Two things in Iraq which grabbed my attention.
First, is that the Iraqi government is launching an investigation of its own into the Haditha massacres. But this is remarkable for its tardiness not its courage.
See, the civilians of Haditha protested to the government back in November. Yes, November, when this first happened. The Iraqi government did nothing.
Then when a young film student provided footage indicating what happened in the homes of these women and children, the Iraqi government again did nothing.
When Time broke the story in March (by which time a discreet investigation had been launched by the US military) the Iraqi government again did nothing. Not even an acknowledgement of the incident.
April and May came and went with US media debating the Haditha massacres and one politician after another in the US calling for an investigation, and yet no word from the Iraqi government.
Then, miraculously, on the same day US President George Bush spoke on the matter, we hear Iraqi PM Maliki speak out. A day after Bush says punishment will be meted out IF the Marines are found guilty, Maliki announces an Iraqi investigation.
Some may be dismayed by Maliki's courage. Well only if you live in Little Rock, Arkansas, really. It is not courageous or entirely genuine for the Iraqi government to come out with this seven months after the fact. Did they do it only because they got the go-ahead in Washington?
Furthermore, there stands a real risk that the Iraqi investigation carried out by the Human Rights (hahahahaha, really?) Minister in Iraq will whitewash the conduct of the Marines?
Why do I say that? Because to understand Iraq you have to think in Machiavellian terms and study plots within plots.
Let us assume the Iraqi probe concludes that its investigators, through persistent interrogation (and with the line "we understand the insurgents, you do not") produced one or two "witnesses" to testify that there were weapons in those houses the US military did not find.
Or that the fathers of the families killed were indeed insurgents. Imagine the impact that would have on the US investigation. Imagine how much it would draw flak away from the perpetrators.
Then we will hear "the father is a coward insurgent hiding behind his wife and children, unfortunate as their killings were, it was his fault and the fault of all insurgents".
I hope the Iraqi government investigation is genuine, but I have my doubts and fears about this. We will see and inshallah kheir.
Similarily, there is an aggressive campain in the US media to whitewash the haditha massacre. It is an amazing slap in the face of morality and ethics. But then again, was it not the US media which helped launch the war? It really can't shake off its spots, can it?
We are now hearing of troops supporting those in Kilo Company saying they "empathize".
Interesting. Imagine someone saying they empathized with Mohammad Atta, for example.
You'd be angry right.
So explain these comments then:
From SignonSanDiego.com:
Three years of breaking down doors and rushing into small, dark rooms where Marines might encounter a man with a gun or a family frozen in terror.
Three years of chasing snipers who shoot and then fade into the crowds.
Three years of seeing buddies dismembered or killed by roadside bombs when their big hope is to go home in one piece.
Awww, we should all feel sorry for them invaders and if they kill Iraqis, awwwww, what a burden they must have been under.
“When a Marine dies, all the emotions come out,” Talley said. “It's like losing your own brother. You know his mother and sister. You've either met them or you know them through the letters they sent, just like you've shared your letters.
“Maybe he has saved your life, and then he is dead.”
No, the Iraqis who just get murdered because of US military anger don't have sisters and can't write letters and don't have mothers and brothers, right? Their deaths are worthless, right?
“A lot of people get a lot more aggressive searching people and places after someone passes away because you might die next,” said Flores, who observed that Marines on their second and third tours tend to handle Iraqi civilians more roughly then they did the first time around.
“After someone is killed, you get real pissed off and frustrated, and you just want the search over with,” said Flores, whose unit lost seven Marines and had 90 wounded during his three tours. “Sometimes you take it out on the people.”
Flores added that misunderstandings can lead to civilians being killed. He said that in several instances, Marines accidentally shot civilians who didn't understand – or defied – calls to leave their homes so Marines could search them.
In other circumstances, nervous or inexperienced Marines burst into houses and began shooting because they were scared, Flores said. This often causes other Marines to use their weapons as well, resulting in unintended deaths.
“The Marines are taught that once the shooting starts ... that house is considered a hostile house and they are to clear it as quickly as possible,” said Flores, who lives in Temple City. “And clearing a room with a hand grenade is the quickest way to do it.”
This is the best-trained military in the world? Sorry, no.
This sounds like a rabble, a militia, poorly disciplined, with utter disregard for human life.
If US soldiers are known to storm into houses all guns blazing why hasn't someone set them straight. Why haven't any of their superior officers told them "listen, that's against what we believe in"?
Standing by and letting such actions continue - heck, that becomes de facto military procedure, does it not? If your senior officer sees you conduct yourself that is in stark contrast to the way you are meant to act and yet does not so much as even cite vocal reprimand, you are going to believe it is tacitly approved of.
"There is the risk of becoming indifferent to the loss of a human life, as well as bringing dishonor upon ourselves," General Mike Hagee said.
Why would he say that? Why would US forces be pushed through "ethics" training unless someone, somewhere realized it something horrible was happening in Iraq.
And is this just one incident? Or but one of thousands.
Yes, thousands.
At least Anthony Cordesman seems to think that is what the perception will be:
"When something like Haditha happens, it gives the impression that Americans can't be trusted to provide security, which is the most important thing to Iraqis on a day-to-day level," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"It tends to confirm all of the worst interpretations of the United States, and not simply in Iraq, but also in Afghanistan' and in the region," Cordesman told the Associated Press.
More whitewashing
Then we have William Arkin writing in the Washington Post
says he believes the "allegations" that a massacre unfolded in Haditha "because this is war, frightening, frustrating, and most important, completely disconnected anymore from humanity."
What a completely morbid statement utterly removed from any liability, accountability or responsibility. It says "hey, shit happens - this is war", yet another form of escapist mentality designed to exonerate the guilty and pass over the victims.
Arkin then says
"One Marine lance corporal was killed in the attack. Evidently in retaliation, but certainly in defense, the Marines opened fire, shooing and killing civilian bystanders in a taxi and two nearby homes."
Evidently in retaliation, but certainly in defense? What the hell kind of convoluted tipsy-turvy logic is Arkin spewing here? First off, he has his timing wrong. The attack on the bystandrs in the taxi happened after Marines finished off two families in their homes.
How is shooting point blank range at women and childre "certainly in defense"? How? Did one of the infants fart in the direction of the valiant, super-hero US Marines who had to defend themselves by cutting the innocent to pieces?
Arkin continues to insult all Iraqis when he says:
No, more likely what happened in Hadithah was more of an oh sh*t, oh well, more Iraqi civilians got in the way cover-up, with way too many bullets being fired, with things getting out of control. This type of cover-up officially put the "blame" for the deaths on insurgents and not U.S. soldiers.
We are already hearing from military sources that there is more to the story, that evidence will show mitigating if not extenuating circumstances: that Marines took gunfire, that the area and the town were particularly active and deadly, that insurgents were taking refuge in and firing from civilian homes, that the legendary "fog of war" descended and no one was to blame.Is this guy for real? The blame for US Marines killing women and children is with the "insurgents"?
The truth of the matter, I hear from military sources, and an explanation I suspect is completely true, is that what happened in Hadithah that day has happened more times than the Marines and the Pentagon would like to admit, and more times certainly than the American public would like to admit.
And if it has happened more times than the American public would like to admit why are you not outraged? Why are you so soft-spoken about the killing of innocent women and children? Is it because they are Muslim Arabs? Is it because you can easily pass off all these incidents and delude yourself into blaming someone else for them?
Fog of war? Maybe there was a fog too on the morning of 911, or is that taboo? How dare I. The deaths of Muslim Arabs, including women and children is ... well heck due to the fog of war.
Why can't Arkin have the balls to call it what it is without all the contortion he obviously has gone to great pains to pull off? It is a crime, Arkin. A despicable crime committed by US Marines, unprovoked.
How can you ever justify the killing of a child? Ever.
Why is it we can call the 911 attacks on New York and Washington as despicable crimes against humanity and Arkin cannot?
Why is it we call the killing of 3000 Americans on 911 - Americans of mixed ethnic and religious origins - an intolerable attack on all the ethics and morals of humanity, but Arkin is too cowardly to stand up to murder and indifference?
American volunteer soldiers are fighting a frightening and frustrating battle against a never depleting and highly motivated enemy. The enemy is not in uniform, chooses to fight on a civilian battlefield, intentionally using civilians as fodder and shields to manufacture enough blood and chaos to drive the conventional army from the country.Shame on you, Arkin and all US media who condone this type of behavior or try and squeeze their way out of it to make everying seem alright.
It's okay, Nicole Richie is back on the show and Taylor Hicks is god, its okay.
ABU GHRAIB
Yes, it won't go away. Seems a military jury is deciding whether to convict military police sergeant Santos Cardona, 32, of making his dog bite, scare and threaten prisoners at the notorious jail in 2003 and 2004.
The jury is confused, we hear. Cardona's defense counsel, Harvey Volzer, suggested that the command structure at the camp was confused and his client was never instructed how a dog should be used.
I am sorry, but how does this make sense. If you see a dog bite someone till they bleed or attack people, is that considered proper? How could there be any confusion at all? Do you need to be instructed as to how a dog can or cannot attack another human being.
Ahhh ... here we go, the confusion is whether Iraqis should be treated as human beings. Once again, racism and the entire aspect of the North American master race comes to the fore. You know, untermenschen again. Iraqis are untermenschen, bubba.
http://truth-about-iraqis.blogspot.com/2006/06/has-us-media-launched-campaign-to.html#links
