Iran Tricked the US into Iraq Invasion?

Earlier in the week the Guardian reported claims appearing in the US intelligence community that Ahmad Chalabi, the alleged source of intelligence on Iraq for the Office of Special Plans run by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith at the Pentagon, was in fact an agent for Iran.

The theory goes that Chalabi was used to feed misleading intelligence to draw the US into invading Iraq. Here are a few quotes from the article (click here to read the full text):

"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."

Is this credible? Yes, I think it has a shred of credibility. Is it likely? No.

Iran may have been one small piece in the puzzle, but to suggest they were masterful manipulators is simply a way of directing responsibility away from the utter stupidity of the Bush Administration and the American intelligence community.

In the case of the Bush Administration, they had been aching for a reason to take over Iraq since well before the senior members had even come to power. The intelligence used to justify the war was clearly flawed, and anyone with a brain, even from outside could see that.

The American intelligence community, on the other hand, operated largely like a bunch of cowards afraid for their jobs. While there were a few notable exceptions, most of the higher ups in American intelligence did not do their jobs, and vociferously oppose an invasion they knew was ill advised.

The Iraq War will likely do immense damage to the projection of American power in the world, and I have no doubt a large part of the American intelligence community know this.

Sadly, what appears to be happening now is an overinflation of Iranian involvement in an attempt to blame outside forces, while also making the neo-cons look like utter dupes. While I agree the neo-cons are numbskulls, the rest of the American intelligence community should not be let off the hook for their complacency in the face of such sheer stupidity.

Comments Now Anonymous

For those who have been tempted to comment, but didn't because you had to create a blogger account, I apologize. I didn't realize the default setting for blogger comments was registered users only. You should now be able to comment without having to give your life details. :)

Greens and Tax Policy

The Green Party of Canada has been receiving some limited coverage since the election call, and they are expected to garner something like 5% of the vote nationally, and almost 13% of the vote in British Columbia, I think it wise to look a little more closely at aspects of their platform, particularly where their stated tax policy is concerned.

As of my writing this, the Greens currently have only a vague outline of their tax policy. They make general pronouncements on large shifts in the structure and method of taxation, but they don't provide enough detail to be able to have a clear understanding of how they would implement taxes, especially in relation to differences in income between rich and poor.

I think, given that the Green Party leader Jim Harris is a former Progressive Conservative party member, it is important to look closely at taxation. This is especially important for those with a left of centre political point of view, who are concerned about widespread corporatism and the growing gap between the rich and the poor; but who also appreciate a number of the Green Party's progressive stances on many issues.

Here are a few points on taxation taken from the Green Party platform, my commentary follows:

Lower taxes on income, profit and investment, to promote increased productivity and job creation. Raise taxes on harmful activities such as pollution, waste and inefficiency.

While lowering taxes on income, profit and investment does not automatically equal regressive taxation, it does indicate a business driven perspective on the part of the Green Party. The lack of detail here, for those interested in promoting social justice is potentially alarming.

Income taxes are a familiar aspect of life for all Canadians who work, and reducing tax in this area is almost universally welcomed. Although most Canadians these days also want assurances that cutting taxes won't result in the cessation of certain important services, such as universal health care. Most Canadians are in fact willing to pay more tax to ensure certain vital services improve.

But it is also important to maintain an emphasis on progressive taxation where income is concerned. The wealthy benefit disproportionately from the publicly created and maintained infrastructure of society. Without it they would not be able to concentrate wealth in their own hands to the degree that they do. Taxation, as incomes get high, should reflect the benefits of society that the wealthy enjoy.

No matter how much personal genius is at the root of an idea or service that makes someone wealthy, whether it be a book (the Harry Potter series and the wealth it has generated for Rowling come to mind) or some other invention; that wealth is largely made possible not by that genius, but by the whole structure of society. The distribution of the ideas, the manufacture of the products or services that result; all these things come about due to the labour of countless souls and the existence of a private and public commons of transportation and communications systems, whose interconnection and interdependence is next to incalculable.

The rich should pay their fair share of that boon, because it society's recognition of their genius that provides them their largesse, not their genius in and of itself. They owe an enormous debt, because they have received a reward that far outweighs their contribution.

Increasing tax, as certain levels of income are reached, is merely a recognition of the benefits the wealthy receive from society. And while I doubt the Green party is suggesting the elimination of progressive income taxes, it is important that they define what they mean when they state their intention to reduce them. Where and how will they implement the cuts?

Profit, and investment taxes, however, are a different story. Small businesses can certainly benefit from tax reform that specifically targets them, and giving small business tax breaks, grants and incentives, particularly during their start-up phase, would be helpful for getting them established, and thus likely to employ more Canadians. But the simple fact is that most Canadians are employed. Money for profit and investment is generally a benefit of the rich and large corporations, who again benefit disproportionately from societal infrastructure.

Simply stating that the Green party plans to cut taxes in this area, without providing a sense of where and how, sends too vague a message. It hints at a neo-liberal approach to markets that has repeatedly not worked, and has in fact led to monopolistic practices, as ever larger corporations are able to pool their assets and use them to influence government.

Now it is important to point out that the Greens seek to replace the cuts to the aforementioned income-based taxes with more consumptive based taxes. These replacements would include taxes on things like pollution, and gasoline.

Canadians have one of the highest rates of energy consumption per capita in the world. The burden of reducing that consumption has to be borne by all of us, rich and poor, because we all consume too much. Even a large proportion of the poor in this country live in, or have access to, far better conditions than many of the poor in other regions of the world. Taxing consumption will provide tangible incentives to all Canadians to reduce consumption, particularly when the revenue from that consumption is used to fund subsidies and research into alternate and more efficient uses of energy.

But consumption taxes are not adequate replacements for taxing income. Individuals, rich or poor, pay the same amount for the same objects or units of consumption. Tax on income must remain a major feature of any tax policy to balance the disproportionate benefits wealthy individuals and corporations receive from a smoothly functioning industrial society. They must pay their fair share for the hard work of all Canadians that makes their wealth possible.

I, for one, would certainly like to know where exactly the Green Party of Canada stands on tax policy. I want the details of how they would implement taxation. I want a budget breakdown that says in black and white how the revenues will be gathered and where they will be spent. Their platform leaves a lot of holes to fill, and my worry is that too many Canadians will simply fill those holes with their belief in the Green Party's good intentions. That's not good enough, not for me.

What a Gas

With the rising cost of gasoline at the pumps the major political parties decided to weigh in on the issue, all with a view to lighten the burden on Canadians.

The Conservatives led off with, what else, a tax cut. They said they would provide an elimination of the GST for every cent over $0.85 per litre. They also would eliminate the tax on tax factored into the price of gas, because currently the GST taxes any other taxes, like provincial sales taxes, added to the price of gas. The Conservative failed to answer how they would make up for lost tax revenues, and they also did nothing to encourage energy conservation. In fact, by reducing the cost of gas, the Conservatives would be encouraging greater consumption of a rapidly dwindling resource.

The Liberals at first were caught by surprise by the Conservative announcement and rapidly cobbled together a plan whereby the extra revenues due to the higher price of gas would be used to purchase medical technology. Again the Liberals provided no incentive to reduce consumption, they simply tried to assuage the public's concern by attempting to shift their attention away from the problem of higher costs.

The NDP, in a rather foolish move, suggested price controls. This idea, apart from helping to solidify the public perception of the NDP as socialist nincompoops, again would not address the problems of gasoline consumption. Moreover, it could have negative economic consequences for oil producing regions of Canada, because they would be unable to sell their product at market rates in Canada.

The Greens seemed to stick by their party platform, where they would place an additional ten cent tax on gas, the proceeds of which would be used to subsidize the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles and into research for alternative energy. They would of course allow the market to largely dictate the price. The Greens were the only party to provide incentives to reduce consumption. Given the nature of oil as a dwindling resource, and the clear need find alternate sources of clean energy.

Clearly the three major parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP fumbled this political football. It is clear their ideas followed their current party ideology: in the case of Conservatives cut taxes and damn the consequences; in the case of the Liberals, distract and confuse and put forward no real policy change; in the case of the NDP, look to old-style socialist societal controls. None of the top three parties sought to address the real problems of oil consumption, and take a long term view to providing real solutions for the public.

Canadians have to reduce their dependence on oil. It is a rapidly disappearing, not to mention highly polluting source of energy. By raising the cost of the resource, and using the proceeds to fund both greater efficiency and alternate sources of energy, the government would be providing solutions to the problem of weaning Canadians from oil from two directions. Sadly, the only party with that long term vision, and the means to articulate it, is the Green party.

Bizarre Template Reversion

I don't know exactly how this happened, but for some reason Pyra or Blogspot reverted my blog back to my old template. It's all very bizarre, because I deleted it. Poof, gone into the ether. Perhaps the old template still remains somewhere on the BlogSpot FTP server some how.

Anyway, I just wanted to leave this brief note for those as confused by the reversion as I was.

Moral Superiority

I came across a rather interesting article on Znet, by Barbara Ehrenreich. In it she describes her shock at seeing the photos from Abu Ghraib, but she also says part of that shock shattered one of her long standing illusions about woman. But I'll let her describe it in this quote:

A certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naivete, died in Abu Ghraib. It was a feminism that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice. Rape has repeatedly been an instrument of war and, to some feminists, it was beginning to look as if war was an extension of rape. There seemed to be at least some evidence that male sexual sadism was connected to our species' tragic propensity for violence. That was before we had seen female sexual sadism in action. (for the full article click here)

I find it refreshing that someone who speaks as a feminist is willing to own up to the perception Ehrenreich describes on the part of, hopefully, a few in the feminist movement.

I've never experienced feminists coming right out and making a direct claim to that moral superiority, but in a fair amount of the feminist writing I've read, that viewpoint does seem to be implied.

I found that attitude especially prevalent in academe in Canada back in the early '90s, following the horror of the Montreal Massacre (for a CBC archive link to this story click here).

At times it felt almost as if the trauma of that incident in Montreal, gave license to those wishing to assert the evil of all men, simply for being men. It went beyond dealing with legitimate critiques of culturalized violence, in particular violence against women, and sought instead to identify violence as a completely male domain.

At them time I remember arguing that to deal with violence within the limited approach of focusing only on violence against women, would be to hamstring real solutions to it's elimination, because the problem was far more complex than simply gender.

Strangely the parallel that experience draws for me, is the trauma experienced by Americans due to 9/11, and the inherent sense of moral superiority many in the U.S., particularly in the Bush Administration, have when they compare themselves to the rest of the world. The trauma provides the pretext for the imposition of that moral superiority.

Within the legitimate outrage over such events, there seems to grow an abscess of revenge and hatred that some people let flourish. It poisons their speech, and it poisons their thoughts. They want a target, an enemy, someone to exact revenge and anger upon. Someone who can be linked to the victimizer. Someone who eventually is indistinguishable from the victimizer. The enemy then, by its very nature becomes monstrous and inhuman, against which anything is justifiable or excusable. And of course the seat of morality rests with the victims.

But all that really happens is more trauma, more victims, more violence. I think it is at times of extreme violence that it is most important to not simply speak out, but to listen. To not simply rail at the evil that others do, but to look at where you might have contributed, or perhaps could have done better.

Canada's Supreme Court Decides to Let Corporations Own Life

Today the Supreme Court of Canada made a truly terrible decision. The ruled in favour of allowing patents on life. Specifically they ruled in favour of U.S. biotech company Monsanto and its patent on a gene in its Round-Up Ready canola seeds. Here is a quote from a CBC article:

In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld Monsanto's patent over its Roundup Ready canola plant gene, ruling Percy Schmeiser infringed on the company's patent by growing the plant without a licence. (for the full article click here)

A very close decision, and sadly the wrong one. Allowing corporate control of life, whatever form it may take, is wrong. Life, particularly seeds, are of the commons. This decision gives corporations a pretext for forcing their patented life on others. Should their owned life turn up even accidentally in a farmer's field, this decision provides Monsanto, and other large biotech companies with the justification to sue. The danger goes beyond simply owning one variation of life, it is about the monopolization of it.

The Wedding Day Massacre

It sounds like a horror movie doesn't it, "The Wedding Day Massacre". It's the kind of shlocky story you'd only get in a cheap American B-movie. The real horror is that this particular massacre is no movie, but it is definitely a Made in America atrocity.

I am, of course, referring to the American military bombing and raid on an Iraqi wedding party in the village of Mukaradeeb near the Syrian border. Here is a quote from a Guardian article on the massacre by Rory McCarthy:

It was 10.30pm in the remote village of Mukaradeeb by the Syrian border and the guests hurried back to their homes as the party ended. As sister-in-law of the groom, Mrs Shihab, 30, was to sleep with her husband and children in the house of the wedding party, the Rakat family villa. She was one of the few in the house who survived the night.

"The bombing started at 3am," she said yesterday from her bed in the emergency ward at Ramadi general hospital, 60 miles west of Baghdad. "We went out of the house and the American soldiers started to shoot us. They were shooting low on the ground and targeting us one by one," she said. She ran with her youngest child in her arms and her two young boys, Ali and Hamza, close behind. As she crossed the fields a shell exploded close to her, fracturing her legs and knocking her to the ground.

She lay there and a second round hit her on the right arm. By then her two boys lay dead. "I left them because they were dead," she said. One, she saw, had been decapitated by a shell. (for the full article click here)

I have written both here on my blog, and in commentary on other political blogs, that atrocities in Iraq, like this massacre, and like Abu Ghraib, will not only continue, but they will continue to get worse.

The problem is not some flaw in Americans as a whole. The problem isn't even a flaw in the American military. The problem is in the leadership, or more accurately the lack of it. Until and unless the American leadership is willing to thoroughly police its military forces, until the message gets out to the troops and the commanders at all levels that unreasonable uses of force will be punished heavily, killing, particularly the killing of unarmed civilians will become routine.

Eventually, if it hasn't already, the current tacit acceptance of atrocity will affect the American military at all levels. The only time there will be punishment is when the evidence is irrefutable. So instead of behaving better, troops will simply do a better job at hiding the evidence. They will take no prisoners, they will try to leave no one behind alive to tell their tale. But despite those efforts some of the stories will get out, and they will only further deepen the growing Iraqi resistance against the American occupation.

What not enough Americans, particularly those in power, realize, is that this entrenchment of brutality will not only traumatize Iraqis, it will cause harm to all Americans. The rest of the world, and even Americans themselves, will see a change in how they are viewed, and eventually, even who they are. You cannot continue to do monstrous deeds without eventually becoming a monster.

Debased Speech and Pro-War Bloggers in the Doldrums

I just came across an interesting Toronto Star article from the weekend written by Antonia Zerbisias. She rather gleefully points out the wind appears to have left the sails of many right-wing pro-Iraq War bloggers:

They're either running out of time, or money, or steam Â? or the conviction that Operation Iraqi Freedom was going to be a cakewalk in the sand.

If the above makes no sense to you, then you have not been paying attention to the chest-thumping chaterati of the cybersphere, a post 9/11 class of might-is-right and right-is-might wordsmiths who rode the "War on terror" wave with their warmongering web logs.

But now, with the news getting more dire, the quag more mired and the cost of war ever higher, the warbloggers find themselves on the wrong side of history. And so some of them are putting down their mice and putting up a white flag. (for the full article click here)

While I think Ms. Zerbisias may be somewhat overstating the case, the winds of war can and do shift, it certainly is clear that many pro-Iraq War bloggers have taken to writing less as the war has worsened for the Americans.

I noticed the beginnings of a change with the Sadr led Shia uprisings, and the massacre in Falluja in April. Then of course came Abu Ghraib, and the American military torture of innocent Iraqi civilians, a situation which continues to worsen for the Bush Administration.

I understand Ms. Zerbisias' sense of vindication, particularly given the nasty nature of many of the comments about her, many of which she details in her article. For some reason many bloggers on the right seem to glory in ad hominem attacks. Pro-war bloggers who attack someone's political stance by describing them as "fat" or suffering from "menopause" are at best trying to distract readers from their own poor arguments.

At worst they are trying to dehumanize their political opponents by turning them into sub-human caricatures of real people. Having read some of the vitriol, I tend to think that most of it occurs because the writers have an emotional need to to debase and humiliate their targets. It is, after all, a lot easier on most people's personal sense of morality to destroy something inhuman.

Right-wing talk radio has perfected this kind of debasement. The corporate sponsors of pundits like Rush Limbaugh hide behind free speech, and rationalize their popularity as entertainment. It is little wonder that this well developed practice has been adopted by the bloggers these pundits have inspired.

Limbaugh is a symbol of success. He has a huge following, political influence, and he makes a lot of money with his inane and frequently monstrouss pronouncements on world events. For those who identify with his point of view, it probably makes sense to imitate what appears to be a winning formula.

Part of the problem may be that many people, across the political spectrum, have not been exposed to the argumentative tools that make both reasoned debate possible, and emotional appeals impassioned and fair.

It is likely a mix of all the things I have mentioned, from emotional justification, to imitation, to just plain laziness and a lack of time that forms the problem many political bloggers have with providing reasoned reflection on political events.

I think, or perhaps I hope, that as blogging evolves as a form of media, bloggers themselvess will evolve and adopt a mode of discourse that is both more civilized, yet just as passionate.

Stockpile...er...No Wait One Weapon of Minor Destruction Found! Maybe...

Whoo Hoo! The U.S. military managed to find a rigged and partially exploded artillery shell that may have contained sarin gas. So that's where Saddam hid all his WMD, in bags abandoned on the roads of Iraq. This from the BBC:

However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.

He said the round dated back to the Iran-Iraq war and coalition officials were not sure whether the fighters even knew what it contained. (click here for the full article)

It'll be interesting to see how the Bush Administration spins this one. It arrives at a very opportune time, what with Rumsfeld under so much pressure to resign because of the U.S. military torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, and the recent revelation by Hersh in the New Yorker that Rumsfeld and his lackeys secretly encouraged brutal treatment of detainees (click here for the full article).

Of course this kind of story is also a good way to tangentially discourage insurgents from using old ordinance. Oops, am I being cynical about the honesty of the Bush Administration? Shame on me.

Now For Your Oral Exam

Wow you have to admire Europeans, on average they tend to have much healthier attitudes toward sex than many North Americans. Although among Europeans, the British tend to be stereotyped as scoring rather low on sexual intelligence.

Well that's about to change. You see the British have one of Europe's highest teen pregnancy rates. It is a problem they've been trying to nip in the butt. It turns out they should have been looking a little higher up on the body politic for a solution. Mark Townsend of the UK newspaper the Observer provides the details:

Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.

Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of 'intimacy' such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse, it was revealed. (for the full article click here)

Cool. Now there's a course I could have really gotten into during high school. Just imagine having to study for the exam. I'd definitely take the oral over the written. Hell bringing a girlfriend up to my room really would have involved school work. Oh but wait, I can just imagine my teenage glee at the thought of every girl in school being intimately tutored in the art of...er...but I digress.

Unfortunately, the sex-ed courses teenagers of my generation were forced to sit through managed to, for lack of a better term, suck the life out of sex. And no not in a good way.

I suffered through endless droning about the dangers of STDs, and teen pregnancy. Not to mention the horror of having to watch 60 year old Mrs. Stebbings struggle to slide a condom over the end of a broom handle *shiver*.

But of course the aformentioned British study does not remotely suggest sexing up the curriculum.

Teachers who sign up to the course are primed to deal with queries from pupils on all kinds of sexual experience. Those behind the course stress the scheme does not suggest teenagers experiment with oral sex. Instead they say A Pause promotes the message that other forms of physical intimacy are safer than full intercourse.

"A Pause"? Gee I remember those. I never really thought of that as something you'd need to teach girls, it always seemed a fairly universal skill on their part.

Ok, ok I suppose I should take a brief time out, and try to address the issue of sex, particularly teenage sex, with a slightly more sober approach. Sex and attitudes towards it are complicated things, in fact each person seems to have their own particular brand of feeling when the issue comes up.

Looking back, getting educated on the dangers of sex was somewhat helpful. What with AIDS out there, the idea of dying for a quickie was not appealing.

But one thing is for sure, trying to shame or scare kids into not having sex may have some success at stopping some of them, but it can also do lasting damage. Engendering feelings of fear and loathing towards what should be a loving, tender and intimate exchange of pleasure is criminal. It leads to all manner of confused behaviour where desire, disgust, and anger can get terribly intertwined.

I certainly don't have any easy solution. Although looking back, knowing what I know now, some means of educating kids on sex's positives, while making it clear how to be safe, is a more enlightened route. Perhaps there is a really good novel or two out there that could help. A good writer can usually do far better than an embarrased or overly clinical teacher.

Sadly, learning "proper" proceedure for many North American boys is left up to locker room boasting and Penthouse Letters. Then again that was more my generation. Porn on the net is almost impossible to avoid these days. But it would be a shame if that's where most teenagers learned their technique.

As for schools teaching teenagers the...um...ins and outs of oral sex? Sure, but probably only in my long past teenage wet dreams.

American Coup

A couple of articles have appeared in recent days over a growing rift in the Pentagon between the military and the civilian appointees led by Donald Rumsfeld.

The Christian Science Monitor points out:

For months, discord has been growing in Pentagon corridors over the Iraq war, as senior US military officers criticize what they see as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's risky war plan and the lack of a clear political end game. (for the full article click here)

I've been a harsh critic of the Bush Administration's failure to properly plan for both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Their approach seems firmly rooted in a hostile corporate take-over mentality, where the only thing that has to be accomplished is a change of leadership, and then it's business as usual.

Donald Rumsfeld, and his neo-con lackeys led by Paul Wolfowitz, upon their appointments to the Pentagon immediately began carving out for themselves a cloistered little empire of like minds. The results of their scheming and ill conceived plans are only beginning to bear fruit in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan.

What I find most interesting, however, is the gradually growing opposition within the ranks of American military professionals at the clearly foolish tactics of Rumsfeld and crew. As yet it does not appear that the opposition is directed even against the president, but there are signs that may be beginning to change.

Another article, this time in the UK's the Guardian, has pointed out that anger within the military has grown dramatically with the revelations over prisoner torture at Abu Ghraib.

William Odom, a retired general and former member of the National Security Council who is now at the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank, reflects a wide swath of opinion in the upper ranks of the military. "It was never in our interest to go into Iraq," he told me. It is a "diversion" from the war on terrorism; the rationale for the Iraq war (finding WMD) is "phony"; the US army is overstretched and being driven "into the ground"; and the prospect of building a democracy is "zero". In Iraqi politics, he says, "legitimacy is going to be tied to expelling us. Wisdom in military affairs dictates withdrawal in this situation. We can't afford to fail, that's mindless. The issue is how we stop failing more. I am arguing a strategic decision."

One high-level military strategist told me that Rumsfeld is "detested", and that "if there's a sentiment in the army it is: Support Our Troops, Impeach Rumsfeld". (for the full article click here)

Now I should point out that massacres by American troops are a common feature of their past conflicts. Mai Lai during the Vietnam war is a clear example of that. But organized torture at the behest of what initial evidence suggests to be private military contractors hired to farm out interrogation, is something new.

It is, all at once a sign of the corporatist mentality at work in the Bush Administration, and particularly with Donald Rumsfeld. But from the military point of view, it is also a sign a breakdown in the chain of command. It sets a very dangerous precedent for public oversight and military morale, because the way the Bush Administration is currently trying to spin events is to pin all the blame on a handful of low ranking soldiers. The mercenary interrogators and those who hired them, specifically Rumsfeld's crew, get off scott free.

Now here comes the freaky part. While the American military does have a faculty for spinning events (just watch a CENTCOM briefing), they cannot really speak for themselves in an organized fashion when they have an objection to the direction of their civilian overseers. Instead they rely on retired senior officers speaking out individually instead of serving officers risking their careers by making a fuss. I suspect this leads to greater frustration, frustration which can come out in unusual ways. Which leads me to the latter part of the Guardian article:

In 1992, General Colin Powell, chairman of the joint chiefs, awarded the prize for his strategy essay competition at the National Defense University to Lieutenant Colonel Charles Dunlap for The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012. His cautionary tale imagined an incapable civilian government creating a vacuum that drew a competent military into a coup disastrous for democracy. The military, of course, is bound to uphold the constitution. But Dunlap wrote: "The catastrophe that occurred on our watch took place because we failed to speak out against policies we knew were wrong. It's too late for me to do any more. But it's not for you."

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 is today circulating among top US military strategists.

Now this is likely a little bit of hyperbole on the part of the Guardian article author Sidney Blumenthal, but it does hint at the depths of dissatisfaction developing in the Pentagon. To peruse a PDF copy of the The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 click here.

I should point out that the document details a fictional coup that resulted when the military became too involved in civilian affairs: from highway building, to medical care, to schooling children.

What is happening today in the American military is almost the exact opposite. More and more of the US military's duties are being contracted out to private military companies, largely as payback to the corporate sponsors of the Bush Administration, such as Betchel and Halliburton. But corporatization is also a part of the mindset of the Bush Administration, and the futility of its ultimate realization, the privatization of everything, is beginning to be realized even by those in the notoriously conservative, yet completely government dependent military.

Canadian Neo-Cons Try to Silence the CBC

Since its inception by Conrad Black the National Post has been a bastion of Canadian neo-conservative thought. Avowedly pro-Bush and pro-Sharon the paper frequently reads like a press release from the offices of Donald Rumsfeld.

This week the Post published an editorial criticizing the CBC for broadcasting a report that did not make it clear there was no hard evidence for claims made by one Eugene Bird, president of CNI (the Council for the National Interest, click here for their website) in the U.S. Mr. Bird claimed Israeli intelligence was involved in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The Post made a number of aspersions against CNI, specifically that it is anti-Israeli, and I assume by supposition anti-Semitic. I'd urge anyone to take a look at the CNI website (link above), to examine the Council's stances on issues and decide for themselves.

The Post also criticized the CBC and their reporter Mr. Neil MacDonald for having an anti-Israeli bias, a claim the Post makes frequently.

The CBC later made a form of retraction by announcing the following on CBC's The National:

Last Friday, reporter Brian Stewart, subbing for Mansbridge, read an on-air correction: "(T)here is no evidence that Israel was involved in what happened in the Iraqi prison. The comment from the diplomat should not have been included in the report, and we regret the error." (click here for the full article in the Toronto Star)

I personally have been critical of the CBC in the past, largely because they sometimes tend toward laziness in their reporting, and fail to point out facts blatantly relevant to a particular news item (click here for an example).

But I completely disagree that the CBC should not have broadcast Bird's comments. The mistake they made was not asking Bird to detail that evidence, and if none was forthcoming to then decide whether to keep his comments or simply point out that no evidence was provided.

I find it ironic that the National Post is such a stickler for evidence when their pro-Iraq War stance was later revealed to be founded on lies promulgated by the Bush Administration. I don't recall the Post printing a retraction for their failures in that case.

Unlike a publicly funded news organization, such as the CBC, the National Post is able to hide behind its privatized status. Despite the fact that the National Post has a very apparent political right-wing bias, the fact that it is owned somehow confers it a form of immunity.

It is the myth of money at work. Moneyed interests are able to keep a powerful national political tool afloat, and simply the fact that you can choose not to buy the newspaper affords it a protection that the CBC does not have.

Yes the CBC should have greater oversight. It is a public corporation, and it must strive to best represent the interests of the Canadian public. But it is also important to point out the National Post has an avowed bias that can influence public opinion, all because its owners have the money to spend to shape people's perceptions, and pretend to present it as objective news.

Aristide Offered Asylum in South Africa

As regular readers of my blog know, I've periodically covered the situation in Haiti.

I believe the Canadian government has been complicit in the American sponsored overthrow of Aristide's Lavalas party (click here for the details).

By way of a minor update I wanted to point out that South Africa has offered Aristide asylum while the situation in Haiti stabilizes:

"South Africa has a responsibility, as an African country and as part of the international community, to ensure that democracy and peace prevail in Haiti and that the people of this country are able democratically to elect their leaders," he [Netshitenzhe] said.

Netshitenzhe said government supported the call for an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Aristide's removal from office and was committed to building international consensus against unilateral regime changes. (for the full article click here)

Thankfully, at least some democratic nations, like South Africa, are willing to stand on their democratic principles. Sadly, in the case of Haiti, the same cannot be said for Canada, France and the U.S.

I also wanted to provide an update of the situation in Haiti. As expected it is not going well. American troops have been implicated in the deaths of unarmed Haitian protestors, yet there has been no coverage by the mainstream press in North America. The rebel factions have also been engaging in violence, not just against members of the Lavalas party, but also against other democratic organizations, many of whom were agitating against Aristide.

For a far more detailed discussion of the current post-coup situation in Haiti you should read the following article by Tom Reeves (for the full article click here).

Mother Jones on Blogging

I just picked up the May/June issue of Mother Jones in London Drugs while shopping for unmentionables for one of my roommates. There were a number of articles I was interested in but the one on blogging titled "The Revolution Will Not Be Blogged" (you can read the whole thing without paying by clicking here).

The article is written by George Packer, a self-confessed blog and political news junkie. The focus of the article is largely on the upcoming 2004 presidential election, and unsurprisingly all the blogs cited are American.

Packer points out a number of fairly obvious facts about blogs: that they're read by only a small slice of the public, and that the vast majority of them are maintained by reasonably affluent men. This tends to create in his mind a fairly predictable echo chamber effect that leads to a deadening kind of commentary. I agree with this only in so far as he focuses his reading on American blogs.

There are a huge variety of bloggers out there should one take the time to look. Finding bloggers that have points of view not simply following the American spectrum of left-right politics is not especially difficult. This is particularly true if you take the time to find blogs outside North America.

It is also important to note that a large number of blogs deal with anything but politics, or only touch on them tangentially as the world intrudes into bloggers' other considerably varied interests.

I tend to agree with his formulation of political blogging as a modern version of pamphleteering. Anyone with a computer, an internet connection and the desire to write sentences can place their opinions out in the ether for anyone to peruse. Yet while there are many similarities, he gives short shrift to the differences.

The internet provides bloggers with access to huge amounts of information that they can point their readers to should they wish to delve into greater detail on whatever subject is at hand. Much of that additional detail is written by journalists, who Packer seems to feel have a greater ability to grasp the nuance of political events.

What can be safely said about blogging is that it is a very young and very quickly evolving medium. Like professional magazines, journals, and books, what you get out of blogs depends on what you put in. There is certainly a lot of crap out there, and finding the gems can take time.

Packer does start an interesting thread that he doesn't explore quite enough. He points out that a lot of political journalism in the last few decades has become a rather elitist and self-congratulatory affair. Access to the powerful has become a sign of status, yet that access comes with the price of a lack of objectivity. What established pundit is going to jeopardize his status by being critical enough of those in power to lose his access? As the lack of true critical writing in established media in the U.S. has demonstrated, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, not very many journalists are all that brave when it comes to asking hard questions of those in power.

What the proliferation of blogging has started, from my point of view, is the beginning of a greater democratization of news and opinion. For the longest time media, particularly news in the more traditional mediums of television, radio and print, has been moving toward a concentration of ever fewer corporate owners.

Blogs provide people with quick access to news and opinions that aren't normally covered by mainstream media, because they don't follow in lock step with the accepted opinion of those in charge of the news rooms of the big media players.

Admittedly blogging is still in its infancy, but it is moving rapidly to becoming a source of news that provides their readers with a filter for the massive amount of information available on the internet. With time I think parts of the blogosphere will improve dramatically, as bloggers hone their, for lack of a better term, craft.

Unauthorized but Acceptable Torture?

Donald Rumsfeld in his classically oxymoronic manner wove an interesting web of misperception today in front of a Senate committee investigating the prisoner abuses in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended military interrogation techniques in Iraq on Wednesday, rejecting complaints that they violate international rules and may endanger Americans taken prisoner.(for the full article click here)

Obfuscate. On the one hand the prisoner abuses were unauthorized, according to earlier statements by Rumsfeld, yet they are now acceptable because many of the techniques were vetted by lawyers:

Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that Pentagon lawyers had approved methods such as sleep deprivation and dietary changes as well as rules permitting prisoners to be made to assume stress positions.(for the full article click here)

This tactic by Rumsfeld is identical to the methods used to justify the invasion of Iraq. In the lead up to the invasion the Bush Administration repeatedly mentioned Saddam and Al-Quaeda in the same breath, implying a link that never existed. Here Rumsfeld uses oxymoronic language to say two different things: torture is bad, torture is acceptable. The whole intent being to create confusion and misunderstanding.

Who does this stupidity fool? I think Rumsfeld hopes it fools Americans. It certainly doesn't fool Iraqis. But it may create enough confusion amongst the American public, and possibly even the American media, to make it difficult to identify what Rumsfeld is really saying, and to identify what is really acceptable behaviour on the part of the American military.

Terrorism in Venezuela

On Sunday, May 9th Venezuelan authorities arrested a large group of Columbian paramilitaries on a ranch near the Venezuelan capital of Caracas. It appears the Columbian paramilitaries were part of a plot to launch another coup against Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez:

"According to statements released this morning [May 9] by [Venezuelan Police] Commissioner Miguel Rodriguez, the terrorist plan consisted of attacking a military installation in Caracas this week, possibly the Urban Security Command of the National Guard. On Monday, the paramilitaries were to be taken to another ranch, where they would receive final training with arms and ammunition, and do the assault on Wednesday. "We were going to attack a military base that has tunnels underneath containing arms," said the presumed paramilitary. The purpose, according to one of the anti-Chavez "generals," was to steal arms from the base to give to a 3,000 strong paramilitary group who were to come to Venezuela in 8 days." (for the full article click here).

The Columbian government has congratulated Venezuela on its apprehension of "terrorists". Yet has done nothing to combat the infiltration of Columbian paramilitaries into Venezuela.

Direct evidence of collusion between Columbia, the U.S., and right-wing Venezuelans has not yet been found. But there is a pattern of cooperation emerging. The U.S. government provides funding to Venezuelan opposition groups to the tune of one million US dollars per year (click here for details).

The U.S. government is also heavily involved in providing military aid to Columbia under the rubric "Plan Columbia", which has recently been condemned by the Harvard Political Review (click here for details).

Luckily the coup plotters in Venezuela appear to lack solid leadership, and Columbia has its own leftist guerilla problem to deal with. Perhaps most important, however, is that the U.S. is currently distracted by its war in Iraq, and the majority of American military resources and personnel are caught up in that effort.

But as Haiti has demonstrated, the Bush Administration is not adverse to supporting coups against democratically elected governments, particularly in what American governments seem to consider their backyard, specifically Latin America and the Caribbean. They simply use proxy forces to attain their objectives.

Unlike Haiti, Venezuela has a standing army whose lower and middle ranks are largely loyal to president Hugo Chavez. Chavez also enjoys the support of the majority of the voting population. The foiled coup attempts in 2002, and this past weekend clearly demonstrate that support. Any proxy force that does attempt to stage yet another coup would likely have a serious fight on its hands. I suspect it will require direct American military involvement, or assassination to successfully dislodge Chavez.

Arrested by Mistake

A recent report by the International Red Cross, using coalition military intelligence estimates states that 70% to 90% of detained Iraqis were arrested by mistake.

The ICRC summary report, which was written in February, also said Red Cross officials had complained to senior military officials that families of Iraqi suspects usually were told so little that most arrests resulted "in the de facto 'disappearance' of the arrestee for weeks or even months."(for the full article click here)

So not only were the Iraqi detainees arrested by mistake, many were kept imprisoned for long periods of time. Innocent Iraqis imprisoned and tortured. Not the best way to win "hearts and minds". Imagine the kind of anger you would feel if friends, family or even you were treated with such intentional brutality.

Thankfully the U.S. is at least investigating these abuses, but far more has to be done than simply giving lip service to how wrong the abuses were. Structural changes have to take place. So far, other than placing blame on a few scapegoats, the Bush Administration seems to be doing nothing.

New Avian Flu Strain in BC

Last month I wrote about the avian flu affecting chicken farms in B.C.'s Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley. Unfortunately it appears that a new strain of avian flu has appeared, and it may be a variation with closer genetic links to the disease that killed people in Asia:

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control said the strain is different from the H7 virus discovered in the Fraser Valley last March that forced the slaughter of 19 million chickens and turkeys.(for the full article click here)

Luckily no one in the area where the new strain was found has shown any signs of illness, at least not yet. But as I mentioned in my earlier article, poorly managed farms and especially factory farms are breeding grounds for disease. The only way to safely manage the problem is to farm livestock in conditions that promote the health of the livestock. Healthy animals with strong immune systems living in sanitary conditions are the best defense against disease.

Brutality Begets Brutality

News today that a video tape has surfaced of the beheading of American hostage, Nick Berg, in Iraq, purportedly by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a prominent member of al-Qaeda.

It is a horrifying and barbaric image to be sure. It revisits the gruesome death of Daniel Perle in Pakistan.

Unfortunately the Bush Administration has reacted with immediate spin:

"It shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

"They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. We will pursue those who are responsible and bring them to justice."

However, the victim's father said the US authorities were indirectly to blame for his death for failing to get him safely out of the country. (for the full article click here)

Like the torture of Iraqis by American troops, the video tape is designed to terrorize. It will certainly have that affect, particularly for the civilian contractors working there.

But just as the images of torture at Abu Ghraib increases anti-American feelings abroad, this aggrandizment of murder will fuel anti-Arab feelings. Brutality begets brutality.

I just hope enough people realize that just as torture committed by American troops should not condemn all Americans, this brutal murder by Arab terrorists should not condemn all Arabs.

Template Change

You've probably noticed a change in the look and feel of my blog. Blogger.com updated their interface, and they finally added a few templates that don't look like clown puke. The change isn't going to be permanent, as I'm in the process of getting a customized template put together. But don't ask for an ETA, because I'm not entirely sure when it will be done.

I do think, however, that the new look is easier to read, which is the primary reason for the change. I will add links later, and I know I have to get around to doing some reciprocal linking, as there are a number of other bloggers who have linked to me (which I definitely appreciate BTW), but I have yet to return the favour.

Enjoy for now, to be followed hopefully by something better soon.

Jolts Better in Small Doses

This article caught my eye, because it focuses on the most frequently subsidized and most widely available drug around: Caffeine.

People use caffeine for a variety of reasons. Addicts need it to calm their nerves. Weightlifters use it to increase the amount of weight they can lift. But its most common use is to help people stay awake, which is where the following article comes in:

Small, frequent doses of caffeine are best for truck drivers, doctors and others who need to stay awake over a long period of time, according to a U.S. study published Tuesday. (for the full article click here)

So there you go. Forget the giant cups of coffee. You only need a series of regular jolts to get kick-started, and to keep the motor running. It's a good thing to know too. I've gone the quadruple shot espresso route before. While I was definitely awake after that 400mg or so of caffeine hit my system, I had the same ability to focus as a high-strung cat with attention deficit disorder.

US Brands Suffer a Loss of Respect

Losing respect around the world can have some interesting effects, even for a super-duper power like the US.

A UK based market research company called NOP World has found a steady decline in the popularity of American identified brands around the world:

According to NOP World, which carried out the survey, a mixture of America's controversial involvement in Iraq, its handling of the "war against terrorism", corporate scandals such as WorldCom and its failure to sign up to the Kyoto environmental agreement, have all had a profoundly negative affect on the perception of US culture and its major brands. (for the full article click here)

The decline, despite the article's claims to the contrary, is relatively minor, but it will be interesting to see if it continues in parallel to America's continuing loss of respect, particularly in light of the recently revealed torture of Iraqi civilians.

Much of the US government agenda is set by corporate interests. I wonder how much damage to the bottom line those corporate interests will take before they start to take action to change American foreign policy?

Pesticide Contamination

Organically grown food is a rapidly expanding industry in North America. People are gradually coming to realize consuming food containing pesticides and excessive hormones is unhealthy. While not immediately poisonous, over time these chemicals have a gradually increasing negative effect on our bodies.

The following Associated Press article points out that a recent study, based on data gathered by the US Centers for Disease Control, has found pesticide levels in many Americans are higher than what is considered safe by government health agencies.

San Francisco-based PAN, which advocates for alternatives to pesticide use for pest control, found that the average person in the study carried 13 of the 23 pesticides they evaluated. Many of the pesticides have been linked to infertility, birth defects, cancer and other serious health ailments, said Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at PAN. (for the full article click here)

Unfortunately, the major barrier to the bulk of the public purchasing organic food is price. It costs significantly more.

But if government was willing to add a tax cost to polluted food for the damage pesticides do to the health of the public and the environment, and then funnel the tax proceeds into subsidies for organic farming; the price barrier would disappear as polluted food became more expensive, and the cost of organic food dropped.

A Small Victory for the opponents of GM

Every now and then there is a little bit of good news about the environment, and the food we eat.

The good news is that Monsanto has, for now, abandoned trying to sell genetically modified (GM) wheat. Public opposition to GM food sources, particularly in Europe, has been the primary driving force behind that abandonment. Without a market to sell its product Monsanto has given up.

While Monsanto is giving up because of the bottom line, it is important to underscore the reasons for public opposition. As Mad Cow disease, and now Avian flu, have demonstrated, messing with nature can have unforeseen consequences. The long term effects of genetically modifying our sources of food could create diseases and environmental effects we currently cannot envision. (for more information click here).

GM wheat could easily pollute the environment. Farmers and consumers not wishing to grow or buy GM wheat could have that choice removed from them, as GM seeds carried on the wind infect non-GM fields. It could become impossible for farmers to grow wheat that does not contain GM seed.

Being forced to grow GM wheat would also mean that farmers would be forced to buy their seed from Monsanto. GM wheat is a patented product. The patent does not allow farmers to save seed to be reused, they must purchase the seed from Monsanto for every planting. Allowing Monsanto to develop a monopoly over so important a source of food is dangerous, because it enables them to have enormous power over the price and over who has access to the seed. Placing that kind of trust in a corporation who's primary motivation is profit, has historically proven to be unwise.

Thankfully that question, as regards GM wheat, has been put off for now. It is also encouraging to note that the public in general is becoming more aware of the dangers of genetic modification, but I think more has to be done to educate the public on the dangers of genetic monopoly.

A Military Bubble Economy?

The US has seen some impressive economic growth over the last few months. Employment is up and the economy is humming. Bush and Co. would like to attribute this economic recovery to the tax cuts implemented in last year's budget. However, it would appear that the bulk of the stimulus has come from the rather hefty increase in American military spending. An important question for Americans to ask is, just how much of the current rosy economic picture is due to pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into supporting a war effort?

"In the first three months of this year, defense work accounted for nearly 16 percent of the nation's economic growth, according to the Commerce Department. Military spending leaped 15.1 percent to an annualized rate of $537.4 billion, up from $463.3 billion in the comparable period of 2003, when Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over." (for the full article click here)

The problem with war spending is that while it gets people working, the jobs are dependent upon continued conflict. Should major conflict end, those jobs will disappear as companies cut production to peacetime levels.

Another problem with a wartime economy is that the bulk of production is dedicated to expendable goods that provide no lasting investment. Bombs and bullets can only be used once. Investments in infrastructure like roads, sewers and public transit provide a lasting contribution to the economy as the benefits they provide can be used repeatedly by the population.

I find it interesting to note that a pro-business anti-government administration like Bush and Co. is willing to spend billions to impose their will on a foreign nation, but spending that money to directly benefit the American population is some how dangerous socialist coddling. From the Bush Administration's point of view it would appear the military and the giant American corporations that support it are the only institutions in the US deserving of socialist coddling.

A Few Bad Apples or One Big Apple Rotten to the Core?

I've written numerous times how the lack of proper planning for nation building after invasion in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the major cause of the failure in both of those nations for real material and political improvement in the general population's lives. This lack of planning has revealed itself in numerous ways, the most recent being the torture of Iraqi detainees.

Initially, Bush and crew billed the incidents of torture as "a few bad apples". As I've written earlier, the "a few bad apples" scenario has already been disproven, even before the notorious photos from Abu Ghraib were published by the press. Amnesty International has been documenting numerous examples of torture and mistreatment of Iraqis by American troops in Iraq for months. Press reports from the beginning of the occupation have been cataloguing examples of brutality, from randomly shooting into crowds of demonstrators, to looting and other far more terrible crimes.

It is true that part of the explanation for these atrocities is the brutality of war, but that is insufficient. The "war" in Iraq ended well over a year ago, that the occupation has continued to deteriorate has primarily to do with the incompetence of the Bush Administration. A effort such as nation building requires strict control and an immense influx of troops, who must shift from soldiering to policing, and resources that must shift from making war to rebuilding a shattered society. The aforementioned control must be exercised just as, if not more, stringently on those who make up the occupiers than on the population being occupied. Why? Because for cooperation to take place those occupied must see the benefits of cooperation as being greater than resisting. If acts of brutality are allowed to take place unpunished, not only does it encourage further acts, it gradually reduces the likelihood of transitioning to real cooperation by the occupied people, because they can see no benefit in cooperation. They see that they are brutalized whether they cooperate or resist.

The following article published in Friday's Guardian underscores exactly the kind of behaviour on the part of American troops that will continue to lead to a deterioration of the Iraq occupation. It is an interview with "Torin Nelson, who served as a military intelligence officer at Guantanamo Bay before moving to Abu Ghraib as a private contractor last year,":

"A unit goes out on a raid and they have a target and the target is not available; they just grab anybody because that was their job," Mr Nelson said, referring to counter-insurgency operations in Iraq. "The troops are under a lot of stress and they don't know one guy from the next. They're not cultural experts. All they want is to count down the days and hopefully go home. They take it out on the nearest person they can't understand."

"I've read reports from capturing units where the capturing unit wrote, "the target was not at home. The neighbor came out to see what was going on and we grabbed him," he said.

According to Mr Nelson's account, the victims' very innocence made them more likely to be abused, because interrogators refused to believe they could have been picked up on such arbitrary grounds. (for the full article click here)

This is clearly institutionalized incompetence. What it shows is an serious lack of leadership, accountability and planning. Responsibility for this stupidity starts right at the top.

The roots of the incompetence lie in the deceptive practices of the neo-conservatives who pushed not just for war, but billed it as a cakewalk. All this is not simply the "reality of war", it is the fruit of the lies used to obstruct reality so completely that properly handling a situation becomes impossible.

The horror in Iraq, the torture, the brutality is first and foremost a symptom of passivity. It shows what happens when people let others think and decide for them. Americans themselves are responsible for this brutality, not because they are as a whole brutal monsters, that kind of characterization is completely mistaken. Their share of responsibility comes in not wishing to disturb the comfort of their daily lives to truly and carefully evaluate decisions as important as going to war. There is no evil intent, just a kind of sloth. It is a problem all people regardless of ethnicity are susceptible too.

I just hope enough people, Americans in particular, begin to take note and realize that they have a role to play in trying to make a change, however small their contribution may be.

American Rules of Engagement

Below is a link to a clip showing a number of Iraqis being killed by American troops in an Apache attack helicopter. The point of view is from the helicopter cockpit, and the attack occurs during the night. The helicopter pilot and gunner are apparently using infrared imaging to get a clear view of the Iraqis.

The attack occured in December 2003, and it was instigated because the pilot of the helicopter felt the Iraqis were handling weapons, although evidence of that is impossible to discern on the clip. What is important to note, is that until the start of the helicopter's attack, the Iraqis are unaware they are being observed.

There are a number of things that are very disturbing about this clip. The most disturbing is that the Iraqis are killed based upon the suspicion that they are handling weapons. The Iraqis are not engaged in any form of attack on American forces, in fact, when they are attacked the second man killed may be trying to surrender by waving a rag. The third Iraqi man killed is initially wounded, but the command on the audio of the clip is clear that he be taken out, and he is.

Obviously the images in the clip are very disturbing, so take this into account before viewing them.

The point, however, that I am trying to make, beyond showing the incredible brutality of war, is that the American forces clearly have no compunction about killing Iraqis when the only evidence is suspicion. But just as important, American forces are willing to kill the clearly incapacitated. This kind of brutality is an unfortunate but exceptionally clear demonstration of why the United States will fail in Iraq. The attack was approved by US military commanders when the footage was subsequently reviewed. But the response is totally out of proportion to what can be considered reasonable given the circumstances. It is the idea of pre-emption taken to its obscene conclusion.

To view the clip click here. (NOTE: Due to high traffic the link may shut down periodically.)

For more information about the clip, click here.

A Torturously Failed Occupation

I find it interesting that it takes photographs to prompt the kind of outrage we're seeing around the world over the torture of Iraqi civilians by American and British forces in Iraq. I don't, however, think what prompted international condemnation was the appearance of solid evidence. There has been plenty of solid evidence since the beginning of the occupation that looting, assault, torture, rape and murder are all being committed by the occupation forces, or their hired lackeys. Even I have mentioned these kinds of incidents before, and I have stated that unless they are dealt with in an open manner, where the perpetrators are seen to be punished, these incidents will be a significant factor in the failure of the American project in Iraq.

Robert Fisk of the UK newspaper, the Independent, characterizes the behaviour of American and British forces as a symptom of racism toward Arabs:

Why are we surprised at their racism, their brutality, their sheer callousness towards Arabs? Those American soldiers in Saddam's old prison at Abu Ghraib, those young British squaddies in Basra came -- as soldiers often come -- from towns and cities where race hatred has a home: Tennessee and Lancashire. (for the full article click here)

I wish it was that simple. While I agree that racism plays an important role, the problem is almost entirely a failure of leadership. From the beginning of the occupation the coalition forces have turned a blind eye to deplorable behaviour on the part of a very small number of their troops. It likely started with incidents of looting, where busy officers felt policing their men for what they considered minor infractions of theft would be both a waste of time and possibly harmful to morale.

It then followed that perhaps incidents of overzealous uses of force went unpunished. Perhaps beating a recalcitrant Iraqi detainie to death, or shooting unarmed civilians. The behaviour was likely excused as being brought on by the stress of the situation or the whole Iraq environment.

Soldiers came to learn that they no longer needed to operate with any sense of caution or restraint where Iraqis are concerned, anything goes. Certain ethically challenged soldiers, and by no means the majority of them, seeing that they can literally get away with murder have likely begun pushing the envelope of allowable behaviour.

If rules of engagement and behaviour toward Iraqis can be broken at will, then in practice there really no longer are rules. It then becomes up to each individual soldier to determine what is appropriate behaviour for a situation according to his or her own personal sense of ethics. Many of these soldiers, being in their late teens and early twenties, have at best an immature ethical sense of self, likely falling back on cultural touchstones like movies to determine right and wrong. Here is where the racism, that Robert Fisk brings up earlier, comes into play. But it only comes into play after a failure of leadership on the part of the military command.

In situations of extreme stress and disorder, it becomes immensely important to have clear rules and procedures to follow to help make sense of those situations. This is doubly important for young soldiers who are barely adults. When officers do not punish clearly bad behaviour that breaks those rules, the whole process of decision making is thrown into chaos. It is not only Iraqis who no longer know what to expect in a given encounter with coalition troops, the troops themselves no longer have a clear understanding of what their role is.

It has been clear from the start of the Iraq war that the senior command of both the American and British military did not clearly communicate to their subordinates that every violation be appropriately punished wherever humanly possible. It is also clear that the senior command did not work tirelessly to track down, and publicly punish those responsible for significant violations.

It took the media publishing disgusting photos of torture and abuse at the hands of American military police to create enough of a furor for the US military to take action. But instead of acknowledging a structural problem in command leadership, the military brass have identified a small number of scapegoats that have tarnished their otherwise "sterling" reputation.

These kinds of abuses are only going to get worse. Unless the senior leadership of the military publicly addresses the problems of discipline and the rules of engagement and punishment, neither the troops nor the Iraqis will see any qualitative change in behaviour. Moreover, if the military leadership does not aggressively investigate and actively prosecute all incidents for which they find evidence, the majority of gross violations will go unpunished. Instead of following the rules, the small slice of abusers will simply be a little more careful, because they know only those stupid enough to record what they've done, like those American military police, are going to get caught.

Proper procedure however, should have been in place and rigorously enforced from the start. That it wasn't demonstrates one facet of how poorly the occupation was planned. Now, however, the military has a far larger problem on its hands. Bad behaviour has become entrenched. Getting rid of it is going to be vastly more difficult than preventing it in the first place. But given the behaviour and statements of the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the torture at Abu Ghraib prison, they have no intention of doing anything beyond spinning the appearance of events to minimize negative public reaction. Get ready for more horror.