There’s a war on, remember? As far as Canadians are concerned, it’s the war in Afghanistan. As far was the world should be concerned, the occupation of Iraq is quickly approaching its sixth year – that’s longer than the Second World War for those of you playing along at home.

Over the last week, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost in the back pages - not that they haven’t been sliding into them for some time now. But it shouldn’t be overlooked that as soon as a conflict erupts that involves Caucasians, much of the Western world’s attention immediately shifts and the degree to which gasps of concern can be heard is considerably amplified.

Let’s face it – insurgents in Iraq (and by that I am referring to guerrilla forces opposed to foreign occupation, not what is painted as al-Qaeda in Iraq by the Western media) are popularly thought of as terrorists. South Ossetian separatists aren’t, despite the fact that there is a significant Muslim minority in South Ossetia. It doesn’t matter that actual parallels can be drawn between the goals of South Ossetian separatists and Iraqi insurgents fighting to oppose a foreign power occupying their country. What does matter is the racial and religious context involved and the massive stereotyping of those of the Islamic faith since 9/11.

If you think that such an assertion ridiculous, look no further than what is currently atop the New York Times best sellers list - The Obama Nation, by Jerome R. Corsi [1]. In it, Corsi, who was also a co-author of 2004’s Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, spends time criticizing Obama’s supposed past links with the Muslim faith, attempting to make a case that it renders him unfit for the Presidency. The book has already been widely assailed as misleading and replete with falsehoods…

“The Times further noted that while Obama is a Christian, the book contains statements indicating he has “extensive connections to Islam”. One of Corsi’s statements is that Obama’s childhood friend, Zulfin Adi, had stated that Obama was a practicing Muslim; this claim has been refuted by multiple newspapers and people close to Obama.”

The question is, what would it matter if Obama had, as a child, been a practicing Muslim, or even simply been exposed to the faith and then converted to Christianity? Even though it’s a baseless accusation, why is it something that would have to be politically denounced with regards to securing the White House? When, exactly, did Islam come to represent such a negative that a Presidential candidate has to defend himself against such literary detritus? Which leads to the inevitable question – why has Islam been denigrated in the West to the point of being viewed as universally dangerous and how, exactly, did that happen?

Well, wars need opposing ideologies to be fought, and to complicate matters only leads to the diminishment of public support. Therefore a blanket enemy ideology is something that must be promoted. To claim that 2 billion people are bent on global dominance through the employment of violence is, of course, ignorant beyond reckoning. And yet that is precisely the image that has been constructed over the last seven years and, to a significant extent, swallowed whole. That is certainly not to say that there aren’t radical elements within the Islamic world that are troublesome, but to paint an entire faith with a single brush to support an aggressive foreign policy agenda is another matter altogether – one that is mired in an evil all its own, and one that ensures that through the employment of such propaganda paints Islamic moderates into a corner.

How many innocent Iraqis and Afghans have perished since 2001 and 2003? Every time a report is released that attempts to address the realities of the civilian costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan they are immediately challenged or dismissed as overblown. And yet it is somehow perfectly reasonable to decry the loss of civilian life in Georgia as monstrous and entirely criminal in just seven days.

The United Nations is reporting that some 100,000 people have been displaced because of the recent conflict in Georgia. In comparison, as of May of this year, some 1 million Somalis were internally displaced as fighting between ICU insurgents and US backed Ethiopian forces, bolstering the forces of Somalia’s new government, continued to clash. According to Oxfam, at least 4 million Iraqis have been displaced since the 2003 invasion, some fleeing the country altogether, some relocating to other parts of it.

That’s 5 million or more people whose plight has gone largely overlooked in the West. And that’s not even counting those displaced in Darfur, the Western cause du jour.

While it might sound callous, Caucasian refugees tend to get more press, especially when it suits the political ends of Western governments. That’s just reality.

1. In the case of the sales figures of Corsi’s book it should not be overlooked that it is very common for right-wing organizations to buy such publications in bulk and then distribute them for free, rendering the actual sales figures misrepresentative.

In a surprising move after reports that Turkey’s offensive in northern Iraq would be sustained for the foreseeable future, Turkish forces began withdrawing yesterday in force. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that the withdrawal occurred just after President Bush called on the Turkish government to end the offensive and a day after US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited the Turkish capital to deliver Washington’s message that the incursion must not be open ended. Of course, the Turkish government and military is claiming that the withdrawal was preplanned and that it had nothing to do with US pressure, but that’s obviously transparent given the fact that the withdrawal itself began before any official Turkish statements were made regarding it.

Were I to venture a guess, I would say that behind closed doors Washington rubber stamped the Turkish invasion and then used condemnation of it to remove suspicions of complicity. And, of course, the Turks played along and got what they wanted out of it.

That would be my guess anyway.

Gaza

Here’s the back story via the BBC…

I want to state, for the record, that the use of violence by both sides in this matter is, in my opinion, unforgivable given the toll that it has taken on civilians, both at present and in years past.

That said; when one looks at this in a very hard, cold light, there are a few realities that must be addressed, though many of you might disagree.

The governing issue of Israel and Palestine as entities and the decades old arguments about how that region has found itself where it is now aside, there are a few truths that we should be willing to admit as members of a society that is primarily pro-Israeli.

The first is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, one that is supported by numerous benefactors throughout the Middle East. They fire homemade rockets into Israel from the slums of one of the world’s foremost ghettos where millions rely on international humanitarian aid to simply survive. That aid, by the way, is also one of the most outstanding examples of international blackmail in modern history.

Israel, on the other hand, is supported by the world’s foremost military super power and is the recipient of immense military aid. They possess a state of the art air force, replete with US made fighters, bombers, and attack helicopters. They possess state of the art armour and boast one of the best-trained and equipped armed forces in the world. They also possess a nuclear arsenal, a navy, and one of the world’s most feared covert intelligence outfits.

Were Palestinian militants to possess the same military capabilities as the Israelis, the need to lob homemade rockets and employ suicide bombers wouldn’t be required. In short, they would possess the same ‘honourable’ weapons of war as the Israelis and be in the position to employ them in the exact same fashion that the IDF does. That is, of course, not something that Israel, nor those that support it, would ever stand for. Thus, those who believe in the ridiculous use of violence as a measure with which to lash out against Israel wouldn’t be lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza and, in the process, endangering the lives of innocents that end up paying the price when Israeli forces retaliate – not to mention killing Israeli civilians.

That is, if you actually believe that a fair brawl between conventional forces doesn’t produce civilian deaths, which is, of course, a fallacy. In truth, they produce far more.

In this neck of the woods, the math is simple. A single Israeli life is equal to that of maybe 100 Palestinians. Let’s face it, they’re terrorists and extremists, or at least that’s what they’re painted as being by our media. The Israelis, on the other hand, are simply trying to defend themselves. Never mind the massive economic disparities between the two, never mind that Gaza is little more than a massive prison camp for all intents and purposes, which provides the sort of atmosphere in which those desperate enough are willing to focus their anger in ways that are unconscionable. If you cage an animal long enough it’s going to do one of two things. Wither away to nothing or start taking swipes through the bars at those on the other side.

Gaza is not internationally recognized as being a part of any sovereign entity, nor is it claimed by any, though it’s currency remains the Israeli Sheqel. After Hamas’ victory in Parliamentary elections in 2006, Israel, The United States, Canada, and the EU froze all funds to the Palestinian government, economically crippling it. Due to the fact that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, it is not viewed as a legitimate governing body, even within the tenuous confines of a government that never really had any international recognition beyond that required to placate those responsible for providing it economic aid. Thus, as long as Hamas remains in power, their presence will be used as an excuse to continue to punish the people as a whole, despite the fact that it was democratically elected – a process that those who refuse to recognize it claim to champion the world over (that is, as long as it conforms to their ideology).

Now, let me state for the record that I am not defending Hamas. Obviously, the recognition of Israeli’s right to exist is something that must occur. After decades of the same tired argument, the time has come to consider the welfare of the Palestinian people as a whole, which, for some, is a bitter pill to swallow. That said; there is certainly a reason why Hamas was successful in the elections in 2006.

Gaza is 41 kilometers long and 12 kilometers wide; that’s 360 square kilometers. In that space there are 1.4 million people, 1 million of which are officially recognized by the United Nations as refugees. Some 18% of children in Gaza between the ages of 6 months and 5 years old suffer from chronic malnutrition. 53% of women of reproductive age and children are anemic. Given such facts, one can begin to see why support for an organization that undertakes initiatives within the community to secure popular support, not to mention striking at those they view as their oppressors, might attract the support of the suffering and the disenfranchised. In truth, it’s not a phenomenon that is, by any stretch of the imagination, limited to that area of the world. It is a phenomenon that has been quintessential in the birth of Western democracies and, if we’re going to be completely honest, Israel itself.

Now, you can rush out and get a copy of The National Post and succumb to the bias that we’re exposed to on a daily basis regarding this issue, or you can spend some time trying to look at it from the other side of the fence (literally). I’ll not condone the use of violence as a method with which to enact change, but I will also not condemn those that feel they have no way out of a situation that is, in truth, entirely comparable to an existence in prison. There are better ways to go about it, I will admit that freely, and also not hesitate to suggest that such methods be embraced, but I do not live in Gaza, nor do I have to endure its realities, so that position remains one of a lofty Western idealist.

The Iranian Laptop Nuke Data

Gareth Porter provides some valuable insight regarding this issue…

“The George W. Bush administration has long pushed the “laptop documents” – 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop – as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear program.

But those documents have long been regarded with great suspicion by US and foreign analysts. German officials have identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization.

There are some indications, moreover, that the MEK obtained the documents not from an Iranian source but from Israel’s Mossad.

In its latest report on Iran, circulated Feb. 22, the IAEA, under strong pressure from the Bush administration, included descriptions of plans for a facility to produce “green salt,” technical specifications for high explosives testing and the schematic layout of a missile reentry vehicle that appears capable of holding a nuclear weapon. Iran has been asked to provide full explanations for these alleged activities.

Tehran has denounced the documents on which the charges are based as fabrications provided by the MEK, and has demanded copies of the documents to analyze, but the United States had refused to do so.

The Iranian assertion is supported by statements by German officials. A few days after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the laptop documents, Karsten Voight, the coordinator for German-American relations in the German Foreign Ministry, was reported by the Wall Street Journal Nov. 22, 2004 as saying that the information had been provided by “an Iranian dissident group.”

A German official familiar with the issue confirmed to this writer that the NCRI had been the source of the laptop documents. “I can assure you that the documents came from the Iranian resistance organization.,” the source said.

The Germans have been deeply involved in intelligence collection and analysis regarding the Iranian nuclear program. According to a story by Washington Post reporter Dafna Linzer soon after the laptop documents were first mentioned publicly by Powell in late 2004, US officials said they had been stolen from an Iranian whom German intelligence had been trying to recruit, and had been given to intelligence officials of an unnamed country in Turkey.

The German account of the origins of the laptop documents contradicts the insistence by unnamed US intelligence officials who insisted to journalists William J. Broad and David Sanger in November 2005 that the laptop documents did not come from any Iranian resistance groups.

Despite the fact that it was listed as a terrorist organization., the MEK was a favorite of neoconservatives in the Pentagon, who were proposing in 2003-2004 to use it as part of a policy to destabilize Iran. The United States is known to have used intelligence from the MEK on Iranian military questions for years. It was considered a credible source of intelligence on the Iranian nuclear program. after 2002, mainly because of its identification of the facility in Natanz as a nuclear site.

The German source said he did not know whether the documents were authentic or not. However, CIA analysts, and European and IAEA officials who were given access to the laptop documents in 2005 were very skeptical about their authenticity.

The Guardian’s Julian Borger last February quoted an IAEA official as saying there is “doubt over the provenance of the computer.”

A senior European diplomat who had examined the documents was quoted by the New York Times in November 2005 as saying, “I can fabricate that data. It looks beautiful, but is open to doubt.”

Scott Ritter, the former US military intelligence officer who was chief United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, noted in an interview that the CIA has the capability test the authenticity of laptop documents through forensic tests that would reveal when different versions of different documents were created.

The fact that the agency could not rule out the possibility of fabrication, according to Ritter, indicates that it had either chosen not to do such tests or that the tests had revealed fraud.”

In 1994, the world turned its back on Rwanda. In 100 days, some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered while the international community did nothing. The Security Council sold UNAMIR down the river, events in the Balkans taking precedent over one of the most horrific and systematic acts of genocide since the Second World War.

But make no mistake; those that did nothing had their reasons. The French were flying some of the individuals involved in the masterminding of the genocide out of the country, even while it was occurring. They also supplied the Rwandan military at the time with arms. One of the revolving seats on the Security Council at the time was actually occupied by Rwanda, allowing those in power in Kigali a front row seat from which to observe the world’s response. The United States, gun shy due to previous events in Somalia, refused to intervene.

All of it led to the hobbling of any real, concerted effort that the UN could have taken. Thus, a skeleton force led by General Dallaire remained, despite the fact that the Security Council had ended UNAMIR’s mandate. Dallaire, and a handful of others, chose to remain and, at the very least, protect those that they had already given sanctuary to. In the end, they were able to save the lives of some 30,000 people without really firing a shot.

Now, consider what could have been accomplished had there been a real UN presence on the ground.

During a recent stop in Rwanda on his current tour of Africa, President Bush said the following…

“Evil must be confronted,” he said after touring the Kigali memorial.

He said the UN’s response to the crisis in Darfur “seems very bureaucratic to me, particularly with people suffering”.

Indeed it does, Mr. Bush. And being that your country has one of the most predominant voices on the Security Council, one has to wonder why more isn’t being done? True, UNAMID has been instituted, but the time for half measures has come and gone. The Sudanese government, with which your government has worked covertly, may refuse the presence of a substantial UN force in Darfur, the Chinese may very well fight you tooth and nail to stop a concerted intervention, but at least have the fortitude to make the issue one that is utterly unavoidable. Breath into it, sir, the urgency that it deserves.

There is the truth and then there is talk of it. In the case of African events of this nature, talk is all that is ever produced. The reality is that were an event comparable to Darfur to take place in, for example, the Balkans, the Western world’s actions would be considerable. In fact, it would become an issue that would dominate the headlines the world over. Unfortunately, when it comes to African nations, the horrible truth is that while the killing is occurring the world does nothing, and only after the fact laments it.

In comparison to UNAMID, UNMIK, empowered by UN resolution 1244, has been active in Kosovo since 1999. UNMIK is provided security by KFOR, which is a NATO led international force. In April of last year, KFOR’s numbers consisted of some 16,000 soldiers from 34 different nations – nine years after UNMIK’s mandate began. At its height, KFOR had 50,000 personnel in operation. As of January of this year, UNAMID, the joint UN-AU mission in Darfur, has a mere 9,065 personnel in place, of which 6,880 are soldiers, 645 are military staff and observers, 1,400 are police officers, 285 are civilian personnel, 552 are local civilian staff, and 63 and UN volunteers.

UNAMID’s actual mandate, as passed in UN resolution 1769 in July of last year, allows for - “Up to 19,555 military personnel; 6,432 police, including 3,772 police personnel and 19 formed police units comprising up to 140 personnel each; and a significant civilian component”.

So where are they?

Perhaps they’ve been employed writing speeches for the likes of Mr. Bush and other world leaders that use the issue when convenient and ignore it when it’s not.

In 1994, while the world was struggling to come to terms with the untimely death of Kurt Cobain, almost 1 million people died in Rwanda. Most of them, if not all of them, had never heard of Nirvana.

Daniel Ellsberg once said, and rightly so (and yes I have mentioned this on countless occasions), that foreign policy tends to have more to do with domestic politics than anything else. With regards to the US ‘surge’ in Iraq this year, the results have proven Ellsberg’s analogy true yet again.

Violence is down, reports the administration, and therefore the surge has been successful. But, as is always the case, a myriad of realities are conveniently not presented the average American with regards to what has transpired this year in Iraq. In truth, 2007 has been one of the worst years on record.

Dahr Jamail runs through Iraq’s 2007 realties…

When you’re sitting on your couch in front of your television on a leisurely Sunday afternoon and the news regarding ‘successes’ in Iraq are presented you, these are the details that are not revealed. And because the situation in Iraq is presented the American public in the simplest of terms, the belief that real progress has been made is becoming the norm.

The truth, on the other hand, isn’t as positive, and therefore it’s best not to delve too deeply beneath the surface.

With a day left in 2007, the United States has now militarily occupied Iraq for almost five years, longer than their entire involvement in the Second World War.

When all is said and done, it will probably be impossible to know just how many Iraqis will have perished during the war. There are estimates that widely vary, ones that I am sure many of you are already familiar with, so I won’t waste time running through them. But the truth of the matter is that Iraqi deaths have been overwhelmingly significant, as has been the displacement of Iraqis, be it within Iraq itself or as refuges in other countries – the number being in the millions.

Despite a recent drop in deaths, the US death toll in Iraq this year is only three shy of 2004’s total, 850, the war’s worst year. The number of deaths is largely due to US troops operating within Iraqi communities and thus being far easier to attack, unlike previous years when deaths were largely caused during concentrated operations.

I wanted to use these realizations as preface, because if you didn’t happen to catch 60 Minutes the other night, and their report on Curveball, the Iraqi source that supplied intelligence to the Americans through the Germans prior to the 2003 invasion regarding Iraqi’s chemical and biological capabilities, then those numbers should be foremost in your mind as you read the rest of this entry.

If you have studied pre-war intelligence, then you know that the information provided by Rafid Ahmed Alwan, known as Curveball, was entirely baseless. In fact, the information that he provided the Germans, that was subsequently passed to the CIA, and which would ultimately be included in then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s report to the United Nations, was actually discounted prior to the invasion by the UN. But no one was in the mood to listen at the time…

“Prominently displayed were models of the mobile trucks Curve Ball had sketched to the Germans. The most damning evidence in the speech had come from a source no American had interviewed. Just three days later, U.N. inspectors in Iraq visited a suspected WMD location — Djerf al Nadaf, Curve Ball’s secret site. And what did they find there? A wall — the very wall that had appeared on the overhead imagery back in 2001. Curve Ball had claimed the mobile bio-weapons trucks entered through doors at one end of a warehouse.

“When the inspectors examined the facility, they found that this was an impossibility,” explains Jim Corcoran, whose job it was to relay intelligence to the inspectors in Iraq.

Corcoran learned the wall blocked any entrance to the warehouse. As for Curve Ball’s hidden doors at the other end that would allow the trucks to exit?

“Again, there was a wall there, no doors. And outside there was a stone fence that would have made it impossible for this to have occurred,” Corcoran says.

Corcoran knew Djerf al Nadaf was of great importance, so he sent inspectors back 20 days later to take samples, to see if any traces of biological agents were there. “They proved negative,” Corcoran tells Simon. “There was nothing there.”

But the inspectors’ findings in Iraq made no impact; the war began three weeks later.”

Countless Iraqi dead, over 4,000 American lives lost, and a region thrust into chaos with the United States now targeting Iran and having to walk on egg shells to try and placate the Turks who have threatened to invade Northern Iraq to confront the PKK – and that’s not even beginning to cover the damage caused within Iraq itself since 2003.

Thus, one has to ask – why was a source relied upon that had never even been interviewed by US intelligence? Why did those at the highest levels of the US intelligence community accept that information on blind faith? And why were the UN’s findings ignored?

I have written in the past about the politicization of the CIA post 9/11, just as I have written about the fact that it is common knowledge that, immediately following the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon focused a great deal of its energies on ‘the Iraq factor’. Soon after, the CIA would also be dragged into that sphere, something that caused a great deal of confusion and strife within the ranks of its senior field personnel. And yet, despite the fact that no evidence of a connection would ever be found, that lemon was sold to the American people, who, in turn, backed the government’s lust for war.

As it stands now, despite such truths, many Americans still actually labour under the misconception that the regime of Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. How many, do you think, will ever address the realities regarding Curveball and the fact that the lies of a single con artist were used as one of the primary justifications for war?

“As for the biological accident that supposedly killed 12 people at Djerf al Nadaf in 1998? It never happened. Rafid Alwan wasn’t even in Iraq when he said it happened. He had left the country, first traveling to Jordan, then Egypt, then Libya, before making his way to Morocco. From there, Alwan’s trail ran cold, until he showed up in Germany and became Curve Ball. The case finally ended in Munich in March 2004, when the Germans allowed a CIA officer to interrogate Curve Ball.

“And the key thing, I think, was the wall. He showed him pictures of the wall,” Drumheller remembers.

What did Curve Ball say?

“‘You doctored these pictures.’ And he said, ‘No, we didn’t.’ He said, we didn’t doctor them,” Drumheller says.

The wall had been built in 1997. Curve Ball didn’t know it existed because he had already left Djerf al Nadaf.

“Curve Ball was caught,” Simon remarks.

“And Curve Ball said, ‘I don’t think I’m gonna say anything else,’” Drumheller says.

The CIA finally acknowledged Curve Ball was a fraud. But why did he do it?

Former CIA insider Tyler Drumheller has an idea. “It was a guy trying to get his Green Card, essentially, in Germany, playing the system for what it was worth. It just shows sort of the law of unintended consequences,” he says.

Rafid Alwan got what he wanted. He is thought to be living in Germany today, most likely under a new name, after pulling off one of the deadliest con jobs of our time.”

Ultimately, who should be held responsible? Obviously Rafid Alwan is somewhat responsible, but only to the extent that he was a convenient liar. In life we have the ability to ponder and examine what is presented us, which means that those that chose to act on his information without first employing due diligence, or even bothering to listen to those that had, are the ones truly responsible. Be it at the Pentagon, the CIA, or in the Oval Office – responsibility rests with those that the people of the United States placed their faith in to properly do their jobs, not conveniently employ false information to help bolster a radical and unprecedented foreign policy doctrine.

In the end, that is precisely what occurred. And both Iraqis and Americans have paid the price for it with their lives. Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and a host of others have not, nor will they ever, face justice for their crimes. That being the case, it’s time to start asking serious questions, such as – who is really in control of government, and what role does the citizenry really play anymore beyond that of lemmings that check boxes on a ballot after being inundated by an ever increasing politically bias media?

Benchmarks, troop increases, paying off hostile militias, losing track of 190,000 weapons, 1,800 Iraqi civilian deaths in August, over 4 million Iraqis displaced (within the country and aborad), hundreds of thousands dead since 2003, a massively under-reported air war, members of the House making statements that Iraqi markets are comparable to their Hoosier counterparts, and PR campaigns launched to justify reports that have yet to be made while downplaying reports that have been that are critical of the administration.

Welcome to the rollercoaster ride that is Iraq.

They’re peddling the same shit, just in different coloured bags. The benchmarks set were not attained, therefore the strategy must be re-examined. In fact, forget that those benchmarks were even set in the first place. Or, if you’re so inclined, blame the Iraqis. No matter which, the time has come to re-examine how best to make matters seem better in a situation that refuses to improve.

The surge? Just give it time. And when time’s up, say that more time is required. Better yet, allow members of Congress to visit Iraq and walk through the streets of Baghdad while surrounded by an overwhelming military presence so that they can get a first hand look at how successful it potentially could be. Then put them on national television and allow them to make asinine statements about buying five rugs for five dollars during their visit, as if that’s some indication of stability.

Stability? That’s something that the people of Iraq haven’t enjoyed since March of 2003. You know what’s horrendous about that statement? That they actually had more of it when a tyrant was at the helm.

The Iraqi people aren’t really the concern though. Were they, then those occupying the country would have seen to ensuring that those aspects of their lives that have suffered since the invasion were addressed – such as reliable electricity, sanitation, and a laundry list of other things. Were they the priority then 4 million of them wouldn’t have been compelled to flee the country thus far. But of course, they didn’t necessarily think that far ahead. In fact, they didn’t really ponder the possibility of a viable insurgency rising against them, nor that the occupation of the country, and the instability that it would cause, would lead to violent clashes between groups that have significant histories of mistrust. Besides rounding up a group of people to cheer at the toppling of a statue in an otherwise empty city square for the sake of American television audiences, I’m not sure they actually put much thought at all into what would actually happen once they could promote the affair domestically as ‘a win’.

Stability? Stability is indeed an issue. Not so much for those private contracting companies that have made billions off of the conflict’s continuation, but because it is required to placate the rapid dogs that have been salivating in the wings waiting to sink their teeth into their long promised meal…

“The question is simple on the third and final day of a major Iraqi energy conference where hundreds of hungry oil men and women broke bread with Iraq’s industry chiefs, politicians and technocrats: When will Baghdad set the ground rules for the international oil community’s long-awaited venture into the largest oil prize on Earth?”

When indeed.

It’s been reported of late that police forces in the United States don’t have access to the amount of ammunition they require due to the training of troops and the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interestingly, it seems that turning to the American people themselves might be a solution to their woes – that is, if they all have ammunition for their guns.

According to the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies, there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the United States, meaning that of the world’s 875 million known firearms, US citizens own some 270 million of them. Of the 8 million weapons manufactured worldwide on a yearly basis, 4.5 million of them are purchased in the United States.

Now, it should be made clear that these constitute ‘civilian firearms’, not weapons purchased or used by the military. In short, if the people of the United States got it in their heads to turn on their own government, they’d have more than a fighting chance. In fact, and not including advanced weaponry, they’d have an advantage in firepower.

Now where’s that revolutionary spirit gone?

Quick, somebody put on some Ween.

In other clusterfuckage around the world, which means that the information I am about present entirely revolves around Iraq, The UNHCR is reporting…

“More than four million Iraqis have fled their homes because of sectarian violence, the largest population movement in the Middle East since Palestinians left the new state of Israel, the United Nations refugee agency said on Tuesday.

“An estimated 4.2 million Iraqis have been uprooted from their homes, with the monthly rate of displacement climbing to over 60,000 people compared to 50,000 previously,” UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) spokeswoman Jennifer Pagonis told journalists.

More than two million Iraqis are displaced within their own country, with around half being uprooted following the February 2006 Samarra bombings, seen as the catalyst for the latest wave of sectarian conflict, the UNHCR said.

“Many are barely surviving in makeshift camps, inaccessible to aid workers for security reasons,” Pagonis warned.”

How do you know when something is a bad idea? When it makes the regime of Saddam Hussein look like an acceptable alternative.

Speaking of millions of people. One million Shi’ites were evacuated today from a shrine in Karbala after clashes between rival Shi’ite militias broke out resulting in 50 deaths and the burning of three hotels.

I have to admit to having a soft sport for Frank Rich. I think his op-ed’s generally fantastic, and his piece in today’s New York Times didn’t disappoint.

It has always utterly shocked me to think that the United States had no exit strategy in place when they invaded Iraq. As Chalmers Johnson opined - there wasn’t one because we never planned to leave.

Every time I see old television footage from the run up to the war, my reaction to it has becomes less vocal and more subdued. The words of Donald Rumsfeld will forever be etched in my mind – ‘any country with an active intelligence program knows that he has weapons of mass destruction’.

Of course, Rumsfeld is now gone, as are others that helped promote the stupidest American military adventure since Vietnam, not to mention the weasel of a man that crafted America’s post Cold War, ‘lone super power’, doctrine. He just got the boot from the world bank, proving that perhaps karma truly is a bitch after all.

Rich’s opening salvo in today’s piece is the sort of stuff that should be rampant in American newspapers right now, and not just on Sunday op-ed pages…

“When all else fails, those pious Americans who conceived and directed the Iraq war fall back on moral self-congratulation: at least we brought liberty and democracy to an oppressed people. But that last-ditch rationalization has now become America’s sorriest self-delusion in this tragedy.

However wholeheartedly we disposed of their horrific dictator, the Iraqis were always pawns on the geopolitical chessboard rather than actual people in the administration’s reckless bet to “transform” the Middle East. From “Stuff happens!” on, nearly every aspect of Washington policy in Iraq exuded contempt for the beneficiaries of our supposed munificence. Now this animus is completely out of the closet. Without Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to kick around anymore, the war’s dead-enders are pinning the fiasco on the Iraqis themselves. Our government abhors them almost as much as the Lou Dobbs spear carriers loathe those swarming “aliens” from Mexico.

Iraqis are clamoring to get out of Iraq. Two million have fled so far and nearly two million more have been displaced within the country. (That’s a total of some 15 percent of the population.) Save the Children reported this month that Iraq’s child-survival rate is falling faster than any other nation’s. One Iraqi in eight is killed by illness or violence by the age of 5. Yet for all the words President Bush has lavished on Darfur and AIDS in Africa, there has been a deadly silence from him about what’s happening in the country he gave “God’s gift of freedom.”

It’s easy to see why. To admit that Iraqis are voting with their feet is to concede that American policy is in ruins. A “secure” Iraq is a mirage, and, worse, those who can afford to leave are the very professionals who might have helped build one. Thus the president says nothing about Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, the worst in the Middle East since 1948, much as he tried to hide the American death toll in Iraq by keeping the troops’ coffins off-camera and staying away from military funerals.

But his silence about Iraq’s mass exodus is not merely another instance of deceptive White House P.R.; it’s part of a policy with a huge human cost. The easiest way to keep the Iraqi plight out of sight, after all, is to prevent Iraqis from coming to America. And so we do, except for stray Shiites needed to remind us of purple fingers at State of the Union time or to frame the president in Rose Garden photo ops.”

In 2001 movie goers were thrilled and shocked by Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down, a film about US efforts in Somalia as part of UNISOM II, during which the Battle of Mogadishu took place. In that particular film, efforts were aimed at capturing Mohamed Farrah Aidid, the intent being to have Aidid tried for war crimes. There was also a $25,000 bounty placed on his head to help matters along.

For those unfamiliar with what was took place in Somalia in the early 90’s, the civil war that had erupted resulted in a mass disruption in agricultural production which, coupled with drought, led to widespread famine. The United Nations, not long after, declared it a humanitarian disaster, one in which 300,000 Somalis would ultimately perish, though it should not be overlooked that aid efforts were used by rivaling factions in the country for their benefit and as a means to effect their opposition by disrupting the ability for it to be safely distributed, further compounding the problem.

The history of Somalia itself is not dissimilar to many African nations. Like most it was carved up by a variety of European powers, in Somalia’s case the British, French and Italians in the late 19th century. It would not be until 1960 that Somalia would achieve her independence, and even then, France retained governance over Djibouti until 1977.

Given that, context is important. During the Second World War, many Somalis fought along side the Allies. But at the end of the war they were once again subjugated by their colonial rulers, leaving many disenfranchised who during the war had gained a sense of hope regarding the attainment of their independence. This sense of betrayal would ultimately forge the beginnings of the independence movement.

One of the most important examinations of modern Somali history has to be that of the Ogaden War. The ironies of that conflict were considerable, though not unheard of in the context of the Cold War, being that the Soviets, for a time, found themselves arming both sides. After an intervention on their part to mediate between the Somalis and Ethiopians failed, Moscow ultimately decided to back Ethiopia, which had started to exhibit Communist leanings, sending advisors accompanied by some 15,000 Cuban troops to the country. These were further bolstered by assistances from numerous other Communist enclaves, among them North Korea, East Germany, and Yemen. The Somali regime’s response to this was the severing of diplomatic ties with Moscow and the expulsion of all Soviet citizens from the country. Likewise, in the case of Ethiopia, given its new allegiance with the Soviet block, in 1977 it closed the US military mission and communications centre that had previously existed there.

Ultimately, the Ogaden War resulted in the devastation of Somalia’s military, which bore grave implications for the regime of Siad Barre. The outcome of the conflict saw the rise of the SSDF, the first organized opposition group to Barre’s regime, largely populated by Somali military officers. Despite the Carter administration’s overt refusal to aid the Somalis during the conflict, Somalia soon after became a US client state in exchange for the use of Somali bases, and remained so until 1988.

In 1991, after the end of the Cold War, Somali resistance movements, largely influenced by the Ethiopians, plunged the country into a state of civil war, one that has existed on and off for the better part of 16 years. With the rise of the ICU, who drove the ARPCT from the country into Ethiopia in 2006, which for a period of time stabilized parts of Somalia (not including Jubaland, which claimed autonomous authority), concerns began to grow that several members of the Council possessed ties to radical Islamic organizations. And even though most who came under their governance claimed that even having to endure Sharia Law was preferable to the turmoil that had destabilized the country for so long, the removal of the ICU became an issue for others, primarily the United States, who view the possibility of Somalia becoming an Islamic state a regional threat and a location from which terrorist organizations might operate. This ultimately led to their backing of the Ethiopian military invasion of Somalia and the funding of Somali warlords in an attempt to drive the IUC from the capital. In that effort, the United States provided bomber coverage and the inclusion of Delta Force teams, the former resulting in civilian casualties that went largely unreported. In fact, US actions in the entire affair had been largely ignored by many.

One of the most crucial aspects of these events was reported by The Observer on September 10th of 2006…

“Dramatic evidence that America is involved in illegal mercenary operations in east Africa has emerged in a string of confidential emails seen by The Observer. The leaked communications between US private military companies suggest the CIA had knowledge of the plans to run covert military operations inside Somalia - against UN rulings - and they hint at involvement of British security firms.

The emails, dated June this year, reveal how US firms have been planning undercover missions in support of President Abdullahi Yusuf’s transitional federal government - founded with UN backing in 2004 - against the Supreme Islamic Courts Council - a radical Muslim militia which took control of Mogadishu, the country’s capital, also in June promising national unity under Sharia law.

Evidence of foreign involvement in the conflict would not only breach the UN arms embargo but could destabilise the entire region.

One email dated Friday, 16 June, is from Michele Ballarin, chief executive of Select Armor - a US military firm based in Virginia. Ballarin’s email was sent to a number of individuals including Chris Farina of the Florida-based military company ATS Worldwide.

Ballarin said: ‘Boys: Successful meeting with President Abdullay Yussef [sic] and his chief staff personnel in Nairobi, Kenya on Tuesday … where he invited us to his private hotel suite flacked by security detail … He has appointed is chief of presidential protocol as our go to during this phase.’

She refers to one ‘closed-door meeting’ with a senior UN figure and mentions there are ‘a number of Brit security firms’ also looking to get involved.

Ballarin claimed she has been given ‘carte blanche’ to use three bases in Somalia ‘and the air access to reach them’.

She then suggests that the CIA have been kept informed of the plans. Ballarin states: ‘My contact whom we discussed from the agency side requested an in-person meeting with me. I arrived in New York at 2340 last night and was driven to Virginia - arriving at 0200 today.’�?

Here it should be noted that the ICU’s primary concern was Ethiopian influence within Somalia, and that the UN recognized transitional government, who were, in fact, guarded by the Ethiopian military, was little more than an extension of exterior elements bent on proxy rule.

It would seem that the ICU’s fears were well founded. Not only has the United States helped further arm and train the Ethiopian military (and I would imagine they have provided other resources such as satellite coverage, etc), but that it aided Ethiopia’s invasion of the country, which was also joined by some of the very Somali factions that UNISOM I and UNISOM II were created to disenfranchise.

The outcome has had disastrous repercussions.

The UN is now warning that a humanitarian disaster in Somalia is imminent. There are also reports the that UN backed transitional government has blocked aid to those needing it. According to the BBC…

“More than 200,000 people have fled their homes amid ongoing clashes in the capital, Mogadishu, the UN said.

Aid workers say the city is inhabited only by fighters and men protecting the remains of their property.

At least 20 people have been killed in the latest clashes, with artillery being used in residential areas.

The clashes made it hard to deliver aid to the displaced, the UN says.

Most people lacked food and water and hundreds had already died from cholera and diarrhoea, UN humanitarian co-ordinator Eric Laroche said.�?

[…]

“Eyewitnesses said there had also been a big explosion at an Ethiopian army complex south of the city.

“Six consecutive missiles hit… There are many wounded,” said Hassan Ibrahim, as he drove a minibus full of the wounded to a hospital.

The shelling was centred around the central presidential palace, the former defence ministry and a former secondary school in the north.

An eyewitness who saw the explosion at the Ethiopian army base told the BBC Somali service the rising debris and smoke looked like a “flying mountain”.

He said people fleeing the area told him that after the blast Ethiopian troops started firing at people passing by; bodies are reported to be strewn along the street.�?

[…]

“BBC East Africa correspondent Adam Mynott says the displaced are living scattered across southern and central Somalia in appalling conditions.

There are also claims that the transitional government has blocked aid from getting to some of those who need it.

Somalia has not had an effective national government for 16 years.

Last month, more than 1,000 people were killed in the heaviest fighting sine 1991.

The Ethiopian troops have started to withdraw, to be replaced by an African Union peacekeeping force.

But only 1,200 troops, of the 8,000 the AU says it needs, have been deployed.�?

And so – where are the puppet masters? Beyond claims that this is a fight that falls within the auspices of The War On Terror, and who knows what in the future won’t be able to be categorized as such, US military contractors are having a field day, Ethiopia has now opened itself up to US ‘conveniences’ in The War On Terror, namely the use of prison facilities famed for their abuse to house and interrogate rendered detainees, and allowed them, by way of Ethiopia as a proxy, to gain substantial influence over the transitional government if it is able to secure the country.

Many of us might disagree with the ideology of the ICU, but as I pointed out in an entry dated March 31st…

“The Bush administration has, of course, linked the Islamic Courts Union with al-Qaeda. Of the eleven courts within the Union, which was chaired by a moderate - Sharif Sheikh Ahmed – whose primary goal was to bring stability to the country (though I will not deny that the movement was steeped in the implication of Sharia Law), one of the courts was led by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, once the head of al-Itihaad al-Islamiya, which has been linked to al-Qaeda, and another by Adan Hashi Ayro, whose militia was implicated in the deaths of five foreign aid workers and a BBC producer. These factors obviously allowed the United States to funnel resources towards the removal of the ICU, primarily by utilizing Ethiopia as a proxy. The timely creation of AFRICOM with regards to this matter should not be overlooked either.�?

If the transitional government, which has been sanctioned by the United Nations, can block aid from reaching refugees, if Ethiopian troops can open fire on civilians, if US bombing raids can kill civilians, and the United States can hypocritically defy their own arms embargo, not to mention getting into bed with Somali warlords, then who truly possess the moral high ground?

The reality is that there isn’t any. And in the wake of that, ordinary Somalis will pay the price for it. The profit, on the other hand, well, it will go into the pockets of others far removed from harms way.