Storms

First, McClatchy Newspapers has conducted an eight-month investigation of the US detention system created in the aftermath of 9/11. Guantanamo: Beyond the Law is an unprecedented examination of the detention system, one which every free thinking person should seriously examine. It is a five part series that will begin publication on the 15th of this month.

“Reporter Tom Lasseter, with help from Matt Schofield, conducted in-person interviews with 66 former detainees now living mostly in the Middle East and South Asia. No other news organization has matched the scope of this investigation, which covered 11 countries on three continents.

The McClatchy investigation’s conclusion: The United States rounded up scores of people who were innocent of any connection to terrorist groups or were only low-level Taliban grunts or common criminals.

In several cases, detainees had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government when they were picked up. This happened because the U.S. relied on tips from rival Afghans or bounty hunters seeking cash rewards, and because the U.S. underestimated the complexity of the warlord culture. Guards then routinely brutalized detainees at the Kandahar and Bagram air bases in Afghanistan, where the investigation found that abuse was much worse than it was in Guantanamo.

At Guantanamo, however, innocent men, adventure-seekers and low-level Taliban grunts were thrown together with hardcore Islamic militants who quickly took advantage of the prison camp’s rules to turn Guantanamo into a school for jihad, McClatchy found.

Bush administration lawyers created a legal system that deprived detainees of any rights under international law and made it nearly impossible for them to defend themselves, with no ability to call witnesses, seek legal help or appeal their imprisonment, even though they’d never been charged with a crime.

The U.S. held these detainees for years and then simply released them with no explanations, no apologies, no compensation.”

The Façade Of Iraqi Sovereignty

In the following quote, which comes from an article published in today’s Independent, take particular note the employment of the term “gets away with” within the context of the greater issue…

“American troops in Iraq would be confined to their bases and private security guards subject to local law if Iraq gets its way in negotiations with the US over the future status of American forces.”

Get away with? Isn’t a large swath of the US population under the impression that the government of Iraq was democratically elected? Was that not the point of the whole ‘purple finger’ affair? Is the government of Iraq not that of a sovereign country? Or is it one that simply exists as cover for a US hegemonic agenda?

The article continues…

“The current United Nations mandate for US troops expires at the end of this year and Washington wants to conclude a bilateral agreement with Baghdad for the future deployment of US forces. There are just over 150,000 US troops in Iraq living on scores of bases across the country, from little 30-men outposts to sprawling camps often built around old Iraqi army barracks.

Construction work over the past five years has turned these bases into small towns of trailers, hangars and blast walls, equipped with a Pizza Hut, Starbucks-style coffee shops, cinemas and swimming pools.”

Isn’t it reassuring to know that US personnel in Iraq have the ability to start their day with a double macchiato while the people that they’ve been told they’re there to liberate and defend have lived without basic sanitation, intermittent electricity, a devastated national healthcare infrastructure, and other basic fundamentals for years?

Now that’s a war.

I can think of nothing more insulting to veterans of, for example, the 101st Airborne, who slugged their way through some of the most vicious combat in Europe during World War Two, or the Marines in the Pacific Theatre at the same time for that matter, than the fact that Pizza Huts and swimming pools are waiting for those at the end of patrols. That’s not meant to take anything away from the unique and highly stressful situation that US combat troops in Iraq have to face – but it still remains a significant irony.

Ultimately, will the Iraqi government get its way? Obviously the question that has to be seriously asked is – will it even matter if they do?

On A Side Note…

Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The boogieman whose importance was over-amplified by the Bush Administration to justify the ongoing occupation, a “group” that did not exist in the country prior to the invasion in 2003, and one that, while the insurgency was in full swing, represented 5% or less of it (and it should be noted at this point that the other 95% of the insurgency was not aligned with them, and most would have gladly done away with them as well). Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is actually nothing more than a small part of a larger Salafi Jihadi movement, consists primarily of foreign fighters, the majority of which come from Saudi Arabia. Next to Saudi fights, Syrians and Libyans round out the top three of those that comprise the backbone of what is known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Iraqi contingent is, in truth, smaller.

That said; according to The Times Online, the CIA has declared that al-Qaeda in Iraq is all but defeated. Unfortunately, the information presented is a little strange…

“The CIA has declared that al-Qaeda is virtually defeated in Iraq and that the country is seeing its lowest level of violence for four years.

Nineteen US military personnel have died in Iraq this month, according to the Pentagon, making May the least deadly month for US troops since the beginning of the war.

The deadliest month for US troops was May 2007, when 126 died as the insurgency in Baghdad raged.

The main reason for the drop in violence, which has also seen a big decline in Iraqi civilian deaths, is a ceasefire by the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose forces have been directly confronted by US and Iraqi troops for over a month.”

First, lower levels of violence compared to the level of violence during the height of the insurgency cannot be attributed to al-Qaeda in Iraq, as the majority of Iraqi insurgents were not affiliated with them.

Second, Moqtada al-Sadr and the substantial Shi’ite militia that he commands are about as far away as one can get from al-Qaeda. In truth, as it stands now, they represent the most powerful militia in Iraq.

The article continues…

“Mr Hayden gave warning that al-Qaeda still posed a serious threat. Such caution appeared justified after two suicide bombers struck in northern Iraq on Thursday, killing a total of 20 people in separate attacks.”

One minute they’re defeated, the next they’re still a serious threat. There’s nothing better than the propaganda required to keep the flames fanned.