yeah bloody right. Again, I say no thank you and move off. They block us again. The head guy says, "We're getting your names, kid." I turn around, and two more Army guys have materialized out of nowhere, undoubtedly having moved in while we were talking. It's the four of us being surrounded by five Army guys that look like they tear phonebooks in half for light exercise.

We stand there, surrounded and scared shitless, for about ten seconds that feel like hours. Then, one of my friends, a girl, screeches, "RAAAPE! GET YOUR GODDAMN HANDS OFF OF ME!," and screams so loud that I'm certain glass cracked somewhere nearby. This distracted the Army guys long enough for me to break between two of them with my shoulder, and we ran through the hole like bats out of hell. We ran the ENTIRE length of the mall, through the parking lot, piled into my car, and peeled out of there in one minute flat. I don't even know if they were chasing us, but I think they didn't because there is NO way that I could have outran these guys.

What's the moral of the story? Simple. Many of you are parents. If you have kids who are my age, in their late teens preparing for college, warn them! These recruitment guys are going to stoop to some serious stuff to fill their quotas, even if that means roughing up someone. Now, I do not plan on revealing my name, my location, or this event to the authorities. First off, I'm scared these Gestapo bastards will track me down and try to lock me or my family up. Second, I know that if I do tell the local cops, they will NEVER go after Army recruiters, as conservative as this area is. By the time they were finished, I'd be accused of tearing up an official Army recruiting station and attacking two uniformed soldiers. Teaching is half the battle. Tell your kids to watch who they talk to and to be suspicious of everyone. They might not be as lucky as I was.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/11/125717/705

More and more stories of recruiters going to great lengths to get kids 'interested' these days... I wonder if the fact we are missing our recruiting goals by a rather large percentage has anything to do with it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

There is no evidence that there was ever a poison lab in that camp in northern Iraq.

I don't know anything about what our troops together with the Kurd troops discovered when in 2003 they invaded those al Qaeda camps in northeastern Iraq. General Franks's book doesn't say.

So far as I am able to discover there is also no evidence that there was not a poison lab at those camps.

However, I assume there was no poison lab at those camps.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm sure some of you will choose not to believe this, but I felt it was worth posting.

....

Cycloptichorn

You thought some of us would be skeptical about the veracity of the claims of some anonymous teenaged blogger at DailyKos?

0 Replies

Yes.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
There is no evidence that there was ever a poison lab in that camp in northern Iraq.

I don't know anything about what our troops together with the Kurd troops discovered when in 2003 they invaded those al Qaeda camps in northeastern Iraq. General Franks's book doesn't say.

So far as I am able to discover there is also no evidence that there was not a poison lab at those camps.

However, I assume there was no poison lab at those camps.

Now all you have to do is stop saying "al Qaeda camps".

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Al Quaeda did not exist before it was invented, by the FBI, during a prosecution of an egyptian terrorist in New York.

emphasis added by ican

www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Chapter 2.3:

Quote:
April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan within the next nine months. As the Soviets began their withdrawal, the jihad's leaders debated what to do next.

Bin Ladin and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.24 Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Ladin was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda. This organization's structure included as its operating arms an intelligence component, a military committee, a financial committee, a political committee, and a committee in charge of media affairs and propaganda. It also had an Advisory Council (Shura) made up of Bin Ladin's inner circle.25

Bin Ladin's assumption of the helm of al Qaeda was evidence of his growing self-confidence and ambition. He soon made clear his desire for unchallenged control and for preparing the mujahideen to fight anywhere in the world. Azzam, by contrast, favored continuing to fight in Afghanistan until it had a true Islamist government. And, as a Palestinian, he saw Israel as the top priority for the next stage.26

Osama bin Laden was an enemy of Saddam Hussein.
That's was true once upon a time. But after the Turabi and Zawahiri groups merged with bin Laden's al Qaeda federation, bin Laden and Saddam were no longer enemies, because of Turabi's and Zawahiri's ties to Iraq.

I think we should remember these things, while considering all the right-wing, largely irrelevant and frequently wrong, guff posted here.

Also this: when the republicans were involved in gerrymandering boundaries in Texas last year, some democrat politicians decided to take refuge in a neighbouring state, where they were outside the reach of the Texas legislature. This caused a bit of a fuss at the time.

These same people, with no power to interfere in a neighbouring state, think the have some (God given?) right to invade another country. They have not.

God given? I thought it was an al Qaeda given right to invade another country.

Wait, I shall explain!

The people of the neighboring states to Texas never declared war on the people of Texas, and they never murdered 3,000 civilians in Texas.

But, if some of Texas's neighbors had done such, I bet the government of Texas would have demanded that the governments of the neighboring states extradite such murderers. If that demand failed to be satisfied, I bet the Texas Rangers would have extradited the murderers all by themselves.

At the same time, the Texas government would have asked the US federal government to step in and enforce the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution by ending the insurrection and replacing the governments of those neighboring states with lawful governments of their people's own election: that is, governments that would be less likely to refuse such a Texas government's request for extradition of murderers of Texas civilians.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Ican, you are aware that this part of the speech was based on intelligence that has been discredited meanwhile, aren't you?
Discredited? What specific sub-part of the "sinister nexus" part was discredited, by whom was it discredited, when was it discredited?

If it would make you feel better, replace Zarqawi's name with the name, someone.

Do you claim the following quoted part of Chapter 2.4 of the 9/11 Commission Report (ican's emphasis added) has also been discredited?

Quote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

If so please say what part of this quote was discredited, by whom was it discredited, and when was it discredited.

Never, ever, did the US ask Saddam to remove those Ansar al-Islam camps. Saddam wouldn't have had the means to do so. He did not control the northern part of his country. The US were able to keep arms from him. His military forces had not been rebuilt.

Saddam was asked by the US to extradite the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps. Saddam had sufficient military forces after 1992 to mass murder Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north. Saddam had sufficient military forces in 2003 to resist the US's very sophisticated military forces. Given our request to extradite the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps, it is self-evident that Saddam had US permission to do what he needed to do to accomplish what we requested.

To me it is self-evident that extradition of the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps is tantamount to removal of those camps unless and until they are re-established by replacement leadership.

The following excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Iraq reveals Saddam's capability to invade that which was in the so-called Autonomous Region without US permission.

www.britannica.com

Quote:
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.

Iraq is divided for administrative purposes into 18 muhafazat (governorates), 3 of which constitute the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Each governorate has a governor, or muhafiz, appointed by the president. The governorates are divided into 91 aqdiyyah (districts), headed by district officers, and each district is divided into nahiyat (tracts), headed by directors. Altogether, there are 141 tracts in Iraq. Towns and cities have their own municipal councils, each of which is directed by a mayor. Baghdad has special status and its own governor. The Kurdish Autonomous Region was formed by government decree in 1974, but in reality it attained autonomy only with the help of coalition forces following the First Persian Gulf War. It is governed by an elected 50-member legislative council.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Discredited? What specific sub-part of the "sinister nexus" part was discredited, by whom was it discredited, when was it discredited?

What I said was that the part where Powell stated that "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi [was] an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants" was discredited. (The part you boldfaced).

Discredited by Shadi Abdallah, during interrogations by German authorities, for example:

Quote:

According to Abdallah, Zarqawi's Al Tawhid group focuses on installing an Islamic regime in Jordan and killing Jews. And although Al Tawhid maintained its own training camp near Herat, Afghanistan, Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members, Abdallah claimed.

As "competitor" is somewhat different from "associate and collaborator", I call that part discredited.

No need to post the 9/11-commission report. I wasn't talking about that.

old europe wrote:

Never, ever, did the US ask Saddam to remove those Ansar al-Islam camps. Saddam wouldn't have had the means to do so. He did not control the northern part of his country. The US were able to keep arms from him. His military forces had not been rebuilt.

ican711nm wrote:

Saddam was asked by the US to extradite the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps.

Nope, ican. Saddam was asked by the US to extradite Zarqawi. Mullah Krekar was the leader of the Ansar al-Islam camps. Saddam was never asked to extradite Mullah Krekar. Mullah Krekar was arrested by the Norwegian police in Norway.

ican711nm wrote:

Saddam had sufficient military forces after 1992 to mass murder Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.

I never said anything contrary, did I?

ican711nm wrote:

Saddam had sufficient military forces in 2003 to resist the US's very sophisticated military forces.

... for 3 weeks, you should add.

Talking about the northern part of Iraq: in 2001 Rice said "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

What part of "He does not control the northern part of his country" don't you understand, ican?

What part of "His military forces have not been rebuilt" don't you understand, ican?

And in 2001 Powell stated that "[Saddam] is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

What part of "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" don't you understand, ican?

ican711nm wrote:

Given our request to extradite the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps, it is self-evident that Saddam had US permission to do what he needed to do to accomplish what we requested.

Only that there was no request to extradite the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps. There was a request to extradite the leadership of al Tahwid. But maybe even you may notice that "Ansar al-Islam" is not the same as "al Tahwid".

ican711nm wrote:

To me it is self-evident that extradition of the leadership of the Ansar al-Islam camps is tantamount to removal of those camps unless and until they are re-established by replacement leadership.

That is, undoubtedly, true!

ican711nm wrote:

The following excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Iraq reveals Saddam's capability to invade that which was in the so-called Autonomous Region without US permission.

www.britannica.com

Quote:
blablabla... The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of blablabla....

Of course, even you may notice that 1996 is about 5 years prior to 2001, when both Rice and Powell stated that Saddam didn't have those military forces any more?

0 Replies

Also, Saddam entered the Autonomous Region because the Kurds of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) had enlisted his help in desperation in their infighting against the Kurds of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Saddam did not have the authority to enter Northern Iraq save that which the KDP, a group of Kurds, the peoples that controlled that area, had granted him 1996.

0 Replies

Let them eat bombs

The doubling of child malnutrition in Iraq is baffling

Terry Jones
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1457630,00.html

A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
This, of course, comes as a bitter blow for all those of us who, like George Bush and Tony Blair, honestly believe that children thrive best when we drop bombs on them from a great height, destroy their cities and blow up hospitals, schools and power stations.
It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.
These results are even more disheartening for those of us in the Department of Making Things Better for Children in the Middle East By Military Force, since the previous attempts by Britain and America to improve the lot of Iraqi children also proved disappointing. For example, the policy of applying the most draconian sanctions in living memory totally failed to improve conditions. After they were imposed in 1990, the number of children under five who died increased by a factor of six. By 1995 something like half a million Iraqi children were dead as a result of our efforts to help them.
A year later, Madeleine Albright, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, tried to put a brave face on it. When a TV interviewer remarked that more children had died in Iraq through sanctions than were killed in Hiroshima, Mrs Albright famously replied: "We think the price is worth it."
But clearly George Bush didn't. So he hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.
And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.
In the UK there may now be 3.6 million children living below the poverty line, and 12.9 million in the US, with no prospect of either government finding any cash to change that. But surely this is a price worth paying, if it means that George Bush and Tony Blair can make any amount of money available for bombs, shells and bullets to improve the lives of Iraqi kids. You know it makes sense.
·Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. He is the author of Terry Jones's War on the War on Terror

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

McTag wrote:

I think we should remember these things, while considering all the right-wing, largely irrelevant and frequently wrong, guff posted here.

Also this: when the republicans were involved in gerrymandering boundaries in Texas last year, some democrat politicians decided to take refuge in a neighbouring state, where they were outside the reach of the Texas legislature. This caused a bit of a fuss at the time.

These same people, with no power to interfere in a neighbouring state, think the have some (God given?) right to invade another country. They have not.

God given? I thought it was an al Qaeda given right to invade another country.

Wait, I shall explain!

The people of the neighboring states to Texas never declared war on the people of Texas, and they never murdered 3,000 civilians in Texas.

Neither did the people nor the government of Iraq do any such thing.
That's the point, isn't it? The point you consistently avoid. The point you continually obfuscate with interminable drivel.

The US and its allies had no right to attack Iraq.

0 Replies

Have you all been reading about Rumsfeild and his trips to Iraq telling Iraqi's what to do? How is that going over with the newly elected government?

About Iraq and the situation with the starving children, it really should come as no surprise given the total disaster that has been happening there since we invaded.

Of course some will say that at least they are now free and that it is early going yet and things will improve given time and encouragement.

0 Replies

Also, the provisional capital of the PUK administered zone was Sulaimaniya which did not fall above the 36th parallel and was therefore not protected by the no fly zone.

The PUK split with the KDP and established a de facto government of their own in the city of Suleymaniya.

Accepting the assistance of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, the KDP fought a civil war against its rivals, the PUK, who in turn accepted the assistance of Iran.

Both Kurdish groups fought alongside the so-called "Coalition of the Willing".

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know