Footage from an Apache gun camera as the crew kills a dozen civilians standing in the streets of Iraq, including two Reuters photographers. The US military claimed the civilians died in a battle between US forces and insurgents.

“Coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force.” –LtCol Scott Bleichwehl

Reuters demanded an investigation into the killings. The military concluded that the crew had acted in accordance with the rules of engagement. August 2007, Reuters used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the video evidence taken from the Apache. The military would not release the video.

The video has shown up on wikileaks.net

The Apache first attacks the photographers and several civilians, killing most of them, leaving one photographer wounded. A civilian van stops and two civilians get out and carry the photographer to the van. Then the Apache crew destroys the van. US ground forces show up on the scene and find two children inside the van who are wounded but still alive. The military decides to send the wounded children to an Iraqi hospital rather than providing care at a US military hospital.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123449200569.html

This is the reality of war. Innocent civilians get killed by the “good” guys.

This is the sort of thing that can be expected during a real war. It doesn’t mean every man and woman in uniform is a bloodthirsty murderer.

What it means is that war is evil, even when fought by the good guys. And for good people to do something evil, it must be because those good people looked at the option of NOT doing something and found it was even MORE EVIL.

War isn’t good, it is the lesser of two evils.

And in the case of Iraq, the test fails. The evil caused by invading far outweighs the evil that would have been to NOT invade. There were no WMD’s, there were no connections between Al Queda and Iraq, there were no major evils that would have occurred if America had NOT invaded Iraq. But this video shows the very real evils that are occurring because we DID invade. Innocent people are being killed by American soldiers.

Even if the American soldiers who pulled the trigger or dropped the bomb is doing so because of a misunderstanding, through no wrong-doing of their own, even if they followed all the rules of engagement correctly, an evil has still been done in the world. Innocent people were killed by Americans. Road to hell, good intentions, and all that.

What the hawks want to do is focus on the fact that the soldiers did no wrong, and they want to portray everyone who is talking about this and pointing to this as if they hate the troops. I’m not saying that these US troops are evil, I’m saying an evil was committed because innocent civilians were killed. And that evil isn’t the lesser of two evils. The evil of NOT invading would have been the better choice, the choice that “good” people would have taken had they approached war with the assumption that evils like this one would happen.

And for all the talk about whether this is an “abberation” or not, it isn’t. This is a normal part of war. The hawks will twist that into calling US troops bloodthirsty killers, but that’s not the case. This is not abberation, it is an expected part of war.

Expecting to go to war without your troops getting involved in the death of civilians or friendly fire incidents is like expecting to go to the Indy 500 and not see a single car crash.

Why is it that Healthcare reform has to tie itself in knots to meet a 10-year budget when the Iraq invasion was approved based on being out in 6 weeks?

Why are we not doing a 10-year cost projection about Afghanistan to determine how much the war in Afghanistan will cost us and whether or not we should increase troops or pull out?

Why do conservatives get to lobby for pointless wars without contemplating their real long term costs but healthcare reform has to budget itself for the next 10 years before even thinking of getting approval?

If we’re going to do 10-year budgets for things, then I’m fine with that so long as it isn’t used selectively to obstruct some programs but not applied to others.

We could very well be in Afghanistan for at least another 5 or 10 years. If we’re going to consider sendign more troops, then it should be based on what that approach would cost over 10 years.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/costs-by-dday-heres-something-you-dont.html

The attacks resulted in 2,993 deaths, including the hijackers. 55 of the victims were military personel at the Pentagon. All the others were civilians. 329 of those civilians were from other countries, including the United Kingdom, South Korea, Philippines, Mexico, Japan, Jamaica, Italy, India, Germany, Columbia, Canada, and Australia, among others.

Fifteen of the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia, two are from the United Arab Emirates, one is from Egypt, and one is from Lebanon.

Within 5 hours of the attack Donald Rumsfeld is pushing to attack Iraq.

November 2001, Dick Cheney lays out the “one percent doctrine”. If there is a one-percent chance that something will happen, the US has to treat it as a certainty. (unless it relates to Global Warming, of course).

December 2001, Cheney is saying that Mohammed Atta had connections with Iraqi intelligence. It’s not true.

December 2001, So-called journalist, Judith Miller reports that Iraq has 20 hidden WMD sites. It’s not true.

By January of 2002, Americans are torturing prisoners, including Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. While being tortured, al-Libi claims that al Quaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire WMD’s. It’s not true. That same month, Alberto Gonzoles issues a policy memo that authorizes torture.

January 2002, the first prisoners arrive at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo.

By March of 2002, Bush begins “stovepiping” intelligence, taking it directly from the CIA without their analysis and filtering, and begins cherry picking what he wants to believe. At about the same time, Ahmed Chalabi, starts supplying defectors from Iraq who provide the CIA with reports, which are then “stovepiped” directly to Bush. Chalabi heads the Iraqi National Congress, created in 1992 for the purpose of formenting the overthrow of Saddam. And Chalabi hopes Saddam gets kicked out and hopes he’ll be made the new leader of Iraq.

March, 2002, US Intellgence report looking at the information coming in regarding the allegations that Iraq is trying to buy “yellow cake” from Niger states that these rumors are clearly false and the CIA should have made clear this fact rather than allowing the White House to cherry pick what it wanted to believe. In March of 2002, Bush publicly announces that Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons. It’s not true.

June 2002: Operation Southern Focus begins in secret. US aircraft fly missions into Iraq to prep it for invasion. 20,000 sorties will be flown between June 2002 and March 2003 when the invasion begins.

August 2002, Cheney publicly states that we now know with certainty that Saddam has an active WMD program and is looking to acquire nuclear weapons. It’s a lie.

August 2002, Abu Zubaydah is waterboarded 83 times in one month

September 2002, so-called journalist Judith Miller reports that Saddam has purchased thousands of aluminum tubes to use for uranium enrichment. Cheney, Condelezza Rice, and the entire White House will begin paroting about these nuclear enrichment tubes. But almost a year before, Ms. Rice’s staff had been told that the government’s foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons. Experts informed the White House that they were likely for small artillery rockets.

September 2002, Cheney says Mohamed Atta had traveled to Prague and met with Iraqi intelligence officers. It’s a lie. The CIA had previously told him this was not credible.

September 2002, Saddam says a UN inspection team can enter Iraq. Hans Blix will be the head of the team. They will enter Iraq in December.

September 2002, Four days after being told by intelligence agencies that there is no connection between Iraq and al-Queada, Bush is telling journalists “You can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.” It’s a lie.

October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is sent to Congress days before lawmakers will vote to authorize use of military force against Saddam. The report states with “high confidence” that Iraq “has now established large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capabilities.” It said “all key aspects” of Iraq’s offensive BW program “are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.” This was in fact untrue and the CIA at that time had reason to believe that it wasn’t true. The NIE also reports that Iraq has 500 tons of yellow cake from Niger (it doesn’t), mentions the aluminum tubes for centrifuges (which aren’t), that Saddam has stockpiled 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons (he hasn’t), that Saddam is producing biological weapons in mobile labs (he isn’t). The report states it has “high confidence” that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs” (it isn’t), “high confidence” that “Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles” (it doesn’t).

October 2002, “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ is passed by US Senate and House.

November 2002, The UN passes Resolution 1441, calling for immediate and comlete disarmament of Iraq, demanding declare all WMD’s, and requiring that Iraq submit to inspections. The Resolution does not authorize the use of force if Iraq fails to comply.

January 2003, Hans Blix reports to UN that he has found no “smoking gun” so far while inspecting Iraq. UN press release states “It would appear that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on substance in order to complete the disarmament task through inspection.” After 60 days of work, 106 sites have been inspected.

February 2003, Bush announces that “Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda” and “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” All of this is a lie.

February 2003, Hans Blix reports to UN that they have inspected 300 sites without restrictions in 11 weeks. No WMD’s found.

March 2003, Hans Blix reports to UN that Iraqis are cooperating with inspections and that they have found no evidence of mobile biological labs.

March 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is waterboarded 183 times during the month

March 2003, Bush has been pushing for a UN Resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. It becomes clear it will not pass. Bush announces the “Coalition of the Willing” will enforce the resolution without UN approval. Only four countries provide troops for the actual invasion: The US, United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, and Denmark.

March 17, 2003, Bush Jr. addresses the nation, saying “every measure has been taken to avoid war”, then he gives Saddam and his sons 48 hours to step down from power. Bush invokes “regime change” as the trigger for the war, when no UN resolution ever approved it, when the reason given in the months preceding were that Iraq had to comply with UN Resolution 1441 demanding Iraq disarm and comply with inspections to confirm. UN Inspector Hans Blix’s most recent report states that inspections are working and he should be complete in a few months.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq begins. Rumsfeld said we’d be out in 6 days, 6 weeks, or 6 months, and welcomed as liberators.

November 2003, US military personel in Abu Graib prison begin torturing, raping, and killing prisoners.

June 2004, Rasul v. Bush. The first habeas corpus case regarding prisoners reaches the Supreme Court. The court rules prisoners have a right to hear the evidence against them and the chance to refute it. Bush sets up military commissions to try and keep control of the outcome of the trials.

July 2006, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, US Supreme Court rules that the executive branch does not have the authority to set up miltary commissions.

June 2008, Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court rules that prisoners at Guantanamo should have access to the US justice system.

September 2009, 6 years after the invasion, American troops are still struggling to control Iraq.

About 5,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq. About 45,000 to 90,000 American troops suffer from permanent traumatic brain injuries who will need assisstance for the rest of their lives. 500 American troops lost a limb. About 30,000 American troops have been diagnosed with mental health problems.

About 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed from military operations. About one million Iraqi civilians died as a result of criminal violence and civil war brought on by the US invasion. 4 million Iraqi civilians have been displaced from their homes. 2 million of them have fled the country.

About 1,000 prisoners went through Guantanamo. About 800 turned out to be completely innocent of any crime and were eventually released. Many were tortured during their imprisonment. A total of three convictions have been handed down. The rest of the prisoners remain in limbo.

It’s the 8 year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Sometimes it’s hard for me to remember the scale of the attack, all the lives lost, all the tragedy. I think its because all the lives lost since, all the lives lost in the name of avenging 9/11, is overwhelming. The events since have created an even larger tragedy.

I can remember when I first heard about the attacks on 9/11. I was in my car, driving to work. The radio station was reporting that a plane had crashed into the world trade center. I remember that the initial report said it may have been an accident. There wasn’t a lot of information available. When the second plane hit about 15 minutes later, everyone knew it wasn’t an accident. I didn’t get a lot of work done that day. A lot of people were in a conference room watching the only TV that had an antenna. We watched images of the towers burning. An hour after the plane hit, one tower collapsed. An hour after that, the other tower collapsed. All I could think about was all the lives lost.

In the days following, 9/11 went from a tragedy to a rallying call for vengeance. The lives lost were forgotten and replaced with some form of “debt” that could only be paid in blood by someone else. America began to torture prisoners, rape them, kill them. America invaded Iraq wholly based on fabricated intelligence. Three thousand lives lost on 9/11 became overshadowed by five thousand American troops killed, fifty-thousand American troops with permanent brain injuries, and a million dead Iraqi civilians.

One can no longer think of the loss we suffered on 9/11 without thinking of the losses we inflicted on ourselves and the rest of the world in its name.

And that’s the biggest tragedy of all.

The allegations also include Blackwater killing Iraqis cooperating with a State Department investigation into Blackwater, weapon smuggling, and use of weapons outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

The US government should never have outsourced its war to a mercenary corporation. And the reason is demonstrated in Blackwater’s behaviour in Iraq.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

No, really?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/07/2009723181757315574.html

Obama is pushing to stop the release of torture photos. He says it’s because the photos will be a recruiting poster for terrorists and American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be killed.

CQPolitics has an article today (16 June 2009) that questions this claim with evidence. The Abu Ghraib photos were first seen on “60 Minutes” on 28 April 2004. The image above shows American deaths in Iraq over time. For 2004, the numbers of dead/wounded are:

January: 47/188
February: 19/150
March: 52/323
April: 136/1214
28 April 2004: Photos appear on “60 Minutes”
May: 80/757
June: 42/589
July: 54/552

The one thing these numbers show is that the number of deaths and wounded drop after the photos are released. It is doubtful that the photos caused the numbers to drop, but to say the photos caused the number of attacks to rise would first require the numbers to actually be higher from before to after, and second would require that the photos were what actually caused the rise in numbers.

Since the numbers actually fell after the photos were made public, one cannot assert that the release of photos would cause attacks to rise without disregard to the historical evidence to the contrary.

The CQ Politics article states:

Defense Department data and independent experts confirm there is no clear link between the Abu Ghraib scandal and violence in Iraq.

Drawing a connection between the Abu Ghraib photos and the lethal violence that occurred afterward in Iraq “is opinion, not analysis,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Simpler reasons exist for why Obama does not want the photos of Americans torturing Iraqi prisoners to be released than the fabrication that it will cause more attacks. Americans might finally demand that Obama prosecute Americans who committed torture and the Bush administration people who authorized torture. And Obama has said repeatedly that he wants to “look forward, not back” on torture. He has made clear that he doesn’t want to investigate criminal activity.

And though Obama says he doesn’t want the photos released because of attacks, the facts don’t support that notion. So, it might be more accurate to say that Obama doesn’t want to release the photos so he doesn’t have to prosecute the people who committed and authorized torture.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003143986&cpage=1

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

It is similar in concept to the way Israel refuses to refer to the West Band and Gaza Strip as “occupied territories” because the Geneva Convention also has requirements as to how a military force must treat civilians in an occupied territory. Israel doesn’t want to follow these requirements, and indeed, has not followed these requirements since it captured and occupied these territories since the 1967 war. So Israel calls them “disputed” territories, not “occupied”, because they don’t want the linguistic connection to the Geneva Convention. Because they haven’t been following the Geneva Convention.

But today, I realized I have been duped. I’ve been referring to people being held in Guantanamo as “detainees” rather than “prisoners”. So, going forward, I will be refering to the people held in Guantanamo, and the even larger number of people held in Bagram, Afghanistan, as “prisoners”. It is an effort to remove the war handwavium put in place by the Bush administration and continued by Obama.

They are prisoners, not “detainees”.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

Obama then announced that “nothing will be gained” by prosecuting people who committed war crimes… because… they… were… Americans.

“Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.”

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/countdown-special-comment-future-us-depend

I can’t tell if Obama is naive and thinks that Bush was a singular bad apple the likes of which America will never see again. (Bush will not be the last tyrant America will have to suffer. Future tyrants will see Bush’s ability to get away with 8 years of torture and take that as a green light to more tyranny.) I can’t tell if Obama is avoiding a political storm and merely hopes that it all magically goes away. (It won’t go away. Ignoring it will only make it worse.) But what I realized is that it doesn’t matter what Obama’s motivations are. What matters are his actions, his deeds. And his deeds are that of a man who is suggesting that we should not prosecute war criminals because they happen to be American.

Glenn Greenwald goes into the legal details here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/prosecutions/index.html

To quote General Pace, http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8678

“It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral.”

Pace was saying this to Iraqi commanders before the US invaded, but it applies to everyone in uniform.

Anyone remember Abu Graib? The torture of prisoners by American soldiers? Ring a bell? Pfc. Lynndie England defended her part in the crimes committed at Abu Graib by invoking the “we were just following orders” defense. http://hnn.us/articles/5378.html

“We think everything was justified because we were instructed to do this and to do that.”

Abu Graib is not a precedence that America wants to continue with the crimes at Guantanamo and the crimes at the American base in Bagram, Afghanistan. We do not want to be a nation that acts solely on the moral compass handed to us by our superiors. We cannot.

And we become complicit if we allow our country to do that without strong vocal protest for justice, for transparancy, for rule of law, for democracy, for freedom, and for liberty. Because what is liberty if it is solely what our politicians decide they are willing to grant us? What is justice if it is solely what our politicians tell us? What is democracy if it is solely what our incumbent political leaders say it is, which they generally say is more of them.

Democracy only exists as long as it is sourced by “we the people”. If we sit back and allow this grand injustice to pass without comment, then we are no longer a democracy. We’re a volunteer tyranny.

Write your representatives and give them an earful. Let them know that Americans still demand rule of law, due process, and that criminals be prosecuted even if they were working for the government at the time. Tell them “I was just following orders” isn’t good enough. And tell them that the people in the Bush administration who gave the orders that others followed should be prosecuted first.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress/

Now, for some minor details: First of all, this withdrawal will leave 35,000 to 50,000 US troops stationed in Iraq for at least a year and a half after that. That puts the full withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011. That isn’t a military date, it’s a political date, set by an agreement between Iraq and George W. Bush.

This gives Obama about 18 months to withdraw 100,000 US troops. Except he won’t be withdrawing them over that 18 month period. The timeline essentially has troop levels remain essentially constant for the rest of 2009. This claimed to be so that US troops could provide security for Iraq’s elections in late 2009. The problem is this means this announcement is little more that lip service for the next year. And if 2009 draws to a close and someone decides we need to stay ‘just a little longer’, then nothing actually changes.

I’m fairly certain we will have most troops out by the end of 2011. I don’t think Iraq will change their agreement that we leave by that time, unless we dump a very large bag of money in some people’s laps (which isn’t outside the realm of possibilities).

The one good thing is that August 2010 is just before election time for the US. Which means that if Obama does stretch out the timeline beyond what he promised, it might negatively affect congressional races, and Obama can use every democrat in office that he can get.

And a “contingent” of 50,000 troops is hardly a minor force. It is a major obligation and committment. Obama campaigned on getting the US out of Iraq in 16 months. He’s now committed to getting some troops out withing 19 months, but 50,000 will remain for a total of 34 months.

Whether he intends to exercise this or not, Obama certainly seems to have hedged his bets on Iraq such that extending the US presence well beyond his first term wouldn’t be out of the realm of possiibilities.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_iraq

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

The gist of it appears to be that the anthrax scare was, at the very least, Ivins own personal attempt to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax letters all came with a letter saying some variation of the following:

09-11-01

This is next.

Take Penacilin Now

Death to America

Death to Israel

Allah is Great

 Worst case, however, the anthrax letters were part of a larger government attempt to “Tonkin” the country into attacking Iraq for 9/11.  The Washington Post’s columnist, Richard Cohen, in an article had stated “I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official” Cohen was warned, by someone in the government, to get Cipro before the anthrax attacks had started.

The implications of this whole mess deserve a war-handwavium entry or two. What I wanted to point out right now was a bit about John McCain’s reaction back in October 2001 when the anthrax scare was going full throttle. McCain appeared on the David Letterman Show on 18 October 2001.

LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?

MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine …. I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.

LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?

There was no indication that the anthrax used in these attacks had come from Iraq. Ever. John McCain had zero evidence to support this at the time. And now as more information keeps coming out about Bruce E. Ivins, it is now known that all the anthrax used in the attacks came from a US Army bioweapon research facility. Towards the end of the interview, McCain not only beats the war drum for Iraq, but reveals his idea of foreign diplomacy.

“The crunch time will be if – and emphasize if – we have to go after Iraq.  … World power politics is very interesting. People are very friendly when they know you’re the most powerful kid on the block.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/

Not only was McCain wrong about the anthrax being from Iraq, not only did he have zero evidence to link it with Iraq, not only does he beat the war drum to invade Iraq, but he shows that his view of diplomacy is little more than war or the threat of war.

Three days later in an interview with Tim Russert, McCain and Joe Lieberman are again trying to connect Iraq with not only 9/11 but also bin Laden and al Queda.

LIEBERMAN:  There is some evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein may have had contact with bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network, perhaps even involved in the September 11 attack.

Lieberman is wrong on all three counts. Later in the interview:

MCCAIN: Recently, in Rio, I believe, an envelope was received, which gives me the idea that perhaps this is an international organization and not one within the United States of America.

McCain is wrong here too. Later on in the same interview:

RUSSERT: Would you have any problem expanding President Bush’s orders to the CIA to go after Osama bin Laden to include Saddam Hussein?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I leave that to the president. But as a matter of principle and morality, of course not.

RUSSERT: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I think Joe’s right.

McCain also puts in some suck-up time to President Bush Jr.

MCCAIN: I think the president is doing a great job in leading America and making us aware of the challenge we face.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext_102101.html 

This country can’t survive another four years of a war-mongering president at the helm. There will be nothing left of America but a smoldering ruin.