-Caveat Lector- www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-

The Independent (UK)
October 24, 2003

One, two, three, what are they fighting for?

By Robert Fisk

The worst problem facing US forces in Iraq may not be
armed resistance but a crisis of morale. Robert Fisk
reports on a near- epidemic of indiscipline, suicides
and loose talk

I was in the police station in the town of Fallujah when
I realised the extent of the schizophrenia. Captain
Christopher Cirino of the 82nd Airborne was trying to
explain to me the nature of the attacks so regularly
carried out against American forces in the Sunni Muslim
Iraqi town. His men were billeted in a former
presidential rest home down the road - "Dreamland", the
Americans call it - but this was not the extent of his
soldiers' disorientation. "The men we are being attacked
by," he said, "are Syrian-trained terrorists and local
freedom fighters." Come again? "Freedom fighters." But
that's what Captain Cirino called them - and rightly so.

Here's the reason. American soldiers are supposed to
believe - indeed have to believe, along with their
President and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld -
that Osama bin Laden's "al-Qa'ida" guerrillas, pouring
over Iraq's borders from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia (note
how those close allies and neighbours of Iraq, Kuwait
and Turkey are always left out of the equation), are
assaulting United States forces as part of the "war on
terror". Special forces soldiers are now being told by
their officers that the "war on terror" has been
transferred from America to Iraq, as if in some
miraculous way, 11 September 2001 is now Iraq 2003. Note
too how the Americans always leave the Iraqis out of the
culpability bracket - unless they can be described as
"Baath party remnants", "diehards" or "deadenders" by
the US proconsul, Paul Bremer.

Captain Cirino's problem, of course, is that he knows
part of the truth. Ordinary Iraqis - many of them long-
term enemies of Saddam Hussein - are attacking the
American occupation army 35 times a day in the Baghdad
area alone. And Captain Cirino works in Fallujah's local
police station, where America's newly hired Iraqi
policemen are the brothers and uncles and - no doubt -
fathers of some of those now waging guerrilla war
against American soldiers in Fallujah. Some of them, I
suspect, are indeed themselves the "terrorists". So if
he calls the bad guys "terrorists", the local cops - his
first line of defence - would be very angry indeed.

No wonder morale is low. No wonder the American soldiers
I meet on the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities
don't mince their words about their own government. US
troops have been given orders not to bad-mouth their
President or Secretary of Defence in front of Iraqis or
reporters (who have about the same status in the eyes of
the occupation authorities). But when I suggested to a
group of US military police near Abu Ghurayb they would
be voting Republican at the next election, they fell
about laughing. "We shouldn't be here and we should
never have been sent here," one of them told me with
astonishing candour. "And maybe you can tell me: why
were we sent here?"

Little wonder, then, that Stars and Stripes, the
American military's own newspaper, reported this month
that one third of the soldiers in Iraq suffered from low
morale. And is it any wonder, that being the case, that
US forces in Iraq are shooting down the innocent,
kicking and brutalising prisoners, trashing homes and -
eyewitness testimony is coming from hundreds of Iraqis -
stealing money from houses they are raiding? No, this is
not Vietnam - where the Americans sometimes lost 3,000
men in a month - nor isthe US army in Iraq turning into
a rabble. Not yet. And they remain light years away from
the butchery of Saddam's henchmen. But human-rights
monitors, civilian occupation officials and journalists
- not to mention Iraqis themselves - are increasingly
appalled at the behaviour of the American military
occupiers.

Iraqis who fail to see US military checkpoints, who
overtake convoys under attack - or who merely pass the
scene of an American raid - are being gunned down with
abandon. US official "inquiries" into these killings
routinely result in either silence or claims that the
soldiers "obeyed their rules of engagement" - rules that
the Americans will not disclose to the public.

The rot comes from the top. Even during the Anglo-
American invasion of Iraq, US forces declined to take
responsibility for the innocents they killed. "We do not
do body counts," General Tommy Franks announced. So
there was no apology for the 16 civilians killed at
Mansur when the "Allies" - note how we Brits get caught
up in this misleading title - bombed a residential
suburb in the vain hope of killing Saddam. When US
special forces raided a house in the very same area four
months later - hunting for the very same Iraqi leader -
they killed six civilians, including a 14-year-old boy
and a middle-aged woman, and only announced, four days
later, that they would hold an "inquiry". Not an
investigation, you understand, nothing that would
suggest there was anything wrong in gunning down six
Iraqi civilians; and in due course the "inquiry" was
forgotten - as it was no doubt meant to be - and nothing
has been heard of it again.

Again, during the invasion, the Americans dropped
hundreds of cluster bombs on villages outside the town
of Hillah. They left behind a butcher's shop of chopped-
up corpses. Film of babies cut in half during the raid
was not even transmitted by the Reuters crew in Baghdad.
The Pentagon then said there were "no indications"
cluster bombs had been dropped at Hillah - even though
Sky TV found some unexploded and brought them back to
Baghdad.

I first came across this absence of remorse - or rather
absence of responsibility - in a slum suburb of Baghdad
called Hayy al-Gailani. Two men had run a new American
checkpoint - a roll of barbed wire tossed across a road
before dawn one morning in July - and US troops had
opened fire at the car. Indeed, they fired so many
bullets that the vehicle burst into flames. And while
the dead or dying men were burned inside, the Americans
who had set up the checkpoint simply boarded their
armoured vehicles and left the scene. They never even
bothered to visit the hospital mortuary to find out the
identities of the men they killed - an obvious step if
they believed they had killed "terrorists" - and inform
their relatives. Scenes like this are being repeated
across Iraq daily.

Which is why Human Rights Watch and Amnesty and other
humanitarian organisations are protesting ever more
vigorously about the failure of the US army even to
count the numbers of Iraqi dead, let alone account for
their own role in killing civilians. "It is a tragedy
that US soldiers have killed so many civilians in
Baghdad," Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork said. "But it
is really incredible that the US military does not even
count these deaths." Human Rights Watch has counted 94
Iraqi civilians killed by Americans in the capital. The
organisation also criticised American forces for
humiliating prisoners, not least by their habit of
placing their feet on the heads of prisoners. Some
American soldiers are now being trained in Jordan - by
Jordanians - in the "respect" that should be accorded to
Iraqi civilians and about the culture of Islam. About
time.

But on the ground in Iraq, Americans have a licence to
kill. Not a single soldier has been disciplined for
shooting civilians - even when the fatality involves an
Iraqi working for the occupation authorities. No action
has been taken, for instance, over the soldier who fired
a single shot through the window of an Italian
diplomat's car, killing his translator, in northern
Iraq. Nor against the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne who
gunned down 14 Sunni Muslim protesters in Fallujah in
April. (Captain Cirino was not involved.) Nor against
the troops who shot dead 11 more protesters in Mosul.
Sometimes, the evidence of low morale mounts over a long
period. In one Iraqi city, for example, the "Coalition
Provisional Authority" - which is what the occupation
authorities call themselves - have instructed local
money changers not to give dollars for Iraqi dinars to
occupation soldiers: too many Iraqi dinars had been
stolen by troops during house raids. Repeatedly, in
Baghdad, Hillah, Tikrit, Mosul and Fallujah Iraqis have
told me that they were robbed by American troops during
raids and at checkpoints. Unless there is a monumental
conspiracy on a nationwide scale by Iraqis, some of
these reports must bear the stamp of truth.

Then there was the case of the Bengal tiger. A group of
US troops entered the Baghdad zoo one evening for a
party of sandwiches and beer. During the party, one of
the soldiers decided to pet the tiger who - being a
Bengal tiger - sank his teeth into the soldier. The
Americans then shot the tiger dead. The Americans
promised an "inquiry" - of which nothing has been heard
since. Ironically, the one incident where US forces
faced disciplinary action followed an incident in which
a US helicopter crew took a black religious flag from a
communications tower in Sadr City in Baghdad. The
violence that followed cost the life of an Iraqi
civilian.

Suicides among US troops in Iraq have risen in recent
months - up to three times the usual rate among American
servicemen. At least 23 soldiers are believed to have
taken their lives since the Anglo-American invasion and
others have been wounded in attempting suicide. As
usual, the US army only revealed this statistic
following constant questioning. The daily attacks on
Americans outside Baghdad - up to 50 in a night - go,
like the civilian Iraqi dead, unrecorded. Travelling
back from Fallujah to Baghdad after dark last month, I
saw mortar explosions and tracer fire around 13 American
bases - not a word of which was later revealed by the
occupation authorities. At Baghdad airport last month,
five mortar shells fell near the runway as a Jordanian
airliner was boarding passengers for Amman. I saw this
attack with my own eyes. That same afternoon, General
Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, claimed
he knew nothing about the attack, which - unless his
junior officers are slovenly - he must have been well
aware of.

But can we expect anything else of an army that can
wilfully mislead soldiers into writing "letters" to
their home town papers in the US about improvements in
Iraqi daily life.

"The quality of life and security for the citizens has
been largely restored, and we are a large part of why it
has happened," Sergeant Christopher Shelton of the 503rd
Airborne Infantry Regiment bragged in a letter from
Kirkuk to the Snohomish County Tribune. "The majority of
the city has welcomed our presence with open arms." Only
it hasn't. And Sergeant Shelton didn't write the letter.
Nor did Sergeant Shawn Grueser of West Virginia. Nor did
Private Nick Deaconson. Nor eight other soldiers who
supposedly wrote identical letters to their local
papers. The "letters" were distributed among soldiers,
who were asked to sign if they agreed with its contents.

But is this, perhaps, not part of the fantasy world
inspired by the right- wing ideologues in Washington who
sought this war - even though most of them have never
served their country in uniform. They dreamed up the
"weapons of mass destruction" and the adulation of
American troops who would "liberate" the Iraqi people.
Unable to provide fact to fiction, they now merely
acknowledge that the soldiers they have sent into the
biggest rat's nest in the Middle East have "a lot of
work to do", that they are - this was not revealed
before or during the invasion - "fighting the front line
in the war on terror".

What influence, one might ask, have the Christian
fundamentalists had on the American army in Iraq? For
even if we ignore the Rev Franklin Graham, who has
described Islam as "a very evil and wicked religion"
before he went to lecture Pentagon officials - what is
one to make of the officer responsible for tracking down
Osama bin Laden, Lieutenant-General William "Jerry"
Boykin, who told an audience in Oregon that Islamists
hate the US "because we're a Christian nation, because
our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and the
enemy is a guy called Satan". Recently promoted to
deputy under-secretary of defence for intelligence,
Boykin went on to say of the war against Mohammed Farrah
Aidid in Somalia - in which he participated - that "I
knew my God was bigger than his - I knew that my God was
a real God and his was an idol".

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said of these
extraordinary remarks that "it doesn't look like any
rules were broken". We are now told that an "inquiry"
into Boykin's comments is underway - an "inquiry" about
as thorough, no doubt, as those held into the killing of
civilians in Baghdad.

Weaned on this kind of nonsense, however, is it any
surprise that American troops in Iraq understand neither
their war nor the people whose country they are
occupying? Terrorists or freedom fighters? What's the
difference?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=456643






portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a
news, discussion and debate service of the Committees
of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It
aims to provide varied material of interest to people
on the left.

Post            : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subscribe       : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Unsubscribe     : mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Faq             : http://www.portside.org
List owner      : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web address     : <http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/portside>
Digest mode     : visit Web site


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to