Antiwar.com Blog

A valuable insight from a Paul Robinson piece on Iraq:

Actually, withdrawing might be the best thing we could do for them. Far from provoking civil war, the sight of us running from a combined Shia-Sunni offensive could provide Iraqis with a unifying myth of self-liberation to bind the country together and enable them to face the future with confidence.

Drop the macho pose for a minute and think about this. Conservatives and libertarians (not to mention America’s black Muslims) have long derided government hand-out programs in part because of their debilitating psychological effect on recipients. I would say the same logic applies here. Will Iraq be the first nation whose founding myth is one of subservience and humiliation? How do you expect that to turn out?

The 361 photos obtained through the Freedom of Information Act are now viewable on the Antiwar.com server. Thanks to the folks at WarBlogging.com for getting us this mirror.

And great thanks to Russ Kick of TheMemoryHole.org for getting the photos released by the Air Force under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Pentagon has slammed the Air Force for releasing the photos “in error.” They are vowing a crackdown to prevent the release of any more photos of the increasing number of war dead coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nir Rosen, who is slowly becoming the Baghdad correspondent, offers a raw glimpse into the New Iraq:

Hundreds of Iraqis were emerging from the smoke, running away in every direction from the smoking ruin. Hundreds more were just standing in shock, crying, screaming. A woman walked past me, carrying the inert body of a child. American Humvees began arriving in twos and threes, as did Iraqi police cars, and a few dozen Iraqi police and American soldiers tried to take control of the chaos. Jumpy and confused U.S. soldiers tried to turn back the crowd of Iraqis rushing to help, or just to see. “There are many dead people,” one Iraqi man shouted, running from the hotel’s wreckage and asking for aid. The soldiers swung their guns from side to side, looking for an enemy, as Iraqi police with weapons drawn tried to push back the throng. …

Continue reading “Being There”

Here’s the latest on how the “heavy weapon” turn-in is going in Fallujah.

Marine Lt. Gen. Jim Conway, in Fallujah, said only about “a pick-up full” of weapons have been turned in.

He agreed with a characterization that the weapons collected so far have been “junk,” saying the weapons are “things I wouldn’t ask my Marines to fire.”

A Marine news release listed weaponry handed over so far: Six machine guns and two SA-7 missile launchers — all broken beyond repair; one sniper rifle and a flamethrower — neither in usable condition; seven rocket-propelled grenade launchers — some inoperable; 21 RPG projectiles that were not explosive and 113 corroded and rusted mortar rounds.

I think part of the problem is that the good General is confusing the Fallujah rebels with statements like this:

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, an Army spokesman, said the handover so far “is not a serious expression of intent” and said the minimum required is “a large field full of the heavy weapons that have been used against the people in Fallujah and been used against the coalition forces.”

So, they don’t actually have weapons that were used “against the people of Fallujah,” because they are the people of Fallujah so what should they turn in? Very confusing.

Finally, we get a reporter asking the CPA spokesman Senor what on earth they’re babbling about when they say stuff like this:

Senor said Fallujans must oust “foreign fighters, drug users, former Mukhabarat, Special Republican Guard, former Fedayeen Saddam, and other serious, dangerous, violent criminals operating out of Fallujah.”

Drug users?

Asked by reporters about the drug remark, Senor said city leaders said “that many of the individuals involved with the violence are on various drugs. It is part of what they’re using to keep them up to engage in this violence at all hours.”

Oh, so that’s why the Fallujah rebels have fought the Marines to a standstill! Those cheaters are using drugs!

This stuff would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.

Jeremy Sapienza’s article today, US Soldiers Puzzled by Iraqi Resistance to Censorship caused me to remember this picture and Rajhul Mahajan just happens to have written an interesting anecdote about this statue, which sits on the pedestal the Famous Toppled Statue used to occupy, back before Iraq was free:

April 9, 2004 – the one year aniversary of the Great Saddam Statue Toppling Farce, Firdaus Square, Baghdad:

Leaving Iraq 1. Before we go to the airport, I tell the driver I’d like to take a picture of the statue in Firdaus Square. I want to be able to show people back home the ugliest thing in all of Iraq. He is skeptical about whether I will be able to — there is a permanent U.S. military detachment, complete with a big tank, guarding the Palestine Hotel and the Sheraton.

I approach the statue that has replaced Saddam Hussein’s and take several pictures. There are two old men sitting at the base; I wave to them and they wave back. Then, not satisfied with the fact that I have almost no pictures from my trip (on the trip to fallujah, I did the digital equivalent of keeping the lens cap cover on), I suddenly take leave of my senses. With my mind already wandering past Iraq, I forget that my body is still planted very firmly in Iraq. I swivel around to take a picture of the tank. Suddenly the men at the base of the statue erupt, jumping up and gesticulating wildly. I suddenly come back to my senses. the most dangerous thing you can do in Iraq is take a picture of an American soldier with a big gun pointed at you. If they don’t think you’re shooting at them, they’re likely to think you’re a journalist, which is even more dangerous. In front of the “Green Zone,” where the CPA headquarters are, there’s a sign that says, “No photography.” But nobody needs the sign; everyone knows.

A retired Russian general made some explosive allegations last weekend about the NATO attack on Serbia five years ago. It was obvious that in June 1999, NATO double-crossed Yugoslavia and Russia, occupying Kosovo despite the terms agreed in the Kumanovo armistice; they never seriously intended to honor the agreement, or even UNSCR 1244. Now retired Russian general Leonid Ivashov claims his team had negotiated the original armistice, far more favorable to Yugoslavia, only to see it betrayed by a Yeltsin crony close to the Americans.
Now, the agreement he describes looks rather unlikely to have been accepted by NATO. Consider this, however. Russian troops arrived in Pristina shortly before NATO occupiers and the KLA. Someone in Moscow who ordered the deployment must have known or assumed that a deal was made with NATO to include a Russian presence. Yet not only did NATO block reinforcements for those troops, but General Jackson was given orders to shoot at the Russians by his mad superior, Wesley Clark. So either the Russians assumed too much, or there really was a deal, and NATO reneged on it once in a position of strength (i.e. in Kosovo, with the Yugoslav forces gone). Given NATO’s record of trickery, the latter is more likely. Which means that if Ivashov is right, NATO was prepared to agree to anything so long as it could get troops into Kosovo, and planned the treachery in advance.
Ivashov’s statements, reported by Belgrade daily “Politika,” can be read in Serbian here.
Here is a translation, for English-speakers: Continue reading “Double-crossed by NATO?”