by Greg Palast
Get off it. All the carping, belly-aching and complaining about George Bush’s incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.
On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq’s border, most of the 59 million Homer Simpsons who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.
But don’t kid yourself — Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do. In case you’ve forgotten what their real mission was, let me remind you of White House spokesman Ari Fleisher’s original announcement, three years ago, launching of what he called,
“Operation
Iraqi
Liberation.”
O.I.L. How droll of them, how cute. Then, Karl Rove made the giggling boys in the White House change it to “OIF” — Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the 101st Airborne wasn’t sent to Basra to get its hands on Iraq’s OIF.
“It’s about oil,” Robert Ebel told me. Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA’s top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam’s former oil minister to finalize the plans for “liberating” Iraq’s oil industry. In London, Bush’s emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq’s crude.
And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq’s oil? The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq’s oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn’t matter. The key thing is what’s inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will “enhance its relationship with OPEC.”
Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.
Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq’s oil production — limiting Iraq’s oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.
There you have it. Yes, Bush went in for the oil — not to get more of Iraq’s oil, but to prevent Iraq producing too much of it.
You must keep in mind who paid for George’s ranch and Dick’s bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil — and their buck-buddies, the Saudis — don’t make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.
It’s Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an “oligopoly” — a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there’s less oil, not more of it. So, every time the “insurgents” blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just love it.
Dick and George didn’t want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less. I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.
Not so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick’s ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 — compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it’s been a good war for Big Oil.
As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq’s occupation oil minister; the conquered nation “enhanced its relationship with OPEC;” and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.
In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn’t America’s mission, nor the Iraqis’. It was a Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.
Let’s set the record straight with facts no one here wants to hear.
When Iraqis protested at the illegal invasion and occupation of their country, we were told that the US military would remove itself once requested to do so by the Iraqi people.
This was accepted by a few Iraqis (bloggers included) who foolishly believed that the US campaigns in Iraq were to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein, instill democracy, and leave the sovereign, independent notion.
For wiser minds, however, this was the furthest possible from the truth.
When the tragedy of the Askariya bombings moved Iraqis to imagine a civil war in their steets and neighborhoods, US military planners and Pentagon strategists gave press released to the media that the recent violence could derail US plans to begin withdrawing by the end of 2006.
Convenient.
I have heard from many a pro-war pundit that the US will leave as soon as it is asked to by the Iraqi government. Missing from this and related arguments is that the politicians in the Iraqi government came in riding US tanks and were endorsed by the US as part of Bremer’s Iraq Governing Council in 2003.
Same names, same tactics, same allegiances, and same backers (US on the one side, Iran on the other).
Is it believable to entertain the idea that US-appointed Iraqi leaders would ask the US to leave?
Erm … no.
Therefore, it is no surprise to read that the US has not only built huge military complexes for its troops in Iraq, but started to expand on them as well.
Take the account of embed Charles J. Hanley, writing for the Associated Press:
The concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 56,000 cubic metres of it, a slab a kilometre and a half long that’s now the home of up to 120 U.S. helicopters — a “heli-park” as good as any back in the United States.
At another giant base, Al-Asad in Iraq’s western desert, the 17,000 troops and workers come and go in a kind of bustling American town, with a Burger King, Pizza Hut and a car dealership, stop signs, traffic regulations and young bikers clogging the roads.
At a third hub down south, Tallil, they’re planning a new mess hall, one that will seat 6,000 hungry airmen and soldiers for chow.
Are the Americans in Iraq to stay? Air force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad.
He is sure of it, but some either delude themselves, maintain some ego-driven hope that Iraq will be free, or are paid to lie to their readers by the US military.
Reading further, we find:
Al-Asad will become even more isolated. The proposed 2006 supplemental budget for Iraq operations would provide $7.4 million to extend the no-man’s-land and build new security fencing around the base, which at 49 square kilometres is so large that many assigned there take the Yellow or Blue bus routes to get around the base, or buy bicycles at a PX jammed with customers.
The latest budget also allots $39 million for new airfield lighting, air traffic control systems and upgrades allowing Al-Asad to plug into the Iraqi electricity grid — a typical sign of a long-term base.
At Tallil, besides the new $14 million dining facility, Ali Air Base is to get, for $22 million, a double perimeter security fence with high-tech gate controls, guard towers and a moat — in military parlance, a “vehicle entrapment ditch with berm.”
Here at Balad, the former Iraqi air force academy 60 kilometres north of Baghdad, the two 3,600-metre runways have become the logistics hub for all U.S. military operations in Iraq, and major upgrades began last year.
Army engineers say 31,000 truckloads of sand and gravel fed nine concrete-mixing plants on Balad, as contractors laid a $16 million ramp to park the air force’s huge C-5 cargo planes; an $18 million ramp for workhorse C-130 transports; and the vast, $28 million main helicopter ramp, the length of 13 football fields, filled with attack, transport and reconnaissance helicopters.
Turkish builders are pouring tonnes more concrete for a fourth ramp beside the runways, for medical-evacuation and other aircraft on alert. And $25 million was approved for other “pavement projects,” from a special road for munitions trucks to a compound for special forces.
The chief air force engineer here, Lt.-Col. Scott Hoover, is also overseeing two crucial projects to add to Balad’s longevity: equipping the two runways with new permanent lighting, and replacing a weak one-kilometre-long section of one runway.
Once that’s fixed, “we’re good for as long as we need to run it,” Hoover said. Ten years? he was asked. “I’d say so.”
Away from the flight lines, among traffic jams and freshly planted palms, life improves on 36-square-kilometre Balad for its estimated 25,000 personnel, including several thousand American and other civilians.
They’ve inherited an Olympic-sized pool and a chandeliered cinema from the Iraqis. They can order their favourite Baskin-Robbins flavour at ice cream counters in five dining halls, and cut-rate Fords, Chevys or Harley-Davidsons, for delivery at home, at a PX-run “dealership.”
On one recent evening, not far from a big 24-hour gym, airmen hustled up and down two full-length basketball courts as F-16 fighters thundered home overhead.
CD stores, slush puppies stand, a car dealership, gyms, basketball courts, American ice cream, Burger King, Pizza Hut — doesn’t this sound like a colony to you?
And what’s more. These bases are prototypes for other bases which may be used to install US missile defence systems to counter Iran’s ballistic missiles programs.
Very, very interesting.
But wait, there is more.
Taking questions from reporters on Tuesday, US President George Bush said any decision to withdraw from Iraq would be made “by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.”
Notice the plural. And isn’t it appropriate that Bush decides for the Iraqis when they can “ask” for US troops to leave the country.
———————————————————-
Twisting the facts
There have been many wondering about recent polls which show many in the US military in Iraq believe they are there as payback for what Iraq did in 9–11. Of course, time and history have shown us Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 but ignorance (and arrogance) is a staple among the US public.
Therefore it is not surprising when a Gallup Poll taken on March 12 reveals that 39% of Americans still believe Iraq was responsible for the tragic events of 9–11. A further 57% believe that Iraq had WMDs immediately prior to the invasion.
Perhaps, the answer lies in the lies and manipulations spoken by the president:
Helen Thomas asks Bush: I’d like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet — your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth — what was your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil — quest for oil, it hasn’t been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise — in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist — is that — I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect —
Q Everything —
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.
Q — everything I’ve heard —
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We — when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.
Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq — hold on for a second —
Q They didn’t do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look — excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where al Qaeda trained —
Q I’m talking about Iraq —
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That’s where — Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where they trained. That’s where they plotted. That’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.
I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the Security Council; that’s why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences —
Q — go to war —
THE PRESIDENT: — and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.
Why talk about Al-Qaida in the context of Iraq, Mr. President? Why bring up September 11, Mr. President?
Mr. President, did resolution 1441 authorize an invasion and regime change in Iraq, or did it warn of serious consequences?
Mr. President when you say Saddam chose to deny inspectors, was it before or after both ElBaradei and Hanx Blix said they were receiving unimpeded access and had concluded none of the US assertions were proven true? When you say Saddam did not disclose, was this after or before Iraq handed over its final report on its WMD files?
Where are the WMDs, Mr. President?
Whew! What an analysis!
But if you remove the ideological nonsense, this palast fellow is an idiot.
As opec knows (and any oil executive), there will be more profits if the main consumer economies keep humming. If they collapse, demand will collapse and therefore so will the price. Duh?
Also, it is important to note that oil consumption, especially in developing economies like India and China, is growing significantly. Just to keep pace with consumption, and keep economies growing (demand=profits), oil net exporters will have to significantly raise production.
The idea of deliberately starting a war to sabotage production (that only amounts to 1.5–2% of world totals anyway), is ludicrous.
Heh heh — but it does not surprise me in the least that LB would devote a thread to this stupidity.
This palast guy needs to more reading and far less writing.
Does it really makes sense to read on if the first statement is biased and patently false? You are really an ‘Iraqi’?
The vast majority of Iraqis were very happy that the US overthrew Saddam. In fact, tha majority of Iraqis are STILL happy that the US got rid of Saddam. Its the rest of the story that gets muddled.
Insurgency 101 teaches that the first job of ‘freedom fighters’ is to cause murder and mayhem and escalate the cycle of violence. If they can stop the domestic political process, and stop economic development, and polarize the population, then they might have a chance at creating conditions where the foreign power grows weary of causalties and expense.
Its fascinating/terrifying to watch how the freedom fighters engage in this nasty business with such relish! ‘Its like dude, its cool that you are so gung ho for the cause, but like, when we said to scare your neighbors, we didn’t mean you were literally supposed to torture them and cut their heads off…’
When the foreign power leaves, and there is no government or public infrastructure, and a polarized population, they stand a better chance of using their favorite tactic of unabashed ruthlessness as a means to take power. Do you think they will change their well honed tactics just because the US is gone? Don’t be so naive.
‘Freedom’ fighters my ass.
What is really happening here is that people like TAI, who give lip service to ideals of tolerance and liberal democracy, are actually afraid to stand up and risk supporting it. Not that I blame him. It might well get him killed. So his mind reaches for excuses to justify his unwillingness to sacrifice for freedom. To hide his shame, he concocts fantasies about stealing oil, US oppression, etc. Sure TAI — join the ranting mob because its a lot safer. At least for now. If your freedom fighters prevail, they will probably put you up against the wall anyway.
Oh yeah, and democracy sucks by the way. Get used to it.
Charles, it’s good to see you have taken off your white hood to hurl some of your racist, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-Iraqi diatribe my way.
You ridicule what you cannot understand. Had you read Arabic, or taken the time to learn another language before you blasted the peoples of that culture to smithereens, you would have understood that most Iraqis were against this war from the very beginning.
But US media, which only knows how to report lies, ignored them. People like you, who would pay to see Iraqi women and children bleed to death, help in that misinformation campaign.
Charles, why must you persit in lying. You have heard me many times speak of the need for a democratic and pluralistic Iraqi society based on Jeffersonian principles.
Where men and women are equal in the eyes of the law. Where human life is sancrosanct and not forfeit.
That is not the situation in Iraq.
Had you taken time off from spreading lies and applauding the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, you would have understood that Iraq is being systematically destroyed.
You say democracy sucks. Maybe, maybe not. Iraqis cannot tell because what they have is not democracy. It is systematic murder implemented by the Nazi horde posing as a US military.
The facts disgrace you again and again and again. But you don’t want to listen.
So I will list them for you.
And I will continue to list it for you.
There have been stories of trigger-happy US soldiers gunning down entire families at checkpoints.
There have been stories of roadside executions by US soldiers.
There was the story of the US officer who shot two Iraqis in the back 36 times.
There are the stories of Abu Ghraib and the torture and abuse which continues to this day.
Nevertheless, we still get testimonials saying the US military in Iraq is doing good, is helping people, is not a criminal outfit.
When you hear them begin their little song and dance, tell them the story of Joe Johnson who went to Iraq to avenge his son’s death, draw Iraqi blood, and wage war against Islam.
Charles J. Hanley writes for AP:
nn
nn
That’s an understatement. It seems anyone who wants to play reality video games, engage in a war of zealots or let of steam need only join the Nazi — excuse me — US military and get shipped to Iraq.
Why did Johnson go to Iraq?
nn
nn
Hey, Johnson, we had nothing to do with 9/11, your son, an idiot for beliving that spiel in the first place, died for a lie. Take your anger out on your own people, not a people you never knew and admitted you hated.
nn
nn
Hasn’t read the Quran? Sounds like you, don’t it Charles?
Must take a whole lotta courage to pick up a gun, aim it at Iraqis, and blow them to smithereens but too scared to read the Quran?
So typical, it’s sad.
Doesn’t this sound like some of those who say they care of the Iraqi people? Why, I am remember one blogger saying almost exactly the same.
nn
nn
People heal by vowing vengeance and going to a country to kill a people they hate? My, my, is this the healing that the Christ taught you?
Come on, Charles, admit, you want all of us Iraqis to die because you hate we are different from you.
And saying I am not Iraqi is a tired old excuse. Ask Nadia, Ask LB, ask the Iraqis whether am Iraqi or not.
More coming up.
Naval investigators are looking into whether Marines intentionally killed 15 Iraqi civilians — four of them women and five of them children — during fighting last November, defense officials said Friday. (See Knight Ridder report)
One official said it’s unclear whether the Marines killed the civilians accidentally or whether they fired indiscriminately. It’s also unclear whether all the civilians died in the same house or in separate locations. Among the dead was a 15-year-old girl, an official said.
To disarm possible booby traps, mines, and other explosives, the advancing forces fired rockets charged with plastic explosives down the empty streets and alleys, which detonated a number of jury-rigged bombs (Anne Barnard, Boston Globe Staff, November 9, 2004).
More from brave people like Charles.
‘I just pulled the trigger’
By their own admission these American soldiers have killed civilians without hesitation, shot wounded fighters and left others to die in agony.
By Bob Graham, in Baghdad
06/20/03: (The Evening Standard) At first glance they appear to be the archetypal Band Of Brothers of Hollywood myth, brave and honest men united in common purpose.
But a closer look at these American GIs, sweltering in the heat of an unwelcoming Iraq, reveals the glazed eyes and limp expressions of those who have witnessed a war they do not understand and have begun to resent. By their own admission these American soldiers have killed civilians without hesitation, shot wounded fighters and left others to die in agony.
What they told me, in a series of extraordinary interviews, will make uncomfortable reading for US and British politicians and senior military staff desperate to prevent the liberation of Iraq turning into a quagmire of Vietnam proportions, where the behaviour of troops feeds the hatred of an occupied people.
Sergeant First Class John Meadows revealed the mindset that has led to hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians being killed alongside fighters deliberately dressed in civilian clothes. “You can’t distinguish between who’s trying to kill you and who’s not,” he said. “Like, the only way to get through s*** like that was to concentrate on getting through it by killing as many people as you can, people you know are trying to kill you. Killing them first and getting home.”
These GIs, from Bravo Company of the 3/15th US Infantry Division, are caught in an impossible situation. More than 40 of their number have been killed by hostile forces since 1 May — when President Bush declared major military operations were over — and the number of hit-and-run attacks is on the increase. They face a resentful civilian population and, hiding among it, a number of guerrilla fighters still loyal to the old regime. A lone Iraqi sniper nicknamed The Hunter is believed to have claimed his sixth American victim this week in a suburb of Baghdad.
The man, said to be a former member of the Republican Guard Special Forces, has developed a cult status among some Iraqis. One Baghdad resident, Assad al Amari, said: “He is fighting for Iraq on his own. There will be many more Americans killed because they cannot stop The Hunter. He will be given the protection of people who will let him use their homes for his shooting.”
In this hostile atmosphere the men of Bravo Company are asked to maintain order, yet at the same time win hearts and minds. It is not a dilemma they feel able to resolve. They spoke to me — dressed in uniforms they have worn for the past six weeks — at their base in Fallujah. Here US troops killed 18 demonstrators at a pro-Saddam rally soon after the war and now face local fighters bent on revenge.
Their attitude to these dangers is summed up by Specialist (Corporal) Michael Richardson, 22. “There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger. It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn’t a big distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren’t.”
Specialist Anthony Castillo added: “When there were civilians there we did the mission that had to be done. When they were there, they were at the wrong spot, so they were considered enemy.” In one major battle — at the southern end of Baghdad at the intersection of the main highways — the soldiers estimate about 70 per cent of the enemy’s 400-or-so fighters were dressed as civilians.
Sgt Meadows explained: “The fight lasted for about eight hours and they just kept on coming all day from everywhere, from all sides. They were all in plain clothes.
“We had dropped fliers a couple of days prior saying to people to get out of the area if they didn’t want to fight, so basically anyone who was there was a combatant. If they were dumb enough to stand in front of tanks or drive a car
towards a tank, then they were there to fight. On that day it took away the dilemma of who to fire at, anyone who was there was a combatant.”
Cpl Richardson added: “That day nothing went with the training. There were females fighting; there were some that, when they saw you f****** coming, they’d just drop their s*** and try to give up; and some guys were shot and they’d play dead, and when you’d go by they’d reach for their weapons. That day it was just f****** everything. When we face women or injured that try to grab their weapons, we just finish them off. You’ve gotta, no choice.”
Such is their level of hatred they preferred to kill rather than merely injure. Sgt Meadows, 34, said: “The worst thing is to shoot one of them, then go help him.” Sergeant Adrian Pedro Quinones, 26, chipped in: “In that situation you’re angry, you’re raging. They’d just been shooting at my men — they were putting my guys in a casket and eight feet under, that’s what they were trying to do.
“And now, they’re laying there and I have to help them, I have a responsibility to ensure my men help them.” Cpl Richardson said: “S***, I didn’t help any of them. I wouldn’t help the f******. There were some you let die. And there were some you double-tapped.”
He held out his hand as if firing a gun and clucked his tongue twice. He said: “Once you’d reached the objective, and once you’d shot them and you’re moving through, anything there, you shoot again. You didn’t want any prisoners of war. You hate them so bad while you’re fighting, and you’re so terrified, you can’t really convey the feeling, but you don’t want them to live.”
These soldiers have faced fighters from other Arab countries. “It wasn’t even Iraqis that we was killing, it was Syrians,” said Sgt Meadows. “We spoke to some of the people and Saddam made a call for his Arab brothers for a holy war against us, and they said they came here to fight us. Whadda we ever do to them?”
Cpl Richardson intervened: “S***, that didn’t really matter who they were. They wanted to fight us so they were the enemy. We had to take over Baghdad, period, it didn’t matter who was in there.”
The GIs spoke of shooting civilians at roadblocks. Sgt Meadows said: “When they used white flags we were told to stop them at 400 metres out and then strip them down naked then bring them through. Most obeyed the order. We knew about others who had problems with [Iraqis] carrying white flags and then opening up on our guys. We knew about every trick they were trying to do. Then they’d use cars to try and drive at us. They were men, women and children. That day we shot up a lot of cars.
“We’d shoot warning shots at them and they’d keep coming, so we’d kill them. We’d fire a warning shot over the top of them or on the road. When people criticise us killing civilians they don’t know that a lot of these civilians were combatants, they really were . And they still are.”
The men have been traumatised by their experiences. Cpl Richardson-said: “At night time you think about all the people you killed. It just never gets off your head, none of this stuff does. There’s no chance to forget it, we’re still here, we’ve been here so long. Most people leave after combat but we haven’t.”
Sgt Meadows said men under his command had been seeking help for severe depression: “They’ve already seen psychiatrists and the chain of command has got letters back saying ‘these men need to be taken out of this situation’. But nothing’s happened.” Cpl Richardson added: “Some soldiers don’t even f****** sleep at night. They sit up all f****** night long doing s*** to keep themselves busy — to keep their minds off this f****** stuff. It’s the only way they can handle it. It’s not so far from being crazy but it’s their way of coping. There’s one guy trying to build a little pool out the back, pointless stuff but it keeps him busy.”
Sgt Meadows said: “For me, it’s like snap-shot photos. Like pictures of maggots on tongues, babies with their heads on the ground, men with their heads halfway off and their eyes wide open and mouths wide open. I see it every day, every single day. The smells and the torsos burning, the entire route up to Baghdad, from 20 March to 7 April, nothing but burned bodies.”
Specialist Bryan Barnhart, 21, joined in: “I also got the images like snapshots in my head. There are bodies that we saw when we went back to secure a place we’d taken. The bodies were still there and they’d been baking in the sun. Their bodies were bloated three times the size.”
Sgt Quinones explained: “There are psychiatrists who are trying to sort out their problems but they say it’s because of long combat environment. They know we need to be taken away from that environment.” But the group’s tour of duty has been extended and the men have been forced to remain as peacekeepers. Cpl Richardson said: “Now we’re in this peacekeeping, we’re always firing off a warning shot at people that don’t wanna listen to you. You make up the rules as you go along.
“Like, in Fallujah we get rocks thrown at us by kids. You wanna turn round and shoot one of the little f*****s but you know you can’t do that. Their parents know if they came out and threw rocks we’d shoot them. So that’s why they send the kids out.” Sgt Meadows said: “Can you imagine being a soldier and being told ‘you’re fighting a war, then when you finish you can go home’.
“You go and fight that war, and you win decisively, but now you have to stay and stabilise the situation. We are having to go from a full warfighting mindset to a peacekeeping mindset overnight. Right after shooting at people who were trying to kill you, you now have to help them.”
The anger towards their own senior officers is obvious. Cpl Richardson said: “We weren’t trained for this stuff now. It makes you resentful they’re holding us on here. It pisses everyone off, we were told once the war was over we’d leave when our replacements get here. Well, our replacements got here and we’re still here.”
Specialist Castillo said: “We’re more angry at the generals who are making these decisions and who never hit the ground, and who don’t get shot at or have to look at the bloody bodies and the burnt-out bodies, and the dead babies and all that kinda stuff.” Sgt Quinones added: “Most of these soldiers are in their early twenties and late teens. They’ve seen, in less than a month, more than any man should see in a whole lifetime. It’s time for us to go home.”
On whether the war was one worth fighting, Sgt Meadows said: “I don’t care about Iraq one way or the other. I couldn’t care less. [Saddam] could still be in power and, to me, it wasn’t worth leaving my family for; for getting shot at and almost dying two or three times, there’s nothing worth that to me.” Even though no Iraqis were involved, and there is no proof Saddam was behind it, the attack on the World Trade Center provides Cpl Richardson and many others with the justification for invading Iraq.
“There’s a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar [flak jacket]. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, ‘They hit us at home and, now, it’s our turn.’ I don’t want to say payback but, you know, it’s pretty much payback.”
© Copyright 2003 Evening Standard
In the drive to Baghdad, the US military wasted dozens of Iraqi civilians, all who supported the US invasion, right?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2679.htm
Atrocities in Iraq: ‘I killed innocent people for our government’
Yes, these dead innocents supported the invasion too, no?
The streets are deserted. But there are some exceptions. The dead. The Marines are operating with liberal rules of engagement. ‘Everything to the west is Weapons Free,’ radios Staff Sgt. Sam Mortimer of Seattle, Washington. ‘Weapons Free’ means the marines can shoot whatever they see — it’s all considered hostile.“
Kevin Sites, NBC photographer in Fallujah, from his personal web log
“The Jolan and Askali neighborhoods seemed particularly hard hit, with more than half of the houses destroyed. Dead bodies were scattered on the streets and narrow alleys of Jolan, one of Fallujah’s oldest neighborhoods. Blood and flesh were splattered on the walls of some of the houses, witnesses said, and the streets were full of holes.“
San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2004
“The enemy has got a face. He’s called Satan. He lives in Fallujah. And we’re going to destroy him.’“
Lt. Col. Gareth Brandi, battalion commander in Fallujah,
BBC, November 7
“We’re going to let loose the dogs of war. “
Staff Sgt. Mortimer, as Fallujah was bombed,
MSNBC, November 10
“There is nothing that distinguishes an insurgent from a civilian.“
An officer who would not give his name, 1st Cavalry Division,
Fallujah Associated Press, November 12
This is what Charles and his ilk want for Iraq.
TAI — “CD stores, slush puppies stand, a car dealership, gyms, basketball courts, American ice cream, Burger King, Pizza Hut — doesn’t this sound like a colony to you?”
Nope. It sounds like a mall.
Jon — “Nope. It sounds like a mall”
Nope. It sounds like an US mall.
TAI,
Thanks for the rant. So if what you are trying to say is that there were some Iraqis who fought, I won’t argue that. I am talking about the majority.
Bullshit TAI. Why make such obviously stupid comments?
My ‘ilk’ supports the establishment of a decent and fair democratic government for Iraq that respects the rights of all citizens, and is accountable to those citizens. You have been fighting and arguing against this since the beginning. By denigrating your elected government, you are at a minimum, at the very least indirectly, supporting the forces that are tearing Iraq apart.
Stef — “Nope. It sounds like an US mall.”
Is there any other kind? :twisted:
Charles — “By denigrating your elected government, you are at a minimum, at the very least indirectly, supporting the forces that are tearing Iraq apart.”
In other words… you’re either with us or against us. Right?
Jon– “Is there any other kind?“
In Usa or in US Colonies, I don’t think so ;-)
Battle for Baghdad ‘has already started’:
Iraq unbreakable:
Wrong. You are either for a democratic pluralistic Iraq, or you are against it.