Air Strikes Only Effective in Killing Civilians

Imagine you are a parent living in a war zone.  A happy life is hardly a reality but you are surviving by keeping your head low and cooperating with no one and everyone.  One day you venture out of your house for an hour to pick up flour for the next month.  When you return your house, and the family you left there, you find it has been completely destroyed.  Your children, your spouse, your life scattered around your land like rubble.  You, and your family, have become victims of air strikes.

Whether in Kosova in the 90’s, or Afghanistan & Iraq today – air strikes are deadly to civilians and they have devastating effects on infrastructure for years to come.  I’ve seen it.  I’ve walked, ten years after the war, through the streets in Prishtina, Kosova where bombed hospitals sit empty and unused in an area where a mammography machine would save lives from breast cancer.  I’ve lived in a house held up by makeshift beams and gutted on one side because a missal exploded 5 feet from the front door in 1999. 

This month we’ve had new insight into the multinational forces (MNF) responsibility for civilian causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan.  October was the deadliest month for civilians in Afghanistan and air strikes played a significant part.  Last Sunday 60 minutes did a report on this very issue.   They found a family who was suspected of harboring terrorists and bombed to death by multinational forces.  The family was never confronted or warned to get out.  The villagers claim those died never had anything to do with insurgents.  MNF bombed without proof – they just bombed.  President Karzai came out publicly in that program condemning air strikes.  Bush touts Afghanistan as a victory and an explanation of what we are doing in Iraq.  And yet, “while the enemy has killed hundreds of civilians this year, a similar number of civilians have been killed by American forces. With relatively few troops there, the U.S. and NATO rely on air power. The number of civilians killed in air strikes has doubled.”  Where is the victory in that?

In Iraq we have less information because the MNF refuse to be open about the civilian causalities.  The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq recently released a report which deals with civilian causalities.  I’ll simply quote the highlights of page 9.  “UNAMI recorded a number of incidents in which 88 civilians were reportedly killed during air strikes conducted by MNF forces.12 They included the following: nine civilians killed in five villages in the al-Anbakiya area near Ba’quba on 11 March; two civilians killed in Dulu’iya in Salahuddin Governorate on 15 March; 16 civilians killed in Sadr City in Baghdad on 30 March; 27 civilians killed in Khaldiya, Ramadi, on 3 April…..:”  the list goes on for another 30 or so lines.

If we cannot stop this war let us at least stand up for the people who suffer from it on a daily basis.  I urge you to contact your representatives and tell them to work with the UN to report these atrocities.  We must bring the crimes of this war to light.  The only weapon we have now is shame and the best way to shame our own government is to align ourselves with an international power.

Promoting REAL Security through International Cooperation and Democracy Building

This week we have all seen the horrors unfold the territory formerly known as Burma. It was renamed Myanmar in recent years by the ruling military junta.  Up until 2 weeks ago Myanmar was the internationally recognized and used name for this state much to the dismay of Democracy activists and Buddhist Monks.   Now, since the pictures of a dead Monk floating in the Inle Lake and the truth of the military dictatorship have immerged in mainstream media the international community has jumped on the ‘democracy for Burma’ bandwagon.

Isn’t it a little late to support these Democracy activists?  Would it not have been more productive to address this issue back in 1990 when a general election voted agianst the militaristic government and these results were thrown out by then State Peace and Development Council Chairman Than Shwe?  This is the man who responsible for the atrocities of recent weeks and for the renaming of this once democratic country. 

Pres. Bush, at the UN meeting declared that we must support democracy in Burma.  After our invasion he declared we must support democracy in Iraq, and after 9/11 he declared the Afghans ‘hated us for our freedom’.  Why, after we supplied AK47’s and rocket launchers to the Taliban to support our proxy war with the Soviets did they have such a change of heart against the U.S.? 

Surely, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was a significant factor.  But how did this rise occur?  The Taliban, like the SPDC did in Bruma, took over Afghanistan with military might.  They terrorized Afghan citizens, created a huge refugee crisis, and institutionalized Madrasah educational systems to teach Islamic fundamentalism to the oppressed and disenfranchised population.  It is apparent to me that if we had supported a democratic movement and given non-military aid (in the way of education and basic necessities) to citizens in those early years we could have avoided the tragic events of 9/11.  Subsequently, we could have avoided the current international quagmire we find ourselves in today.  No one straps a bomb to their body if they are leading a fulfilling and secure life.

The only way to combat terrorism and promote grassroots democratic systems is to engage the population BEFORE the violence comes to a head.  We have the largest military in the world and yet we have no Peacekeepers.  We allocate 90% of our security budget to our own military and a fraction of it to international cooperation.  It is time we switched our priorities to secure a future for our children and children all over the world.

Saving the Intellectual Capital in Iraq

Financial Times recently reported the Gates Foundation is diverging from its primary missions, to irradiate AIDS and Malaria world-wide, and focusing $5 million “for a project granting fellowships to Iraqi scholars seeking to continue their work at institutions in other countries.” The U.S. Congress has approved an additional $5 million to further fund this project.

I am a champion of preserving intellectual capital, especially in countries like Iraq where the infrastructure is so broken investment in academia is a low priority. It is vital that we protect the present and future knowledge of this ancient civilization. However, this effort is, like so many before, short sighted.

Investing in intellectual capital is a multi faceted process. You must protect the intellectual elite from persecution and allow them to do their research; but, that is a short term solution to a long term problem. You must also provide for the future academics by through proper educational facilities at refugee camps and psychological care to address student’s substantial emotional needs during a war. So many children, forced to leave their homes, interrupt their education, and basically live in transience desperately need the stability of school and the support of adult mentors. Additionally, there must be a way to ensure intellectual capital sent abroad can return home. An Iraqi scientist working out of Sweden does very little to help rebuild their country of origin. Nothing I read about the Gates effort addresses these needs.

The Gates Foundation has founded itself on attacking a problem from all sides to make the most positive impact possible. Indeed, in the case AIDS and Malaria it has done just that. I hope, in the oversight process for this program, they will maintain the same strategy and look at investing in the future of Iraqi intellectual capital by investing in the children they are leaving behind.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA

If you follow the Bush administration’s line of thinking (at least the line they have used in their talking points) we have been having trouble with Iran for decades. In fact, it was highly publicized that the recent talks with Iran were the first since a 20 year diplomatic freeze between the two states. According to James Dobbins, who was the Bush administration’s first envoy for Afghanistan after September 11^th, that is hardly the case. His insights in a July 22^nd Washington Post column shed light on how we have and can continue to engage Iran as a partner for stabilizing the Middle East and fighting al-Qaeda.

“Many believe that in the wake of Sept. 11, the United States formed an international coalition and toppled the Taliban. It would be more accurate to say that the U.S. joined a coalition that had been battling the Taliban for nearly a decade. This coalition – made up of Iran, India, Russia and the Northern Alliance, and aided by massive American airpower – drove the Taliban from power.”

This was not an anxious alliance, Dobbins goes on to emphasize the openness of the talks in 2001 during the U.N. conference in Bonn, Germany. “The Iranian representatives were particularly helpful…then-Secretary of State Colin Powell authorized me to meet anywhere, anytime, on any matter with any Iranian official, as long as our discussions related to Afghanistan.”

Contrast this attitude toward Iran with that of the Bush administration in 2007 when talks on Iraq went into their second, most recent, session. “U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said he also challenged Iran over its suspected support for other radical groups in the Middle East such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran rejected all of the accusations, he said…. Crocker said there had been several “heated exchanges” in the seven hours of talks, and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari described them as ‘very challenging.’” (Associated Press)

So what happened to our coalition against terrorists? “Only weeks after Hamid Karzai was sworn in as interim leader in Afghanistan, President Bush listed Iran among the ‘axis of evil’ – surprising payback for Tehran’s help in Bonn.” I can’t speculate on the reasoning for this change – I can only condemn it.

If we truly seek a democratic and stable Middle East region we cannot continue on this path. Iraq is a central place to bring our diplomatic relations back into reality. “None of Iraq’s neighbors was eager for the invasion four years ago ….All are now worried that the civil war in Iraq will serve as a breeding ground for terror and violence that will be increasingly exported to their own countries.” (Brookings)

“Iran has the most capability to be a decisive force given its intimate ties to virtually every Shia and Kurdish politician, its geography and its economic connections.” Iran’s influence in Iraq is more than apparent. Their cooperation in the stabilization and re-building of Iraq is essential to creating a workable plan.

The Bush administration would have us believe that staying in Iraq is the only option. Samuel Berger and Bruce Riedel would vehemently disagree. These Brookings scholars believe that Iraq’s neighbors cannot engage with the U.S. diplomatically before we end our occupation. Most notably, Iran fears Iraq becoming a base for the U.S to launch an attack against their country. Why would they cooperate if the feel threatened?

Creating a peaceful region without a permanent U.S. presence should be the number one priority of all involved. The first step toward this end is a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and cooperation with Iran akin to that of 2001.

Working the Political System

The Senate has let down the troops and the nation once more. Despite new pushes from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the isle the voices of moderation, peace, and patriotism were overshadowed by those of the war mongers and politicos. A bill, proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, one of the few Senators who have a child serving in Iraq, was centered on troop readiness: it said, “Men and women serving in the military deserved the same amount of time at home that they served overseas. The proposal died when the Senate voted 56 to 41 against moving to a vote, four short under the Senate’s rules.” (New York Times July 12, 2007).

A number of Republican Senators have come out and claimed “there needs to be a change of course in Iraq.” Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner (R., Va.) and former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar (R., Ind.), worked with the White House at the outset of the war; but, are drafting their own legislation to force the President to ‘change course.’ I would ask, what does this ‘change’ mean? Wall Street Journal - July 12, 2007

The same is true for Democrats who are hungry to set themselves apart as the peace party. Sen. Carl Levin, who is a Chairperson on the Armed Services Committee, has proposed a mandatory deadline for troop withdrawal by April 30^th. Sen. Harry Reid and Levin have co-sponsored another bill demanding a complete withdrawal in 120 days after enactment.

Another piece of bi-partisan legislation, brought by Sen.’s Ken Salazar and Lamar Alexander, calls to change the mission in Iraq with a goal of getting troops out by the end of March. New York Times - July 12, 2007

Of course, none of these Senators are talking about the massive project of reconstruction in Iraq; the amount of work and money it will take to fix the mess we created in Iraq.

Part of what is keeping Iraq votes stagnant is the hard-line attitude of some Senators. “Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, sought to close ranks in advance of the vote {on Webb’s amendment}. In a private meeting, an aide confirmed, he urged members not to join the “wimps,” a term he used to describe senators who have broken with the president” (New York Times - July 12, 2007). On the other side, “Reid harshly dismissed the measure with the broadest bipartisan backing — a compilation of Iraq Study Group recommendations offered by freshman Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). The Salazar proposal, which as of last night had attracted six Democratic and six Republican co-sponsors, “won’t change one thing that the president does,” Reid said, who is opposed to anything short of legislation ending U.S. combat operations.” (Washington Post - July 12, 2007)

 

Not one Senator legislatively acknowledges the impossibility of the situation in Iraq and the decades it will take to rebuild the countries infrastructure, government, and culture. Bush wants to wait until September to judge the situation — but even from oceans away we, the people of the United States, know the situation is grim. It will be grim in September and for the next few decades. All we can do it push for responsibility and peace.

It seems our representatives are in need of some guidance from the public. Peace Action has prepared a tool for you to contact your representatives during this critical time. We have pre-written a letter based on our priorities but I encourage you to change it to suit your view. Most importantly please remember to speak out. “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keep to set brushfires in peoples minds” (Samuel Adams).

Dying to Get Paid in Iraq

The issue of Iraq is not one that is only debated in our halls of government. Corporate interests have a heavy say in the war through private contracts vetted by the U.S. military. A recently Los Angeles Times Article (one heavily quoted in this blog) said, “The number of U.S. paid, private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government’s capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.” The contracts given for the missions in Iraq were given to private companies with links to the Bush administration in 2003 without a proper bidding process required by law.

Government officials claim that some duties are contracted out because they provide necessary services giving military personal time to engage in combat operations. The problem, of course, is that private contractors, unlike military personal, are not subject to the same rules of engagement and code of conduct the U.S. military is said to enforce. “At one point in 2004, for example, U.S. forces were put on food rations when (contracted) drivers balked at taking supplies into a combat zone.” These logistical contracts are primarily owned by Kellog Brown & Root (a Houston-based oil services company) and its parent company Halliburton Co.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the security contracts held by Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Erinys. “We don’t have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That’s dangerous for our country,” said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. Military policy experts report that on several occasions “heavily armed private contractors have engaged in firefights when attacked by Iraqi insurgents.”

This brings to light the question, why are civilians engaging in activities mandated to the military? The answer is, as always, money. Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar said, “This is not the coalition of the willing. It’s a coalition of the billing.”

This ‘billed coalition’ is counter productive to keeping troops safe and getting them home faster. Because they are not subject to any law, they help to create dangerous situations for themselves and U.S. troops. Democracy Now has been following a case against Blackwater whose contractors were brutally killed in Iraq. Jeremy Scahill, author of the New York Times bestseller, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, said, “We have to remember that when those four men were killed in Fallujah, dragged through the streets, strung up from a bridge, the Bush administration responded by laying siege to the Iraqi city of Fallujah, carrying out some incredible 37,000 air strikes. Hundreds of people were killed. Thousands were displaced from their homes. In many ways, it was the week that the war turned and that the anti-occupation resistance exploded.”

So, as our Representatives on both sides proclaim their disdain for the war and refuse to take substantial action to end it, let us be reminded of the links between corporate and government interests. We cannot allow our leaders to maintain the status quo while people are dying by the thousands, money is wasted, and our reputation as a country is flushed down a million dollar toilet. Find out who paid for you Reps re-election campaign and you just may have some insight into why they consistently vote against the will of the American people. As activists, we are derelict in our mission if we don’t engage this topic in our work.

Iraqi: Are we looking for sustainable reconstruction or a $1.50 a gallon?

The latest piece of brilliant military strategy from the White House is a smaller more long term U.S. occupying force in Iraq. I, like many citizens who were opposed to this war in the first place, am constantly concerned with how the U.S. will clean up the mess we’ve left in Iraq. According to the Washington Post our Commander and Chief and the U.S. military are concerned with similar issues. “A reduction of troops, some officials argue, would demonstrate to anti-American factions that the occupation will not last forever while reassuring Iraqi allies that the United States does not intend to abandon the country” (Military Envisions Longer Stay in Iraq June 10, 2007). The article goes on to impress upon us: the inability to withdraw U.S. troops in a timely manner, the importance of training Iraqi troops, and protecting the fledgling Iraqi government.

These all seem like important, viable goals. But, it is important to realize that we are not dealing with an administration that is primarily concerned with the welfare of humanity. We cannot fall into a trap of negligence of our own, most recent, history. On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. Among the numerous points meted out in this piece of legislation is the privatization of Iraqi oil.

“If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds)of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)” Anne Wright, TruthOut Editorial, May 26, 2007.

Ms. Wright goes on to explain these private contracts are slated to last up to 30 years. Our extended occupation may very well extend for another 30 years so our troops can protect the vital interests of the oil companies.

I, personally, would like to see a longer term international presence in Iraq; but, my goal is not oil. I am concerned about the long term needs of Iraqi refugees. I am concerned about rebuilding roads and schools. I am concerned about bringing sectarian rivals to the table to discuss the future of democracy in Iraq. I am especially concerned that revenue from Iraqi oil be distributed equally among the Iraqi people. I fear this will never happen because the Bush administration is leading the way for neo-colonialism in the Middle East. I am concerned that we, as citizens of this world, remain complacent.