Month: August 2003

From “turning-tables” — a blog written by a US soldier in Baghdad:

at the doors of the palace there are filipino guards in tan uniforms…i think they are part of a civilian security company…brought in by the u.s….i recognize the uniforms…they had them in doha…but in kuwait they were americans…guarding all the gates to doha and arifjan…I read yesterday that close to a third of the billion dollars a week that we are spending out here goes straight into contractors pockets…I can believe it…we’ve got some civilian dudes out here who are doing my exact job as contractors…they are each getting paid $120,000 a year…they’re both 26 years old…the money is out there…but money isn’t everything…

Sad old droopy-eyed Michael Ledeen pitches a hissy fit over Anthony Gancarski’s last article. These guys sure talk tough for a bunch of pansies.

In yesterday’s issue of NIN weekly, Serbian political commentator Aleksandar Tijanic writes about the late PM Zoran Djindjic and his alleged nemesis, Colonel Milorad “Legija” Lukovic, deconstructing them both as the same type of character, the ambition-driven worshipper of violence and coercion.
The Serbian press is generally statist, though on occasion critical of individuals. Tijanic’s deconstruction, though, comes close to questioning the entire system of violence that calls itself a government and hides behind nonsensical terms such as “democracy.”
(Hopefully) developing… Continue reading “Blasting statism in Serbia”

Devil’s advocate on “postwar” Iraq: Why withdraw? The Bush administration will be blamed for what happens in Iraq whether U.S. troops stay or leave. If they stay, every dead soldier and civilian, plus general unrest, will be blamed on the occupation. If they leave, critics of the war (especially in Europe) will blame Bush for leaving the country rudderless, ruined, a vacuum waiting to be filled by al-Qaeda or ayatollahs.

To which I say: Damn right, and deservedly so. Bush launched this stupid war, so whatever comes of it should be laid at his feet. But between a permanent occupation and quick withdrawal, the latter option is distinctly superior from both a moral and strategic viewpoint. As Ted Rall puts it:

The bloodshed may continue after we leave–and we’ll be partly to blame for that. But until we pull out, the carnage is all ours.

The warbots had ample warning (not only from places like antiwar.com, but also from their own intelligence agencies) that the current chaos would ensue post-invasion. There is no way to reverse what has been done. But Bush and co. can refrain from compounding their errors. The Iraqis have suffered enough; let’s not wait until they take spectacular revenge on us before we withdraw.

My new article, now online. Try to find all the thought crimes I’ll be charged with in my forthcoming PATRIOT Act indictment!

For some reason, foreigners are less than wild about the idea. The great Moja, U.S. Army sergeant in Iraq, thinks he knows why:

i get the feeling these countries offering their support want to make a good impression…they want to be seen as professional world powers…and helpful allies…but still they are only here…so far…in one’zees and two’zees…

but i wonder…how many of my troops would i send from mojaland…to take the burden off a country that started a war…and quite possibly bit off more than it’s ‘1st world mouth’ could chew…how many troops would i be willing to quite possibly sacrifice so that american troops could hop on a plane…and head back to the great states of america…

What are the odds that Spain, Nicaragua, Poland, Ethiopia, or Lithuania will adopt the angry orphan we created?