Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Friday, May 26, 2006

Iraq's My Lai


Friday morning, guerrillas used a car bomb to kill at least 9 persons [later reports say 9] at an East Baghdad market, wounding 31.

AP had reported 13 killings on Thursday, including two US troops. Al-Sharq al-Awsat said 20 were wounded.

The neo-Baath Party (well that is most likely who it is) took revenge for the trial of Saddam over the killing of Shiite Dawa Party members for trying to assassinate him in 1982. The guerrillas kidnapped a judge from Dujail, where the massacre took place. Two Iranian truck drivers were also kidnapped.

Al-Sharq al-Awsat/ AFP say [Ar.] that Kurdish women are protesting how poorly they are represented in the Kurdistan regional government.

At Camp LeJeune, soldiers wounded in the Iraq War heal together, in an innovative program thought up by a wounded soldier.

The Haditha incident, in which US Marines are alleged to have killed between 14 and 24 civilians in cold blood, is becoming the My Lai of the Iraq War. Officers have been relieved of command, and murder charges may be brought. Somehow, though, this time the American public doesn't seem very interested in the story. My guess, is that many still have payback for 9/11 in their minds. The Vietnamese had never done anything to us. Of course, the Iraqis hadn't done much to us, either, aside from fighting back when the United Nations pushed them (quite rightly) out of Kuwait. But Dick Cheney has by innuendo and half-lies managed to convince the American public that in fighting the Iraqis, we are fighting the people behind 9/11, or at least people very like that.

I'm told that some green National Guard units in Iraq have responded to bombs going off in the vicinity by indiscriminately laying down fire all around them, which has been rather hard on any civilians in the vicinity. I fear large numbers of Iraqis have been killed in such ways. But at least in this sort of incident, the guardsmen were nervous and felt they might be under attack. Haditha sounds horrid. I have known military people all my life, and I think they are for the most part decent and honorable, and I am sure that Haditha--i.e. cold blooded murder of civilians--was an aberration.

A report from Tarmiyah doesn't hold out much hope that the guerrilla movement is going away soon. In the article, an Iraqi soldier asks for better arms, like rocket propelled grenades. He isn't thinking big enough. He needs to demand some tanks and helicopter gunships. The guerrillas have lots of RPGs to fire back with, but don't have tanks. US troops can't withdraw until the Iraqi army is better equipped, and I mean equipped.

According to secret documents gotten hold of by The Herald, British troops in the South of Iraq:

"have come under bomb, mortar, rocket and sniper attack almost twice a day since January, losing 12 dead to hostile fire . . . Despite government claims that the security situation has improved on the UK's patch to the point where up to 1000 troops can begin withdrawing from July, about 75 of the 269 attacks and four of the fatalities have occurred in provinces judged to be relatively stable."


In withdrawing from Maysan province in particular, the British are just declaring victory and going home. As if hundreds of thousands of displaced and sullen Marsh Arabs, many of whom have gone over to Muqtada al-Sadr, could be controlled by a thousand or two thousand foreign troops. Muthanna is probably quieter, but only because the Badr Corps Shiite paramilitary is powerful there.

If foreign troops are attacked almost twice a day on average in the relatively calm south, to how many daily attacks are US troops subjected in the turbulent Sunni Arab heartland?

The Iraq War was clearly illegal in international law, and this obvious conclusion seemed evident to then British Attorney General Lord Golsmith earlier on, too. If that is the case, why did Goldsmith suddenly change his mind and authorize the war in March, 2003? British generals would not have been willing to fight without such a finding, since they risked war crimes trials (they may still risk them in the European Union someday). At least the British authorities are investigating this matter. The United States has become so corrupt and monarchical that mere international law, even that signed into US law, is not even an issue, and what is important is how the president or the vice president or the secretary of defense "saw things." We have become a country of men and not laws.

5 Comments:

At 5:13 AM, Blogger Himself said...

Of course, the Iraqis hadn't done much to us, either, aside from fighting back when the United Nations pushed them (quite rightly) out of Kuwait.

I would have thought "running and dying" would have been a more accurate description than "fighting back" when it comes to talking about the actions of the Iraqi military in that war.

 
At 10:12 AM, Blogger Dr. Mathews said...

About three years ago a Citizens Tribunal composed of five international judges meeting in Japan found President Bush guilty of war crimes related to the use of indiscriminate weapons in the Afghanistan War. By indiscriminate weapons, they meant cluster bombs, Daisy Cutter and depleted uranium shells. A subsequent series of tribunals were also held in relation to the ongoing war in Iraq (pdf). I'm sure you reported this somewhere.

 
At 9:38 PM, Blogger Charles said...

Haditha is what war looks like. There are dozens and hundreds of Hadithas in every war.

Very few people seem to have understood and digested what John Kerry told the Fulbright Committee so many years ago: The people who bear responsibility for atrocities are the commanders. It is they who set the rules of engagement, they who decide troop strengths and rotations, they who instruct their troops that their opponents are "terrorists" or "Baathists" or "nationalists," they who punish soldiers who do not obey the rules they establish.

None of us can claim to be innocent. Either we have been to war or we have been told what war is by men like John Kerry and Bob Kerrey and Chris Hedges or others. We choose to believe that it is all honor and glory and highmindedness.

But war is turning that rarest and most beautiful of things in this universe of fire and stone and empty space-- living beings -- into offal, dark stains, and tortured minds and bodies. There may be times when we must do it, but let us be honest with ourselves about what war is.

 
At 11:55 PM, Blogger Dancewater said...

The Haditha incident happens in each and every war throughout recorded history, and I am certain it happened even before that.

The cold blooded murder of civilians in a war zone is not an aberration at all. It is common. And just because they die without being seen does not mean it is not happening.

And I suspect that dying by gunship and bombs is the worst way to die in war. We don't even take note of that, we don't even notice who and how many we have killed by dropping bombs on them.

"Shock and Awe" was to take out Saddam. Obviously, it did not kill Saddam. It killed civilians, total innocents that did nothing to our country or anybody else.

War is a horror, but to start one up where none existed is a special kind of evil, and we have done exactly that.

 
At 1:07 PM, Blogger Al S. E. said...

Logic tells us that if Abu Ghraib was revealed only through the accident of the publication of some unauthorized pictures, and Haditha was revealed through the accident of the failure of a cover-up, then there must have been many other Abu Ghraibs where no unauthorized pictures were taken, and many other Hadithas where the perpetrators were more skillful in covering their tracks. The members of the "embedded" newsmedia never seem of think of this logic.

Other than Haditha, only a single case is pending against the Marines. It involves last July’s killing in cold blood of the cousin of Iraq’s Ambassador to the United Nations. Do you see the pattern here? Ambassador Samir al-Sumaidaie had sufficient influence to force an investigation, although no results have been announced yet. That killing drew attention and got investigated simply because it happened to involve an ambassador’s cousin. Should the newsmedia not be asking themselves whether there have been other killings that did not accidentally involve relatives of ambassadors and other powerful individuals? Would it not be a logically inescapable conclusion that there have been many other such killings?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home