Month: March 2004

As I mentioned Thursday, the extradition of two Croatian generals to the Hague Inquisition has occasioned comments in the media about how Serbia now needs to arrest and extradite its own “indictees” in order to remain in the Empire’s good graces. In the words of Associated Press, “The country risks losing badly needed financial support from the United States and the European Union if it fails to bring suspects to justice.”
The sort of “justice” the Inquisition metes out aside, what exactly does Serbia stand to lose? Continue reading “Losing what, exactly?”

Stirling Newberry has a great post analysing the effect of the internet and cellphone on the Spanish election today.

What happened was that evidence came to light that the PP had been told on Thursday, just after the bombings, that Morrrocan extremists, linked to Al Qaeda had claimed responsiblity. A television station was told that a video tape could be found in a public trash bin. The news exploded across Spain – not just through normal channels – but on through the informal channels of email. Protesters sprung up everywhere – the same cat call lines used against PP politicians in different cities.

The internet allowed the public to “break the news” – cut through the attempts to fog the issue, and once it was clear that they had been lied to, strike back. Within moments of the bombing – black ribbons appeared everywhere on internet sites – and on doors, lapels. They were on web cams and even in chat rooms. There was, instantly, a communalization of grief.

But this same electric ability of community to form did not, as some thought, lead to a rallying behind the leadership – but quite the contrary, as the BBC Reports:

At the peace marches and at “spontaneous” protests outside PP headquarters in Madrid on Saturday, thousands demanded “Who was it? Tell us the truth” and held up banners warning “Don’t play with the dead”.

And notes that the demonstrations, while not called by any organization, are not exactly “spontaneous” either. The technological revolution of dissemination of information, married to the “flash mob” cellphone revolution has wrought an opposition forming, even though the major political opposition party – the PSOE – has not lead or attacked the government directly.

“Quienes Fueron?” Asked one demonstrator’s sign. Internet chatter centered around a round up of supsects – and then yesterday Europa Press broke the news that one of the Morrocans arrested was linked to the 911 plot and bin Laden. Retuers quoted an anti-terrorism expert saying that Al Qaeda struck because of the participation in the “War on Terrorism”. Spain’s anger exploded.

The government had bet that it could simply delay a few days, collect the mandate, and then, when it was too late, admit the truth. Or that if the truth would leak out, that the response would take to long to organize.

This is not what happened. Instead, the personal communication revolution brought on by the internet and ubiquitous cellphones – made it so that the public was acting as fast as the government. The government found itself under constant pressure, with demonstrators seemingly as well informed as the ministers they heckled. An aggressive press pushed the government, the government, while it tried to fleisch its party line, released information in a timely fashion – the bureaucracy undercutting the political appointees’ attempts to spin the story.

Read the rest…..

This is similar to the phenomenom that happened February 15, 2003 when millions worldwide marched against the Iraq invasion. The internet throws an unpredictable new ingredient into the political stew, and at least for the moment, the politicians don’t know how to deal with it.

With 85% of the vote in:

El PSOE gana las elecciones, con el 85%
de los votos escrutados (164 escaños)

PP has 148

David Woods of the Patriot News asks, “Are there limits to American might? If so, are we reaching them?”

Consider:

• The Iraq invasion caught the Pentagon so short of military cargo planes that it had to hire Russian aircraft to ferry tanks and other materiel. “We had exhausted all of our resources,” said Mark Voorhis, a spokesman for the U.S. Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, Ill. The United States chartered Russian AN-124 aircraft for 79 missions at a cost of $28.9 million in 2003, and is still chartering them.
• The Army wore out 9,000 heavy weapons and vehicles that need fixing and renovating — “a huge task” for which “we do not have the funds,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker recently told Congress. If another conflict breaks out, the equipment won’t be available.
• The Navy is so short of money it’s requiring pilots to fly simulators rather than real jets to practice carrier landings, according to Vice Adm. Charles W. Moore Jr., deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness. To keep aging ships and aircraft going costs $3 billion more every year, but the budget for new ships is down 13 percent.
• Adjusted for inflation, the cost of military personnel, pushed by tripling health care expenses, rose 16 percent over the past decade. Competing with the private sector to attract and keep good people, the Pentagon offers re-enlistment bonuses as high as $40,000; already, average annual military compensation has reached $99,000 in cash and benefits.
• To handle new missions, the Army is recruiting 30,000 soldiers and hiring 20,000 civilians to free up troops for combat jobs. Still, it is short of infantrymen. Specialists in high demand for the war on terrorism, they make up only 4 percent of military personnel. “We’re trying to defend the empire with a force about the size of the New York City police department,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales Jr., former commandant of the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle.

The Iraq invasion was badly planned and what inadequate planning was done so irreparably crippled by unrealistic expectations of the situation the American military would be facing that not only is the military stretched to the breaking point in terms of soldiers, but the policies implemented to deal with the shortage of troops are terrible morale-busters like Stop-Loss. Adding to the demoralization of the troops is a serious shortage of equipment and chaotic resupply, but the real back-breaker is knowing that there is no relief in sight. Presently, the troops which originally invaded Iraq are being told that they are next up to go back.

When looking at the shabby situation for resupply of the American troops, keep in mind that the only relief for American troops that the Bush administration has indicated might be forthcoming is the hasty hustling into service of thousands of Iraqi security troops and the “New Iraqi Army.” Left unexplained is the question of how, if the American military is so badly undersupplied, the Iraqis will be equipped.

The contract for equipping the Iraqi troops has been handled in the same incompetent and corrupt manner as the great bulk of Iraq contract fiascos. First, the contract was awarded to a buddy of Ahmad Chalabi’s who was clearly incapable of handling it. When the companies passed over for this crony contract cried foul, the contract was “investigated” and reassigned. This means even more time and money wasted, and Iraqi police forces, already a favored target for attack by guerillas, are sitting ducks with their inadequate weapons and vehicles.

In light of these egregious failures, the continued sabre-rattling by the pro-war neocon hawks in the Bush administration can be dismissed as so much empty rhetoric. The American military has been used and abused to the point that it is struggling to cover current commitments, making new invasions extremely unlikely, regardless of the belligerent declarations issuing from the neocon hawk nests.

40 aborted bombing runs:

Australia’s F/A-18 pilots defied the orders of American commanders and refused to drop their bombs on up to 40 missions during the invasion of Iraq, it can now be revealed.

In a remarkable account of how our airmen applied Australian rules of engagement, an RAAF pilot has told The Sun-Herald each of the 14 RAAF Hornet pilots aborted three to four bombing runs because intelligence given at pre-flight briefings did not concur with what they found at the target.

Last night, The Sun-Herald could not confirm whether or not American field commanders raised objections about the Australian pilots’ actions, nor if US pilots later carried out the bombing runs themselves.

But Australia’s Defence Force chief, General Peter Cosgrove backed the pilots’ action, and said there were no recriminations.

Squadron Leader Daryl Pudney last week described how he and other Australian F/A-18 pilots were forced to weigh up the risk of civilian casualties in a split second before dropping their bombs.

He said pilots broke off many missions after they saw the target and decided there was not a valid military reason to drop their bombs.

What can I say? The implications for more horrible American intelligence and avoidable civilian casualty repercussions are enormous. What was the ratio of American bombing missions to Australian ones? How many American pilots aborted bombing runs to spare civilians?

A few paragraphs in this March 12th entry by Riverbend, a woman blogger in Iraq, caught my eye. It is about four Iraqi men detained by the US military who were able to buy their freedom when their families coughed up $300 payments to the soldiers holding them. I hadn’t realized that we were charging a fee to release detainees from American custody. Is this official military policy, or are these cases of outright extortion? Are the thousands of detainees still held by the US in Iraq merely in prison because they can’t come up with their $300 fee? I realize this story is hearsay but it has somewhat of a ring of truth to it, at least to my ears.

They agreed that one of the soldiers would accompany the man back to the city and wait while he came up with $300/detainee. The rest of the men would be freed a couple of days later. And it worked. Two days later, his three relatives came walking home after being dropped off on the side of the road. Basically, they paid a ransom for their freedom. … read more

I note there is no mention of fees to be paid by a detainee in these requirements for release outlined by Paul Bremer back in January, 2004.

“First, the person released must renounce violence. Second, the person released must have a guarantor, such as a prominent person in his community or a religious or tribal leader who will accept responsibility for the good conduct of the individual being set free.”