Continuing Protests in Iraq to Free al-Zaidi

CNN is reporting on the second day of countrywide protests in Iraq for the release of Muntadhar al-Zaidi. Significantly, protests are being reported in Sunni areas like Diyala and Anbar, now supposedly the bedrocks of American support. Could the warnings of a "shoe intifada" be correct?

Iraqis React to al-Zaidi

Selections from the New York Times:

Nawal Jaafer, 30, said: “Yes, we all hate American because it destroyed Iraq and distributed the riot and sectarianism among its people. I think what al-Zaidi did is a real expression on what’s hidden in the hearts of the Iraqis”.

Karim Muan al-Qaisi, a 50-year-old merchant, said: “Despite my hatred of Bush, he’s a president for a big country and a guest for the Iraqi government. And we are as easterners think insulting the guest is an insult for the host. Despite our hatred to the guest there should be respect and diplomacy.”

Ahmad Jeyyad, 36, a professor in the college of Agriculture in Anbar University, said: “What we have seen in TV is more than an action by a journalist. It was an action by an Iraqi citizen who lost his mind because of the woes of occupations. My family clapped when they saw the shoe. They greet Muntader for his action, but we do not know the reasons behind it. He may have had one of his family arrested by American forces or he may have political affiliations or other reasons.”

Ahmad Jbaeir, a 25-year-old law school student, said: “I was very glad when I saw the shoe on TV. I do not care even if he was a journalist or an ordinary citizen, but he expressed the feelings of Iraqis who hate Bush because he killed us. So we are demanding to release him.”

Saddam Loqman, a 21-year-old shopkeeper, said: “My father was arrested by Americans and I wish to do it instead, but if I was a journalist then I have to respect the occupation when I get to the conference hall.” Then he laughed and said “I think that the Iraqi government will permit journalists to attend conferences only after taking their shoes off.”

Nahla Salman, a 26-year-old government employee, said: “What he has done is what is stored inside all Iraqis — anger toward Bush’s incorrect policy. But he made it with hurry. He wasn’t supposed to do it while the prime minister was with Bush, but I still think that he did the right thing.”

Police major Ibrahim Sheikh Ofi, 36, the head of the governor’s bodyguards, said: “It was a wild act and it was an unexplained one. He was supposed to be aware of the Iraqi flag. I think he summed up a huge anger inside him. That is why he exploded this way.”

Habib Ahmed, a 26-year-old reporter, said: “I think what he has done was a brave act and he will be marked in history as the first Iraqi and the first Arab who hit the American President with shoes. It seems that he assembled all the anger of Iraqis and he expressed it this way even if it was not a democratic way.”

Mohamed al-Hili, a 35-year-old policeman, said: “I am happy for what happened because that will reflect how we do not like Bush. And our government has a different attitude and belief than ours. And I’d like to add that Mr. Muntader is a hero and he must be our president or at least P.M. We need to replace al-Maliki with the real Iraqi — Mr. Muntader.”

In a telephone interview, Saber Al-Kinani, a 41-year-old history professor, said: “I agree with Mr. Muntader because he gave Bush what he deserves. I believe that was the feeling of all the Iraqis. Listen America is a big liar because they are calling for freedom … but when you want to say something by the name of freedom against America that time you will be a terrorist and a big criminal.”

Dr. Alia Hamandi, a 33-year-old dentist, said in a telephone interview that: “I do not like for my country, the great Iraq, to face more problems with the U.S. Because all our sufferings are caused by America and that because we are Muslims. And we do not like to be slaves so what happened was a kind of simple Iraqi free man reflects and that was awesome.”

Harith al-Obaidi, a 35-year-old pharmacist, said: “I disagree with what happened because in this time we need to be more quiet until we get the full liberation. At that time we can do anything. But I am happy for one reason and that is Bush became an example for Obama to let him be different than Bush and to help us for the best.”

Hussein al-Dulaimi, a 39-year-old engineer, said in a telephone interview that: “We need to do more than that with Bush, but I do not think that will be win. … We need to win as much as we can of the U.S. trust to accelerate their withdrawal soon.”

Mohamed al-Haiyali, a 29-year-old soldier manning a checkpoint, said: “We have the power. The Army and the richest country around the world … So we do not need somebody to protect us and Muntader told Bush that, but in different way.”

Haitham Karem, a 32-year-old soldier, said: “What happened in the conference is a personal expression for an Iraqi journalist and a citizen. His action is a kind of freedom. The officials have to understand it.”

Ahmad Hasan, a 29-year-old television correspondent, said: “Muntader’s action is not a civilized action by a journalist, but he sent a message from an Iraqi citizen showing that there are many Iraqis who object to the American presence and the [security] agreement.”

Haider Quraishi, a 40-year-old journalist, said: “The action was a frank objection by a member of the educated class in Iraq to the [security] agreement. And the government has to release Muntader immediately. I do not think Bush is upset, but Maliki is really upset.”

Tawfeeq Qais, a 31-year-old barber, said: “Muntader expressed his opinion about the freedom and democracy brought to Iraq by Bush. Bush has to take responsibility for it, and this action should be considered as a kind of democracy.”

Um Mohammad, a 36-year-old housewife, said: “Long live your right hand, Muntader. This is what the American president deserves. I am calling to release Muntader al-Zaidi.”

Abu Ali, a 55-year-old laborer, said: “It is a wedding of all Iraqis. Muntader’s action is less than Bush deserves for killing, displacing and bloodletting Iraqis. I will blame the Iraqi government and American forces if anything wrong happens to Muntader.”

Mohammed Ibrahim, 51, said: “Bush deserves more than that because his soldiers have killed Iraqis. If Saddam had occupied America and killed the American people, then what would be their reaction? What we do expect Muntader to do when he watched the American forces kill Iraqis according to Bush’s order? Long life for your hand, Muntader.”

Dr. Qutaiba Rajaa, 58, said: “Although that action was not expressed in a civilized manner, it showed the feelings of Iraqis who refuse the American occupation. Muntader expressed the real Iraqi feelings.”

Mohammad Zaki, a 27-year-old lawyer, said: “I appreciate the heroic position of Muntader al-Zaidi. I appreciate his love to home and his challenge to the occupier. I will blame Maliki if anything wrong happen to him or to his family.”

Jasim Mohammed, a 24-year-old laborer, said: “Muntader’s action got back the Iraqi dignity. He got back part of our gravity. God bless you Muntader. We are demanding the Iraqi forces to release him.”

Adnan Majwari, a 44-year-old Kurdish journalist, said: “It was a historical moment and if there are organizations who care about human rights and journalists freedom in Iraq then Muntader al-Zaidi has to be released immediately.”

Dr. Amal al-Annaz, a 48-year-old professor, said: “These are the real Iraqis who are well known for their magnanimity. Throwing a shoe on Bush was not a random action, but it is the result of every wound caused by the American president to the Iraqi people, women and children.”

Ahmad Sameer, a 22-year-old student, said: “It was the moment of the age because Bush will never forget it and it was a reminder to Bush about his wars and causalities in Iraq, but in an Iraqi way.”

“I swear by God that this man has freely expressed all Iraqis’ opinions and brought their wishes to reality,” said Mudhar Adeeb, an engineer.

Fawaz Ahmad, a 45-year-old day laborer, said: “He performed an excellent job and a great challenge. Bush deserves more than that.”

“He has done what the whole world could not,” said another man, Hazim Edress.

“This is the second insult directed to America after September’s events,” said Jasim Abdullah, a 29-year-old shopkeeper, in reference to the Sept. 11 attacks. “I suggest having an auction to sell the shoe.”

Yaareb Yousif Matti, a 45-year-old teacher said, “This is the killers and criminals’ dessert. They are Iraqi people’s killers. I swear by God that all Iraqis with their different nationalities are glad about
this act.”

“Muntader’s action is the top of heroism,” said Farhan Khalaf, a teacher. “He represents all Iraqis’ tragedies and sadness, but he has not become a suicide bomber, nor planted an I.E.D., nor beheaded anyone. He practiced the democracy which brought by the American. He has to be released at once. He is in all people’s hearts in Iraq and in the whole world. I am sure that he will supported by the Democrats in America.”

Maten Omar Karkoli, a Turkmen shopkeeper, said: “Muntader has represented the peaceful resistance. It is the language of democracy which was brought by America, but I just wonder if Bush was beaten by a shoe then by what would Iraqi people beat their political leaders and representatives?”

Atyya Mejbil Obaidi, a governmental employee, said: “Bush threw bombs and rockets at Iraq and he destroyed my home by drawing a divisive strategy. So does he not deserve to get something from Iraqis?”

Shirzad Rasheed al-Barazanji, an agricultural engineer, said: “What happened showed the hatreds planted in Iraqi hearts. I am a Kurd, and if I was in his place I would ask Bush an embarrassing question, but not act like that. I do not set aside that behind that journalist, there is a political agenda against Bush and Maliki.”

“When the American army entered Iraq,” he added, “people welcomed them by throwing flowers, but Bush was told farewell by a shoe. So the new American authority has to be careful in their strategy in Iraq.”

In Defense of Throwing Shoes at One's Oppressor

It is a sign of the raging dementia of American political culture that I have to write this. In a half-way sane or civilized country, the spectacle of a journalist throwing his shoe at the man who orchestrated the butchery or dislocation of five million of the former's fellow citizens would not prompt ponderous ruminations on "free speech." It would be seen as one small expression of the loathing felt for that butcher all around the world.

Sad as it is to say, the eructations on free speech are preferable to the flatulence emitted by the right wing press. Ever quick on the uptake, the right wingnutosphere has hastily assembled itself under the banner of "This Could Never Have Happened Under Saddam!" Don't you understand? This is a sign of the freedom Iraq now has! Freedom from their homes, from their possessions, from their family members killed, and most important of all, free to throw shoes.

That the latter is not worth the price of the former is stunningly obvious to all except the kind of people who read Michelle Malkin's blog and think "well, she has a point." Yet it is worth recounting once again, if only briefly, the price Iraqis have paid for the spurious freedom they now enjoy. In all liklihood, over a million Iraqis have died because of the war. Between four and five million are displaced, and 50% of those are under age 12. The Pentagon sponsored sectarian warfare between Shi'as and Sunnis, and when such warfare burned itself out it declared victory.

Let us proceed by analogy. Suppose some civilization more advanced than our own, say Greece, invaded the United States, in the process killing 12 million Americans and making some 60 million into refugees. Suppose also that the Greeks extended to us their health care system, social safety net, and labor laws. Undoubtedly these would be tremendous advancements over the rights America workers currently have in any of these areas. However, I for one would not spend my time celebrating my new ability to get all my shots on time. I'd probably be doing something like this.

The Americans have given Iraqis nothing resembling this. Instead, we have given them a 50% unemployment rate. This is one part of Zaidi's story that I think is being overlooked. This man is an employed journalist. A dangerous job, yes, but a significantly better one than those available to most Iraqis. If the right wing thinks this guy is ungrateful, they should try talking to those who've been without work for five years.

That's enough about the right. More important to dispel, I think, is the liberal nausea at this act of violence. "There are more effective ways to make your point." "Two wrongs don't make a right." "It was irresponsible."

Of course there are more effective ways to fight the occupation. To my knowledge, no one has come out and said Zaidi's shoes struck a decisive blow for Iraqi freedom. However, as a symbolic gesture, it's worth pointing out that the shoes have aroused considerable support from Iraqis. Protests occurred today in demanding Zaidi's release in Sadr City, Najaf, and Basra. Al-Jazeera (Arabic) has reported that up to 100 Arab lawyers have already volunteered to defend him. The Iraqi government can issue all the shamefaced apologies it wants, but Zaidi's gesture was an expression of the contempt felt by millions.

Robin Mejia on The Iraq Math War

Excellent article from Mother Jones on the Bush Administration's war against any accurate accounting of the number of Iraqi dead.

No, Iraq is not all Seashells and Balloons

Article I wrote for SW about the state of Iraq:

It was with great fanfare this week that US officials announced the handover of security in Iraq’s al-Anbar province, home of Fallujah and once where the insurgency was at its fiercest, to the Iraqi army.

The New York Times’ Dexter Filkins (as obsequious a mouth piece as any the Bush regime could ask for) waxed delusional on the situation in Anbar, writing that “the arrangements in Anbar seem immune to those strains” which are threatening the peace in other parts of Iraq. He continues, “Perhaps because the province is almost entirely Sunni, there are no sectarian tensions to speak of.”

Filkins’ reporting is, unfortunately, utterly typical of a press which has (again!) swallowed the Bush administrations lies about what is going on Iraq. Every drop in violence is chalked up as a victory for the occupiers, regardless of its causes or implications. Indeed, if Bush hadn’t been burned once before when declaring ‘Mission Accomplished,” he would surely be tempted to do so now.

The administration’s propaganda surge has been successful in disorienting parts of the antiwar movement. If people don’t have an understanding the unimaginable destruction the US-led occupation is still subjecting Iraq to, protesting the war seems a lot less urgent.

The first thing to recognize about the post-surge Iraq is that, despite sunny news reports, people’s lives remain shattered by the occupation. A poll by a British news agency earlier this revealed that one in four residents of Iraq (45% in Baghdad) had a family member who had been murdered. Recent drops in sectarian fighting don’t take away the fact that the United States unleashed almost unimaginable levels of violence in Iraq.

The slowdown of ethnic strife also didn’t alleviate the judgment of the Iraqi Red Cross/Red Crescent earlier this year, when it declared that “The humanitarian situation in most of the country remains among the most critical in the world," and that Iraq’s health care system is “now in worse shape than ever.”

Iraq’s 18 provinces average 15 hours of electricity a day, a potentially deadly situation for hospital patients.

Poverty also remains the norm for many Iraqis, with many families using up to a third of their monthly income to buy drinking water.

Though it’s true that sectarian violence has declined, the occupation forces remain a brutal presence in Iraqi’s lives, a fact highlighted by the US military’s “mistaken” killing of six Iraqi security personnel on Wednesday.

Four million Iraqis remain displaced, and contrary to administration stories of returning families, that number isn’t changing much. The highest number of internally displaced people (those forced to flee their homes but remaining in Iraq) was about 2.3 million a year ago. The Iraqi Red Crescent reported that as of the end of May 2008, that number had dropped to about 2.1 million – a drop of 5% over 8 months. At that rate it will only take 120 years for all of the internally displaced to return to their homes!

Internally displaced people only account for half of Iraqi refugees. The rest have been forced to flee the country altogether. In Lebanon, a country with a large population of Iraqi refugees, Human Rights Watch has just reported an epidemic of deaths among migrant domestic workers, with at least one dying every week from unnatural causes – a disturbing prospect for refugees trying to eke out a living.

There are also good reasons to believe that the administration is putting pressure on the Iraqi government to limit the information on instability in Iraq that reaches the media corps.

A recent article by Dahr Jamail and Ahmed Ali showed how, in the Diyala province, kidnappings of Sunni residents are going unreported by the local government. While one tribal leader told the reporters that at least ten people from his tribe have been kidnapped recently, the police were reporting no kidnappings in the last four months.

Government censorship has been of the more blatant variety as well. Just this Thursday the vice-governor of the Babil province banned journalists and media workers from covering a march by protesting municipal workers.

Iraq’s political situation is also showing signs of instability. Last month the Iraqi Parliament ended its session unable to reach a deal over the provincial elections originally scheduled to take place in October. The crucial issue behind the stalemate is the question of who will control Kirkuk, an oil-rich northern city which Iraqi Kurds are attempting to bring under their control. The ruling class Shi’a parties of Iraq, led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, are resisting this attempt.

The conflict between the ruling Shi’a parties and the Kurds is an ominous sign for Washington, as these two groups have been the twin pillars of Iraqi political support for the occupation.

Even more potentially explosive are the recent moves by the Iraqi government against the Sunni Awakening councils (which are essentially former insurgents who are now on the US payroll). While some have called for the complete merging of the councils into the Iraqi security forces, the government itself has declared that no more than 15% of the 100,000 former insurgents will be allowed to join. The few that are allowed will be forced to accept low-level positions as foot soldiers or police officers.

Beyond discriminating against the councils, there are also reports of Nuri al-Maliki’s government arresting Awakening council leaders and confiscating their weapons. Last month Battalion 36 of the Iraqi army, known as “the dirty group,” was involved in operations in many of the central Iraqi provinces in which prominent Sunni tribal leaders and Awakening council leaders were arrested. In several cases, these arrests led to violence between government troops and council members (both supposedly US allies).

Such clashes reveal the potential that still exists for open conflict between Sunni militants, who once formed the backbone of the insurgency, and the Iraqi government.

Beyond Iraq, the war is still having a devastating impact at home. Army officials announced yesterday that the suicide rate for veterans was set to pass last year’s record, as well as passing the rate for the general US population, a number it hasn’t approached since the Vietnam War.

The antiwar movement still has a case to make, and in a presidential election where both candidates agree that “victory” in Iraq is the goal, it’s more important than ever that activists put forward the argument that the US has only made the lives of Iraqis worse.

The Way Backwards for the Antiwar Movement

Justin Raimondo (like Max Dunbar), is not worth my time. But I'm a grad student and it's summer, so time isn't exactly a scarce commodity at this point. Lowest hanging fruit is sometimes the tastiest and all that.

Raimondo, a writer for antiwar.com, recently posted an article arguing that the Leninist notion of imperialism is a primary factor in the confusion and disorientation of the Left today. He makes a number of claims about the Left's analysis which deserve rebutting.

The central pivot point of his article is the following paragraph:

"This idea that the captains of industry – Big Oil, in particular – represent "the ruling class" is a myth, and a curiously old-fashioned one at that. Private industry has long played a subordinate role in the American power structure: far more powerful is the administrative-managerial class, which has had a firm grip on the levers of power since the New Deal and has only strengthened its hand since. "

First of all, the notion that US ruling class strategy is dominated by the interests of Big Oil is, at best, crudely Marxist. It's not an analysis put forward by any of the most reputable venues of Marxist analysis. You won't find it in International Socialist Review, International Socialism, the World Socialist Website, Socialistworker.org or Historical Materialism. In fact, most of those have polemicized against the view that the war can be attributed to a certain sector of the ruling class. That said, Big Oil has, of course, benefitted greatly from the war.

Oil is crucial to understanding the war, but not simply in the vulgar sense that the US wants to steal Iraqi oil or make its own energy corporations super-profitable. Oil is, quite simply, the most important commodity in the world today, and whoever controls oil has a great deal of power. If the US ruling class does succeed in controlling Iraqi oil and projecting US force over the entire region, it will have gained tremendous power (a word Raimondo apparently thinks is forbidden in the Marxist lexicon, as the opposition between it and profits structures his argument).

Raimondo's argument about who constitutes the American ruling class is equally mistaken. At the most basic level, he ignores the vast revolving door between "the captains of industry"and the "administrative managerial class." Condoleezza Rice was head of Chevron's committe on public policy, as well as on the boards of Carnegie, Hewlett Packard, and others. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Stephen Johnson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was head of Covance, a billion dollar clinical testing company. George W. Bush himself was a senior partner or officer in a number of energy corporations before entering into public service. The Secretary of Commerce, Carl Miguel Gutierrez, is former chairman of the board and CEO of Kellogg's. Andrew Card, Bush's former chief of staff, was president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association. I realize this list is a bit gratuitous, but I think it's worth emphasizing the tremendous interpenetration of the state and the "captains of industry" that has always existed under capitalism.

Beyond this most surface level of influence, the state also has to respond to ruling class demands given the latter's control over the ideological means of production: the media. Newspaper owners are bona fide members of the ruling class, and they can control what news gets produced and who it favors. The press offensive against the Republicans in the fall of 2006 was no accident, but a calculated move to install a more competent party into power.

Finally, there's the historical role of the state, which has always been to organize violence on behalf of the ruling class.

Raimondo brings up a number of other points which are easily dispatched. He relies heavily on the hoary myth of the Israel lobby to explain why the US is in Iraq if the ruling class is so subordinate. Of the many demolitions of this myth out there, Allen Ruff and Sherry Wolf's are my favorites. He also insinuates that the Trotskyist youth of several prominent neocons is somehow relevant. Gary Leupp points out that Raimondo's own political history has some less savory characters.

Raimondo's whole polemic is directed against the idea that war with Iran is unlikely because it is against ruling class interests. Because ruling class interests don't dictate foreign policy ("power" does), you can't use them to predict foreign policy. QED. What Raimondo steadfastly ignores (besides, apparently, everything the left has ever written on imperialism), is how the entire US ruling class does want to tame Iran. Socialist Worker recently provided a good overview of the divisions between carrots and sticks in US-Iran policy. An abstract lust for power cannot explain what's going on in the world today.

Iraq Gets Banned From the Summer Olympics

Apparently Iraq has just been kicked out of the upcoming Summer Olympics in Beijing because of 'government interference in sports.' This means that the Iraq soccer team, the reigning Asian Football Confederation champions, will not be able to compete. Are you kidding me? Clearly the IOC is ignoring the constant intervention of the US INTERVENTION in Iraqi sports eg the murderous occupation. Why isn't the US being banned for the same reason? Can anyone say the Mitchell Report, aka an evisceration of due process and blacklisting of many athletes by Congress (not to mention a smoke screen for their continued funding of the failing occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan)? I can't wait to hear what Dave Zirin has to say about this at Edge of Sports if he can get a few minutes rest from being spied on by the government.

The Gaza-ization of Baghdad

In the middle of the night, US and Iraqi engineers enclosed an entire neighborhood in Baghdad in order to suffocate the Mahdi Army . The parallel to Israel's collective punishment of the Palestinians was lost on no one as one resident painted "Rafah Crossing Welcomes You" on the 12 foot high concrete barrier.

US Imperialism's Summer Vacation: Next Stop Iran?

CNN reports that a forthcoming article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh indicates that Congress has authorized $400 million for covert CIA operations in Iran aimed at intelligence gathering and undermining the government. This escalation once again reveals that nuclear weapons are not the issue as the Bush administration and Congress clearly are ignoring the National Intelligence Estimate and International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran's enrichment programs do not pose a military threat to the region.

Hersh also argues that the US is using Afghanistan as a staging ground for military and covert action against Iran. Following the recent 'surge' in Afghanistan (post forthcoming) and Israel's military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean earlier this month, the pieces seem to be fitting into place for an Israeli strike against Iran coupled with a tried and true CIA destabilization campaign.

Iran, however, is no Iraq insofar as it has not suffered from a decade of bombings and sanctions, like pre-war Iraq. This conflict would cost the US and its allies heavily:

In the semi-official Mehr news agency Sunday, an Iranian general said his troops were digging more than 320,000 graves to bury troops from any invading force with "the respect they deserve."

"Under the law of war and armed conflict, necessary preparations must be made for the burial of soldiers of aggressor nations," said Maj. Gen. Mirfaisal Baqerzadeh, an Iranian officer in charge of identifying soldiers missing in action.

*UPDATE*
The full Hersh article is here.

I Promise I'll Start Writing Again Soon...

Meanwhile, here are some useful articles on Iraq.

Rich Lowry from National Review giving the usual triumphalism, claiming that Iraq has become a Vietnam - for al-Qaeda.

Tom Englehardt on the massive land grab underway in Iraq, in the form of 106 US bases, some of which cover 16 square miles.


The ruling class press is taking its by now standard tack of pointing out corruption in the occupation without drawing any larger conclusions.

Lenin's Tomb on Fallujah after the siege.

Finally, a little story on Iraqupdates about Sadr's move to get around Iraqi laws designed to keep them out of electoral politics.

Iraq's Militias

Two good articles on Iraq this week:

Ron Jacobs on the recent Green Zone proposal to exclude any party from Iraqi elections which has an armed wing. (Hmmmm, I wonder who that could be aimed at?). Jacobs' best quote: "The suggestion that Iraq should pay for its reconstruction assumes that the Iraqis asked to be destroyed by the US military."

Pepe Escobar on the militias, with a good focus on the Kurdish Peshmerga. The Peshmerga have been out of the news for some time now, but their role in stirring the cauldron of ethnic hatred in Iraq has been crucial. There've also been reports of the Peshmerga being used for operations in Southern Iraq, a sure way to increase Shi'a-Kurdish animosity.

Democracy in Iraq

Maliki says the troops should go. Bush says Hell no!

But it's not an occupation cuz Iraq is a democracy, dontcha know.

Two on Iraq This Week

Patrick Cockburn on the lies used to justify the occupation. He includes a thorough demolition of the horse-shit story in February about al-Qaeda using mentally retarded people as suicide bombers (just when we thought they couldn't get any more eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!).

Pepe Escobar surveying Baghdad in the wake of Cheney's visit.

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan

"By September, Iraq war costs will trounce those of the 12-year Vietnam War"

I guess we've been saying this all along, but holy shit. That's a lot of zeros.

Anti-war protesters to Recruiters: Get the Hell out of Dodge!

A group of young students who strolled down the sidewalk shared that sentiment. They derided one of the protesters who argued the United States was involved in an illegal war in Iraq.

"Where's the logic in that whatsoever?" one of the young men said. "That's our national security, and you're here protesting the Marines."

Hahaha. Well done Berkeley!

Army Suicide Rate highest in nearly 30 years

Cnn is reporting that the suicide rate in 2007 is the highest since the Army began counting this in 1980 and the number of self-injuries is nearly double the pre-September 11th levels. This flies in the face of the Bush Administration's claims that they are truly 'supporting our troops' by providing adecuate mental health care. Also, the suicide rates coincides with the increase in death over the year, nearly the highest since the invasion.

The Two Articles You Should Read on Iraq This Week

Dahr Jamail on what Iraqis actually think of the occupation.

Andrew Cockburn on the the fissures in the al-Sahwa (Awakening) movement.

Tom Engelhardt on The Surge

In this article Tom Engelhardt argues, quite astutely, I believe, that the main "success" of the surge has not been in Iraq but in the U.S. This seems quite right to me. After all, Dahr Jamail and Ashley Smith have eviscerated the claims for success in Iraq, and in spite of the continued obscenity of the war the antiwar movement is still basically moribund. Englehardt does an admirable job both analyzing the political effects of the surge and the reasons why violence in Iraq won't go away.

Iraqis Typically Ungrateful for the Surge

Those miserable ingrates. Don't they realize the freedom they now enjoy was bought with the blood of American soldiers? Don't they understand that if a year ago we had, instead of following President Bush's courageous plan to retake the country, listened to what a majority of Iraqis had said and left the country, it would be today, in the words of John McCain and Joe Lieberman writing in the Wall Street Journal, "a country in chaos...a failed state in the heart of the Middle East?"

After all our sacrifice, listen to what the despicable little bastards have to say about life in their liberated country:

“Is it good that we still cannot go to Baghdad to sell our crops and buy seeds and other necessary things for our farms,” said young Jassim from Fallujah. “Is it good that we only plant ten percent of our land because there is not enough electricity and fuel to run our pumps?”

“If the U.S. generals mean they will hand over security to Iraqis and leave the province, then I will salute them all,” retired Iraqi army colonel Salman Ahmed told IPS in Fallujah. “But I know it is just another comedy like that played elsewhere in Iraq, where Iraqis (officials) are just ropes for American dirty laundry. We want our country back for real, not just on paper.”

“If security is so good then let them end the tragedy of our city,” a member of the Fallujah City Council, speaking on condition of anonymity told IPS. “We want our freedom back and we want to leave and enter our city without this humiliation by soldiers and policemen. Fallujah is dying, and our masters (Americans) are bragging about security and prosperity.”

“Let them (Americans) take everything and bring me my son back,” she said. “He stayed to guard the house in the November 2004 siege and the Americans captured him. Now he is missing. Some people who were released told us he was with them in the airport prison.”