23,416 US Casualties in Iraq War
21 GIs killed since Saturday
Campaign Against Sadr City Looms
Al-Zaman reports that 21 US troops have been killed in Iraq since Saturday, with 8 killed on Monday alone.
As of Tuesday, 23,416 US troops have been wounded or killed in the Iraq War.
If you really want to gauge the toll of the Iraq War on the American public, you have to read the local newspapers.
For instance the Dorchester Reporter.
And
For instance The Enterprise at SouthofBoston.com.. Sgt. Fontaine is still determined to be a firefighter. This looks like a worthy place to donate.
It seems pretty obvious that the Department of Defense is using flimsy excuses for not revealing the nature and severity of the wounds GIs receive.
Note that this situation is the opposite of the general rule in cable news infotainment. Usually the national cable networks spend hours and hours covering local murder mysteries and emergencies while ignoring vital national and international stories. In this case, they mainly cover Iraq by reporting what the Bush administration says about Iraq, but they almost never cover the local impact of the war or concentrate on the wounded veterans struggling to make their lives. Shouldn't some cable news organization be highlighting at least one such veteran every day, and giving information about where we can send help?
In a CNN poll of 1,014 US adults done Sept. 29-Oct. 2:
39% think Bush is doing a good job as president.
42% will vote for the Republican candidate in November.
53% said that they planned to vote Democrat in November.
57% said the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism
58% said that the Bush administration misled the public on how the war is going
59% said they disapproved of the job Bush is doing as president.
61% said that they oppose the Iraq War
66% said that they disapprove of the way that Bush is handling the Iraq War.
Some of these numbers show a worsening of Bush's position with the public since August. For instance, his approval rating dropped from 42% to 39%, and those who oppose the war rose from 58% in August to 61% now.
Most important of all, a solid majority believes that the Iraq War has made us less safe from terrorism, at 58%-- a sharp rebuke to Bush, who has been making the opposite argument in a string of national speeches as well as on the campaign trail.
Here are the results of a McClatchy/MSNBC poll of Pennsylvanians in which they asked what should be done in Iraq.
What should the U.S. do in Iraq:
Send more 11%
Keep same 23%
Withdraw some 21%
Withdraw all 27%
Not sure 18%
It is incredible that even now, slightly less than half (48%) advocate at least some troop withdrawals, and only a little over a quarter say to get out altogether. A sixth are baffled.
With regard to the Senate race, this poll puts Casey at 49%, with Santorum trailing at 40%. These Pennsylvanians said that Iraq was their number one issue.
In his Meet the Press debate this year with Casey on Iraq, Santorum said of Iraq, "We have a great game plan, and Rumsfeld does fine job." Is it a football game to him? And, which Trans-Neptunian Object does he live on? Even Andy Card and Laura Bush think Rumsfeld should be fired.
AP reports that over 50 persons died in political violence in Iraq on Tuesday. Major incidents included the bombing of a market and a mortar attack on a civilian neighborhood.
The L A Times reports that there is a spike in US combat deaths in Iraq in part because of the current "Battle for Baghdad" sweep of guerrilla-infested neighborhoods.
According to al-Sharq al-Awsat/ AFP [Ar.], it seems likely that the US troops are not very far away now from a major set of encounters with the Mahdi Army in East Baghdad. US military personnel are said to have remarked that "Sadr City is the key to the security plan." In recent days, US military patrols have been sent into the area to probe the security situation there. When they go in after the Mahdi Army, all hell will likely break loose. My guess? That won't come until after the November elections.
Will Bush pardon Libby before his trial on charges of covering up his having leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to the press?
posted by Juan Cole @ 10/04/2006 06:30:00 AM
20 Comments:
Re: local coverage of injured and dead Iraq veterans--NPR covers at least one a day at the national level and local PRI stations cover in detail local veterans, returnees and their families.
I would like to know more about presidential pardoning. Can the president pardon people for crimes for which they have not yet been accused? Can he give a blanket pardon to himself and all his people for violating the 1996 War Crimes act, even if no prosecution has begun?
juan,
do you think that the Iraqi resistance is aware of the upcoming US elections?
I grew up in a household that spoke of "media conspiracies". I tended to doubt that things were so very bad. The idea that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy in the corporate controlled media seemed too paranoid to be true. My skepticism about this theory has lasted through the years, despite the Nation article documenting the consolidation of the corporate media. But the events of the last five years have convinced me that maybe Dad was right after all. Maybe the right-wing Republicans really do have a lock on the news media. Because such a conspiracy is the only thing that could explain the behavior of the news media re: Iraq, the economy and this president.
GOd help us all.
"Two Days of Negotiations"
Professor Cole cannot have failed to notice M. al-Maliki's television address of Monday 1 October in which he laid out a Four Point Program for Perpetual Salvation:
“We are doing this to end sectarianism in Iraq forever,” said Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, as he announced the plan on television flanked by Sunni lawmakers.
Since JC must know about it, but does not mention it, he presumably considers it unworthy of mention. And there's a case for that. I thought Nancy Youssef of McClatchy had left it out of her story from Tuesday, "Iraqi police seen giving up control of the streets to Shiite militias," to indicate a similar contempt, but no, that would not be proper in a reporter, all that happened was that other people at her bureau wrote it up separately:
Monday's agreement seemed as much intended to cool tensions between Shiite and Sunni factions within the government as at spelling out specific steps to be taken. In making the announcement, al-Maliki was surrounded by top Sunni and Shiite members of his government. Al-Maliki repeated previous statements that militias are illegal in Iraq. "We all said many times that we do not need militias ... it can't be government and militias together building the country," Maliki said.
Omar Abdul Satar, a Sunni politician, said the announcement was preceded by two days of negotiations. Yet the four-point plan was vague and provided no details of what steps would be taken to curb violence. Al-Maliki said more announcements would be made in the future.
The plan calls for the formation of three committees.
[1] At the neighborhood level, a committee composed of local political and tribal leaders would meet with Iraqi military officials on violence.
[2] Another committee would be responsible for overseeing security throughout Baghdad and coordinating the work of the neighborhood committees.
[3] A third committee would monitor news media.
[4] The fourth aspect of the plan is a monthly meeting to review progress.
Abdul Kareem Ali, a Sunni member of parliament who participated in the meetings that led to the agreement said in a telephone interview that the patrons in parliament of the two largest militias had backed the plan. "The Sadrists have agreed and Badr Organization leaders have also agreed that the government will have the weapons exclusively," he said, adding that the details could be completed Tuesday.
The shakiest pillar here is probably that "two days of negotiations." You'll remember it took these same gentlemen over three months after the 15 December 2005 voting to put a cabinet of ministers together. On the other hand, those negotiations were about advancing themselves, and these are only about preserving their "country," so perhaps it is reasonable that they should get the latter done fifty times faster this time?
The second shakiest pillar is the familiar (to us) "When in doubt, appoint a committee" ploy. It is nice to see that Green Zone pols are learning the techniques of democracy, even despite Bush Party tuition, but I wish they had put off that particular lesson till a bit later.
M. Ali's remark defeats even sarcasm: if you believe that henceforth "the government will have the weapons exclusively," you probably own three Brooklyn Bridges already.
When you divide the lofty pretensions by the likelihood of accomplishing them, you get something so close to zero that Prof. Cole might reasonably pass it over altogether -- although he might want to think about point [3] a little. Censoring the media and locking people up for "defeatism" or "defamation" of the neo-regime, or of particular officials associated with it, is much easier than ending sectarianism or enforcing gun control. And as I said, these folks do know how to look out for themselves, and self-protection is exactly what they'd be doing when they make life more challenging for reporters and editors. Caveant lectores!
Myself, I take an interest in this fandango from the side of its past causes, rather than its future effects. The "two days of negotiations" comes after about twenty days of malicious leakage from various anonymous Crawfordite sources, mostly claimed to be military, against what a mess poor M. al-Maliki is presiding over. The orchestrated campaign climaxed last Friday, with the conductor himeself saying for quotation with his name attached -- well, here it is:
U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad praised Maliki's efforts but, echoing U.S. generals' warnings last week, said he stuck by his view expressed after the government was formed in late May that it must, in its first six months, curb the danger of civil war: 'That is a fair assessment. I stand by that,' Khalilzad told CNN. 'The government, in the course of the next two months, has to make progress in terms of containing sectarian violence.'"
The chronology works out admirably, does it not? Sultan Zalmay's unmistakable ultimatum on Friday, two days of negotiations amongst the native politicians on Saturday and Sunday, and then hey, presto! by Monday evening we're already well on the way to "the government will have the weapons exclusively" and "to end sectarianism in Iraq forever." (Astaghfirulláh)
But God knows best. Happy days.
You report that a McClatchy/MSNBC poll that indicates 18% of Pennsylvanians are "unsure" about whether to increase, decrease, eliminate, or just maintain US troop levels in Iraq. You describe this group as "baffled." Are they just simpletons or perhaps the brightest and most candid of the lot?
It would seem that the "keep same" and "withdraw some" flocks are either diehard optimists or reckless gamblers. If "more of the same" isn't working, why suppose that "try a little less" will succeed?
Those that argue for more troops are not very brave if they don't propose how to raise or finance such forces. Could they be fools or cowards if it the measure merely buys time or makes the eventual outcome worse?
The worst people are those who call for more troops, knowing full well that this is impossible or will serve no end. It is a mere posture to shift blame to others for the eventual failure. Kristol, Lowry, and Kudlow simply want to boast to their grandkids that others, not they, "lost Iraq."
The bravest stance of all is to propose complete withdrawal. First, it entails prompt bearing of all risks for the suppose calamitous consequences. Second, it means defending oneself forever from accusations of the Right that the withdrawal brought shame and disgrace on the US, encouraged terrorists, endangered Israel, emboldened N. Korea, etc.
The real plan, prepared by the Baker Commission, probably entails replacing Malaki with Allawi in December. He will be given extradordinary powers and instruct army and police to attack the militias. If this fails, Plan B is for the Right to blame the Dem controlled House for weak knees and failure to appropriate more forces and money. If the GOP retains the House, Plan C is more "stay the course," which turns out to be the weighted average of sentiments expressed in the poll.
It is important to keep in mind that the US military, the Iraqi government and Moqtada al Sadr are desperate right now to avoid a confrontation. There are feverish efforts behind the scenes to find a face saving method for the sweeps to take place in Sadr City and still leave the impression that OMS is still in charge as independent and under control of Moqtada. A likely deal would be that the Iraqi National Police actually conduct the sweeps with only limited US involvement (advisors). Because the Mahdi Army has thoroughly infiltrated the INP everyone on the ground will know nothing is changing while from the outside not only the sweeps take place it will be haled as a demonstration of the newly empowered police just trained by the US. In the mean time all of the JAM members are taking vacations in Iran and the weapons are moving south to arm store there. The sweeps will be peaceful and no weapons will be found.
To make a connection...see that St. Petersburg Times story
of a few days ago.
Story says that because of the improved body armor - old news this
- a much higher percentage of the American cannon fodder are surviving.
But with catastrophic injuries. Injuries requiring full time care for
the rest of their lives. Terrible brain damage blah blah blah. What's
new is the St. Pete Times reporter puts a percentage to it: 20 percent.
Run the figures. 3,000 American dead (near enough to). Some 6,000
American "living dead" cases (20 percent of 24,000 wounded).
And just like that you're up into some very serious numbers. Pushing
toward 20 percent of the number of American soldiers who lost their
lives in the Vietnam "fiasco" that Bush and Cheney and Perle and co.
personally cut and ran from.
That's probably not enough "wasted" American lives (let alone treasure)
to "penetrate" the Forbidden City of the MSM but it sure as hell is enough to guarantee
that it'll never again be glad confident morning in Mission-Accomplished-
Wet-Dream-Land. And that's putting it way too kindly...because the fact of the
matter is the Wet Dream has turned into the living nightmare of advanced syphillis.
And just to "zoom out" for a second: any journo who paints this canvas (in the circs. Richard Perle's odious little metaphor* this morning could hardly be more apt) needs to be up to speed on the following.
The information is from a new book out by Walter A. Davis, an (emeritus) Ohio State University professor.
He says:
1) " DU [Depleted Uranium] was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315 and 350 tons. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a third of the U.S. soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now permanently disabled."
2) "In our wars since 1991 the U.S. has now released in terms of global atmospheric pollution the equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs."
3) "Huge chunks of radioactive debris full of DU now litter the cities and countryside of Iraq. Fine radioactive dust permeates the entire country. The problem of clean-up is insoluble. The entire ecosystem of Iraq is permanently contaminated. The Iraqi people are the new hibakusha. Their fate, like that of the "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a condition of death-in-life. The long-term health effects of DU on the Iraqi people (and on our own troops) are incalculable. There is no mask or protective clothing that can be devised to prevent radioactive dust from entering the lungs or penetrating the skin. Moreover, DU targets the DNA and the Master Code (histone), altering the genetic future of exposed populations. Because it is the perfect weapon for delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution directly into living cells, DU is the perfect weapon for extinguishing entire populations...These facts are worth bearing in mind the next time we are told what has become a bipartisan article of faith: the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam Hussein gone."
Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq...I'd say that's a fairly big news story.
Further to the above, I'd be interested to know 1) does DU radiation respect borders...or does it ride the winds? 2) how does this god-awfulness stack up next to, say, Chernobyl? (This last at a risk of being pitably obvious.) 3) what about all this in relation to British soldiers? This last
because the British MSM is not completely supine.
Okay, irony alert time. Be a real pity wouldn't it if impunity was - oops - one of
the victims of the War on Terror. Who would've thought that "friendly fire" could
come round as well as go round? "It just ain't fair cuz, hey, we had our
'accountability moment'".
*Speaking on BBC's Radio Four this morning, Perle said - in relation to why it's all gone so desperately pear-shaped - that Rumsfeld didn't "paint on a big enough canvas". I.E., Bush
and co. should have "done" Syria and Iran as well as Iraq.
All I want to know is: who the hell are those 39%? And if they can keep on leading the rest of the country around by the nose, how soon can we convene a constitutional convention to get ourselves a parliament?
I would like to know about good Iraqi charities to help the Iraqi victims.
The US military had choices, and where they ended up and what happened to them is (at the least) partially due to their choices.
The Iraqi people had no choice about the bombing, invasion, occupation, DU contamination, and all the aftereffects, which now means they are in a living hell on earth.
And besides, the US government SHOULD TAKE CARE OF OUR VETERANS.
So, no, I won't contribute to a charity helping US people, including veterans. I will contribute to charities who help foreigners, and to political campaigns that try to kick these evil people out of office.
And I will contribute to Vets for Peace, so we can stop these damn wars.
Karl: The answer to your question is that the Presidential pardon authority is absolute. He can pardon anyone for anything, even if they haven't been formally charged.
President Ford issued a Presidential pardon to disgraced ex-President Nixon for any crimes he may have committeed while in office--and no formal charges had been made against Nixon.
I doubt that a President can pardon anyone for acts not yet committeed, i.e. future deeds, but beyond that there are no restrictions on the Presidential pardon authority.
I'm pretty sure that another GOP President--Reagan?--pardoned former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger for crimes he may have committed in office and again I'm pretty sure formal charges of lying under oath to Congress had not been levied. But I'm hazy about this one.
Re: the Libby trial
Remember Sibel Edmonds? The FBI translator turned whistleblower who went on to become "the most gagged person in America", according to the ACLU?
Walton heard two of her cases (or heard one and is hearing another.)
Ms. Edmonds filed a motion for his recusal this spring in part over the way her case assignments have been handled: they keep finding their way back to Walton.
Seems someone in Washington likes his style. Why wasn't it surprising to read he was hearing the Libby case, also?
Here's part of her post from antiwar.com/edmonds:
The convoluted route the Edmonds case has taken to Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom appears suspicious and creates the perception that the system has been manipulated. Edmonds' First Amendment case, filed in July 2002, was assigned to Judge James Robertson, who recently resigned from the FISA court in protest of warrantless NSA eavesdropping. In February 2003, Edmonds' case was removed from Judge Robertson and reassigned to Judge Walton with no explanation provided. Edmonds filed a motion to request the case be transferred from Judge Walton and assigned to Judge Ellen Huvelle, who had been presiding over Edmonds' related FOIA case since July 2002. The court granted Edmonds' request and transferred her case to Judge Huvelle. However, two days later, Edmonds' case was removed from Judge Huvelle and reassigned to Judge Walton with no further information or reason provided. On July 6, 2004, Judge Walton granted the government's motion to dismiss based on the assertion of the state secrets privilege.
In March 2005, Edmonds filed in D.C. federal court a separate claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the case was randomly assigned to Judge James Robertson. However, five days later, Edmonds' claim was removed from Judge Robertson and reassigned to Judge Reggie Walton. This set of facts reveals apparent violations of local rules governing the assignment of cases.
This suggests that we're no longer trying to reconstruct Iraq, but trying to teach Iraqis not to expect minimal living conditions:
http://www.newsobserver.com/505/story/494341.html
Redefined mission: "We need to help them redefine their 'hope horizon.'" I'm sure they appreciate our help.
If you really want to gauge the toll of the Iraq War on the American public, you have to read the local newspapers.
Another spot is GI Special which collects those local articles together and packages them together with anti-war organizational efforts among the military itself.
Dr. Cole,
What do you think the Iranian response will be, if any, should the US launch a major assault on Sadr City? Do US officials believe weakening the Mahdi Army will neutralize Iranian influence?
I wonder what would happen if a contender for the US Presidency in 2008 started telling US citizens a few hard truths? It might sound something like this...
"In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, the USA had an historic opportunity to change the world for good. Folks, guess what? We blew it. For decades, impoverished and repressed citizens of the world had looked to the USA as a champion of democracy, freedom and equality. But when the time came for us to follow through on those noble promises, they proved hollow. The world now looks on Uncle Sam as a dangerous bully, a hypocritical liar and a torture-loving Fascist. It's our own fault, folks. We let this happen.
Worse yet, we let slip that moment of opportunity which would could have seen our lofty goals realised across the globe. But it's not too late. We can still take our nation back to those glorious ideals, right the wrongs that have been done in our name, and restore our good name around the world. But we cannot do that without facing some harsh truths. We didn't come to this situation overnight. Our nation has some deep-rooted problems which need to be fixed, and fixed quickly, if we really want to restore the dream that was America.
First of all, our electoral system is broken. It's been the plaything of politicians far too long, and now we have voting machines which cannot be trusted to provide a fair result, or even a paper trail to investigate irregularities. If I am elected, I will ask former President Jimmy Carter's international vote-monitoring agency to oversee a complete review of our voting sytem. The USA will finally become a real Democracy, a shining example to the world, of which we can all be justifiably proud!
Secondly, we need to improve our education and health systems. A nation of fools will never elect wise rulers. And good health is not a privilege, it's a basic human right. I'll be taking money out of the military budget to ensure that all Americans get a decent education, and full access to free helathcare whenever they need it. Damn those big, greed pharmaceutical companies and the parasitic health insurers - this is OUR country!
Thirdly, we need to take another good look at those terrible events of September 11, 2001. If elected, I will create a whole new 9/11 Commission, with powers to investigate all aspects of the attacks, including the Bush administration's clear attempts at a cover-up. We'll look at who really knew what before the attacks, how the towers came down, and how the tragedy was exploited for political purpsoes. We'll even examine Osama Bin Laden's original motivations for the attacks: if the USA is giving terrorists and their supporters around the globe any justifiable reasons to hate us, that's unacceptable. If elected, I'll be announcing an end to this ridiculous "War On Terror" and launching a new initiative called "Friends For Peace". Dialogue and friendship, not bombs and guns, are the real solution to this problem.
Fourthly, we'll be pulling all US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. We'll ask the United Nations and the Arab League to take over security and help convene a new round of elections, and we will hand our miliatry bases over to these forces. The USA will pay the full costs of the international restoration of Iraq, including reparations for past misdeeds. On behalf of the citizens of the USA, I will make a full public apology to the Iraqi people, and to the world, for this disastrous misadventure.
Finally, we need to stop playing Global Policeman. We need to restore old friendships, build new ones, and start contributing in a very real way to the international community. If I am elected, the USA will not only join the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, we will exceed the Kyoto emmissions targets every year until this historic challenge is overcome. We will not only subscribe to the International Criminal Court, we will pass laws removing immunity from prosecution for any US citizens, including soldiers and politicians, who have committed atrocities in the past. I anticipate that several high-ranking members of the Bush administration - including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice - will be handed over to the Hague as soon as possible. If I am elected, the USA will become a vocal champion for the UN, the ICC and other international agencies, which can provide the best possible solution to entrenched humanitarian problems like Darfur, or tyrannical rulers like Saddam Hussein. These global institutions can only work if they are given the proper support, including financial funding. If I am elected, the USA will set an example of generous, altruistic participation for the world to follow. But we will not wield the right of veto as a bully stick, as we have in the past..."
You get the idea.
US military personnel are said to have remarked that "Sadr City is the key to the security plan."
I think what they really mean is that taking out the Mahdi Army is the key to launching the air assault on Iran.
They should be properly motivated, because if the USA goes to war with Iran, and the Mahdi Army isn't neutralized, as in REALLY neutralized, those guys may end up eating their ammo belts.
Mark Foley has 2.8 million dollars in his campaign fund. Perhaps he could donate that to the Homes For Disabled Vets fund. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, as they are saying. But hey! Losing your legs is just a comma in your life, right??
While I strongly disagreed with going to war in Iraq (and the way it was done in Afghanistan), I think any talk about withdrawing troops there is as shortsighted and immoral as starting the war was in the first place.
Powell (borrowing Tom Friedman's words) put it succinctly as: "you break it, you own it". At this point, the US should simply not be allowed to abandon Iraq. If it cannot provide additional manpower to stabilize the country (and it can't), it should commit to sustaining its current force indefinitely and ask for military assistance, for which it will have to pay, both in money and in political concessions (such as a promise to obey international treaties, like the ABM, Kyoto and Geneva).
When the US left Vietnam and Cambodia in 1973, thousands of "collaborators" paid the price immediately, and gruesomely. Millions fled these countries (think boat people and killing fields). Vietnam went on to support the Khmer Rouge through its murderous reign until, eventually, it too was fed up with it and deposed it, which led to the war with China (leaving another 100,000 dead).
The decision to abandon those countries cost well over a million lives (very conservatively) and caused many more millions displaced. It's not hard to see a similar potential for disaster in abandoning Iraq now.
Policies that focus on US troop withdrawal in stead of "fixing what it broke" are therefore profoundly immoral. Leaving Iraq to fight a bloody civil war and - sooner or later - wars with Turkey and Iran is no solution at all. The US has to live with the consequences of electing war hawks like Bush.
Post a Comment
<< Home