CommonPrejudice

Iraqi Hooliganism

Not for the faint-hearted:

Police say an Iraqi soccer player has been shot dead just as he was about to kick what could have been the tying goal in a weekend game south of Baghdad.

Police Maj. Muthanna Khalid says a striker from the Buhairat amateur team was facing only the goalie during a Sunday match in Hillah when a supporter of the rival Sinjar club shot him in the head in the final minute of play....

Unjustifiable

As all the war criminals and incompetent minions from the Bush administration start to appear on tv and in opinion columns trying to justify the unjustifiable, their war policy, one common refrain is heard . And the media unsurprisingly twiddle their thumbs.

I just heard Condi Rice on CNN say that while she regretted not finding WMDs (why not regret butchering the intelligence and lying to the public?), she did not regret "liberating Iraq."

This argument is a corollary to the same type of thinking from those who supported the war before it began. Whereas if you were against the war back then you were "pro-Saddam," now they will justify the invasion and occupation as a good thing because Saddam was removed.

Of course it's faulty logic, just don't expect any prominent media figures to hold their feet to the fire. First the issue is framed in a Bush friendly way. Why not ask them if they support killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and devastating a country's infrastructure and social relations for generations?

But I believe an analogy typical of a intro philosophy of law course will work better here. A very dangerous killer is hiding in a large building. If he escapes he is certain to kill again. So the police decide to blow up the building, killing him and several hundred innocent people along the way (not to mention the millions of dollars of damages).

Later the police chief appears on CNN. She's asked by the probing journalist if the action was warranted. Her response is that she didn't regret killing the brutal murderer.... And the journalist leaves it at that.

(update: I noticed that the Rice interview on CNN was originally from The View so it's not like I think they would ask the difficult questions. Then again, would you really expect any more from CNN "journalists?")

---------------

While everyone is focused on the stimulus package here in the United States, not surprisingly there is little discussion of the very important election in Iraq on Saturday. From a informed observer of the goings on in Iraq:

On Saturday, January 31, Iraq will conduct its first elections since 2005, when Iraqis went to the polls to select both their national parliament and provincial councils. This time, the election will decide only the provincial councils in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Still, the election is likely to be a turning point for Iraq. Which way it turns -- toward greater democracy, or toward further instability and a return of violent resistance -- depends on what happens on Saturday.

It's not a pretty picture. The elections promise to be marred by violence, fraud, intimidation, vote-buying and bribery, bloc voting by tribes and ethnic constituencies, and undue influence by Shiite clerics.

If things don't go smoothly, and if the elections don't result in gains for parties that were shut out of the political process in 2005 -- especially among Iraq's disenfranchised Sunni bloc -- then it's very likely that violence will increase once again. It's even possible that many Sunnis will return to armed resistance, and some of them will rejoin Al Qaeda in Iraq

Read the rest of the article. It's a very good rundown of the current political situation/mess in Iraq.

Win?

Is there a more ridiculous perspective than those who argue that the U.S. must "win" in Iraq? This has been going on for years and I'd just like to know what they could possibly "win" and how will they know when they "won" it.

Of course those who argue this are usually known for such pearls of wisdom as: (h/t K. Silverstein)

...the critics had “limited experience in the Middle East” and that this led them to “reach the naive conclusion that an invasion of Iraq will cause America to be loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected.”

I'll never stop being mystified as to how these people retain any credibility whatsoever.

Traitors

One more note on the ex-general controversy.
I can remember getting to my local bar one night a while back when a couple of patrons greeted me with impassioned diatribes on how sleazy Moveon.org was to play word games General Petraeus' name, turning it into BetrayUs.  Can't criticize those generals after all they have done for the country, right.

Well, of course like all right wing rants there was precious little substance or consistency in their attacks (remember how whenever an ex-general came out against the Bush crime family and the illegal war in Iraq they were immediately assailed by the government and the RW blogonuts as liars or being bitter or some other insult which avoided any discussion of the actual claims raised).

Now it comes out that a multitude of ex-generals were being paid for advocating war. Further as noted in the video below by a CNN journalist, many had shares in companies getting contracts during the war. This is obviously quite scandalous. (though of course the liberal media has almost entirely ignored the controversy...what a shock).

Advocating a war because you are told to do so by the government and moveever, because this war will most probably enrich you greatly is pretty much the height of unethical behaviour by an ex-general. And yeah, if I were American I wouldn't hesitate to call these people traitors (neither would anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq either, I'm guessing.)

Manufacturing Consent Any Way They Can

One question that you don't hear nearly enough is why did Americans, and only Americans, support the invasion of Iraq. I was in Mexico at the time and it was clear from abroad that the overwhelming sentiment across the planet was anti-invasion. Are Americans simply not as bright as the rest of the world?

I won't argue that here. People are stupid .... and smart ... everywhere.

So then was the consent by the American people, to use that only Chomsky thesis, 'manufactured'? Clearly it some way it was. And for all of Chomsky's outrageous statements on such areas of the world as Cambodia and Bosnia I've always thought his media critique has been very accurate and informative. Hell even Micheal Berube would support Chomsky on the media "22/7" (read two comments and two replies by Berube here on this issue). Berube does, though, argue that there is much more to it - and apparently does this as well in a book coming out soon that looks to be quite interesting - mentioning at least in this thread that the 'manufacturing consent' contention overlooks the competing interests within the elite. I don't doubt he makes a very strong case. I think of Greg Palast's depiction in Armed Madhouse of the two facets of the pro-invasion group, one that looked for control over world oil prices while the other advocated for war for mostly geo-political reasons. (Btw while I don't always agree with Berube he is certainly one the most intelligent and humourous commentators out there). Nevertheless if you are looking for a strong argument for the theory last week one appeared.

So for any of you who aren't familiar with the NYTimes story documenting how the media simply used paid ex-generals as supposed neutral commentators in the lead up to the war the following video does an excellent job in explaining the story (via Greenwald). It shows how, if not always the result, when the chips are down consent will be manufactured.

So watch it.

Progress to What?

A couple of questions regarding the "progress in Iraq":

1. Does anyone seriously want to argue that it is possible to achieve stability in Iraq, never mind the Middle East, as long as there is an American military presence in the country?

2. Does anyone seriously want to argue that the United States is prepared to abandon those military bases and their embassy under a Republican government?

And under a Democrat government? I'd say the only one who would adopt Senator Jim Webb's position that the United States must remove all military bases and withdraw all of the combat forces from the country is John Edwards. (Apparently though while he has aggressively confronted the Bush regime Webb  de-emphasized this portion of his Iraqi plan after I remember first hearing him speak about the subject).

Edwards in early November in New Hampshire stated what others won't and did so rather clearly:

“These are the questions I think should be asked -- and answered -- by everybody,” he told the crowd inside Stone Church. “First, will you have all combat troops -- all combat troops -- out of Iraq in the first year of your Administration? That’s question number one. The answer to that question for me is yes, I will have all combat troops out of Iraq.

"Second, if you’re not going to have all combat troops out of Iraq, are you going to continue combat missions in Iraq over the longer term? The answer to that for me is no, because continuing combat missions is continuing the war. And if we’re going to bring this war to an end, we have to get combat troops out and we have to stop combat missions in Iraq, and I will do that.

"The third question is, will you keep permanent military bases in Iraq? The answer to that question for me is no, I will not. No combat troops, no combat missions, no permanent military bases.”

I would like to see a bit more, obviously, such as a firm rejection of any military presence including military advisers and military aid to a government the U.S. feels compelled to prop up. But I see the United States in Iraq minimally for a couple of more years under a Clinton or Obama government.

Quote of the Day

ABC News via Atrios

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

Heights of Ineptitude

I have always asserted and will continue to assert that the US invasion of Iraq was doomed from the very beginning. The idea that US forces would be welcomed in a Muslim country in the Middle East and that a society torn apart by war and rife with sectarian tensions could be easily mended was always preposterous. Nevertheless between the incompetence, corruption and mistreatment of the Iraqis themselves, the US administration and its forces are doing everything in their power to demonstrate that it was they who screwed up the operation themselves. Some examples from today.

From BBC today on training the Iraqi police

$1.2bn (£590m) contract for training Iraqi police was so badly managed that auditors do not know how the money was spent, the US state department says.

The programme was run by a private US company, DynCorp. It insists there has been no intentional fraud.

Auditors have stopped trying to audit the programme because all the documents are in disarray and the government is trying to retrieve some of the money.

E&P while commenting on another issue notes a survey of the American troops in Iraq a while back:

the study found that at least 10% of U.S. forces reported that they had personally, and without cause, mistreated "noncombatants" (not detainees) through physical violence or damage to personal property.

The survey also noted that only 47% of the soldiers and 38% of marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. More than 40% said they backed torture in certain circumstances. Even worse, nearly one in five said that all noncombatants "should be treated as insurgents."

And Atrios notes that the Blackwater guards (you know the private contractors so obsessed with decorum and Iraqi civil rights) have been granted immunity by the State Department (he also notes how it isn't in the State Department's authority to do such a thing).

It is true that when all is said and done  it is very difficult to imagine a war being conducted any more incompetently and corruptly.

To Make Up for the Missing WMDs ...

.... the United States in Iraq is doing everything it can.

The US military cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to the Iraqi security forces, an official US report says.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Pentagon cannot track about 30% of the weapons distributed in Iraq over the past three years.

But at least the Bush administration can sure where the U.S. administrators in Iraq stand on Roe vs Wade.

Whose Your Prophet Now?

Quiz time.

Whose words were these?

The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon... We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before...

The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

This was taken from a story by the tireless professional journalist Robert Fisk. Fisk was often the target of silly attacks by the right wing smear machine regarding his credibility and so-called "breathlessness. Now, after years of the neo-cons being wrong about everything and virtually always doing so in a "breathless" fashion, Fisk must surely wear those insults hurled his way as a badge of honour.

Below the fold is the answer to the first question.