WAR ON IRAK
Independent: Robert Fisk: Wailing children, the wounded, the dead: victims of the day cluster bombs rained on Babylon
The wounds are vicious and deep, a rash of scarlet spots on the back and thighs or face, the shards of shrapnel from the cluster bombs buried an inch or more in the flesh. The wards of the Hillah teaching hospital are proof that something illegal – something quite outside the Geneva Conventions – occurred in the villages around the city once known as Babylon.
The wailing children, the young women with breast and leg wounds, the 10 patients upon whom doctors had to perform brain surgery to remove metal from their heads, talk of the days and nights when the explosives fell "like grapes" from the sky. Cluster bombs, the doctors say – and the detritus of the air raids around the hamlets of Nadr and Djifil and Akramin and Mahawil and Mohandesin and Hail Askeri shows that they are right.
Were they American or British aircraft that showered these villages with one of the most lethal weapons of modern warfare? The 61 dead who have passed through the Hillah hospital since Saturday night cannot tell us. Nor can the survivors who, in many cases, were sitting in their homes when the white canisters opened high above their village, spilling thousands of bomblets into the sky, exploding in the air, soaring through windows and doorways to burst indoors or bouncing off the roofs of the concrete huts to blow up later in the roadways.
Rahed Hakem remembers that it was 10.30am on Sunday when she was sitting in her home in Nadr, that she heard "the voice of explosions" and looked out of the door to see "the sky raining fire". She said the bomblets were a black-grey colour. Mohamed Moussa described the clusters of "little boxes" that fell out of the sky in the same village and thought they were silver-coloured. They fell like "small grapefruit," he said. "If it hadn't exploded and you touched it, it went off immediately," he said. "They exploded in the air and on the ground and we still have some in our home, unexploded."
is not easy to listen to Iraqi officials condemning the use of illegal weapons when the Iraqi air force has itself dropped poison gas on the Iranian army and on pro-Iranian Kurdish villages during the 1980-88 war against Iran. Outraged claims from Iraqi officials at the abuse of human rights sound like a bell with a very hollow ring. But something terrible happened around Hillah this week, something unforgivable and something contrary to international law. One hesitates, as I say, to talk of human rights in this land of torture but if the Americans and British don't watch out, they are likely to find themselves condemned for what they have always – and rightly – accused Iraq of: war crimes.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
WAR ON IRAK
Independent: Robert Fisk: Wailing children, the wounded, the dead: victims of the day cluster bombs rained on Babylon
The wounds are vicious and deep, a rash of scarlet spots on the back and thighs or face, the shards of shrapnel from the cluster bombs buried an inch or more in the flesh. The wards of the Hillah teaching hospital are proof that something illegal – something quite outside the Geneva Conventions – occurred in the villages around the city once known as Babylon.
The wailing children, the young women with breast and leg wounds, the 10 patients upon whom doctors had to perform brain surgery to remove metal from their heads, talk of the days and nights when the explosives fell "like grapes" from the sky. Cluster bombs, the doctors say – and the detritus of the air raids around the hamlets of Nadr and Djifil and Akramin and Mahawil and Mohandesin and Hail Askeri shows that they are right.
Were they American or British aircraft that showered these villages with one of the most lethal weapons of modern warfare? The 61 dead who have passed through the Hillah hospital since Saturday night cannot tell us. Nor can the survivors who, in many cases, were sitting in their homes when the white canisters opened high above their village, spilling thousands of bomblets into the sky, exploding in the air, soaring through windows and doorways to burst indoors or bouncing off the roofs of the concrete huts to blow up later in the roadways.
Independent: Robert Fisk: Wailing children, the wounded, the dead: victims of the day cluster bombs rained on Babylon
The wounds are vicious and deep, a rash of scarlet spots on the back and thighs or face, the shards of shrapnel from the cluster bombs buried an inch or more in the flesh. The wards of the Hillah teaching hospital are proof that something illegal – something quite outside the Geneva Conventions – occurred in the villages around the city once known as Babylon.
The wailing children, the young women with breast and leg wounds, the 10 patients upon whom doctors had to perform brain surgery to remove metal from their heads, talk of the days and nights when the explosives fell "like grapes" from the sky. Cluster bombs, the doctors say – and the detritus of the air raids around the hamlets of Nadr and Djifil and Akramin and Mahawil and Mohandesin and Hail Askeri shows that they are right.
Were they American or British aircraft that showered these villages with one of the most lethal weapons of modern warfare? The 61 dead who have passed through the Hillah hospital since Saturday night cannot tell us. Nor can the survivors who, in many cases, were sitting in their homes when the white canisters opened high above their village, spilling thousands of bomblets into the sky, exploding in the air, soaring through windows and doorways to burst indoors or bouncing off the roofs of the concrete huts to blow up later in the roadways.
WAR ON IRAK: PROPAGANDA WATCH
Reuters: Video Suggests U.S. Hit Useless Decoys - Analyst
DOHA (Reuters) - Iraqi aircraft destroyed by U.S. bombs in video shown on Monday at the daily U.S. briefing on the Iraq war looked like useless old decoys, British military analyst Paul Beaver said.
"I'm surprised that they would put this up on television when, to the trained eye, these were at least two or three generations old," said the former publisher of Jane's Defense Weekly.
Beaver told BBC World television that the three aircraft shown exploding in black-and-white video shot by attacking U.S. warplanes looked like an old British Hawker Hunter, an old Soviet-designed MiG and a newer but obsolescent Sukhoi.
The aircraft were sitting in the middle of runways, suggesting the Iraqis had put them out deliberately as decoys, Beaver said. The Hunter "was an aircraft that was in service when there was a kingdom of Iraq in the 1950s," he added.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command said: "Obviously, we thought they were targets to take out. And we continue to take out targets that can erode the regime."
Decoys were used to great effect by Yugoslavia in the 1999 U.S.-dominated bombing campaign by NATO forces to end the Kosovo crisis. Battle damage studies after the war showed far fewer tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed than claimed.
Iraq has kept its air force on the ground so far in the 12-day-old war.
The reason for that was "if they fly, they die," U.S. Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks told reporters in Qatar.
Reuters: Video Suggests U.S. Hit Useless Decoys - Analyst
DOHA (Reuters) - Iraqi aircraft destroyed by U.S. bombs in video shown on Monday at the daily U.S. briefing on the Iraq war looked like useless old decoys, British military analyst Paul Beaver said.
"I'm surprised that they would put this up on television when, to the trained eye, these were at least two or three generations old," said the former publisher of Jane's Defense Weekly.
Beaver told BBC World television that the three aircraft shown exploding in black-and-white video shot by attacking U.S. warplanes looked like an old British Hawker Hunter, an old Soviet-designed MiG and a newer but obsolescent Sukhoi.
The aircraft were sitting in the middle of runways, suggesting the Iraqis had put them out deliberately as decoys, Beaver said. The Hunter "was an aircraft that was in service when there was a kingdom of Iraq in the 1950s," he added.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command said: "Obviously, we thought they were targets to take out. And we continue to take out targets that can erode the regime."
Decoys were used to great effect by Yugoslavia in the 1999 U.S.-dominated bombing campaign by NATO forces to end the Kosovo crisis. Battle damage studies after the war showed far fewer tanks and armored vehicles were destroyed than claimed.
Iraq has kept its air force on the ground so far in the 12-day-old war.
The reason for that was "if they fly, they die," U.S. Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks told reporters in Qatar.
WAR ON IRAK
Guardian: Read the small print: the US wants to privatise Iraq's oil
In this highly politicised city where anger over the invasion of Iraq alternates with pride in the resistance, there is one sure way to lighten the mood. Suggest that George Bush and Tony Blair launched their war because of Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction. Hoots of derision all round. Whether they are Syrians or members of the huge Iraqi exile community, everyone here believes this is a war for oil. In nearby Jordan and across the Arab world the view is the same.
Some suggest a second motive - Washington's desire to strengthen Israel. Under one theory US hawks want to break Iraq into several statelets and then do the same with Saudi Arabia, to confirm the Zionist state as the region's superpower. Others cite Donald Rumsfeld's recent comments about Iran and Syria as proof that war on Iraq is designed to frighten its neighbours, who happen to be the leading radicals in the anti-Zionist camp.
Oil is the war aim on which all Arabs agree. While the Palestinian intifada is resistance to old-fashioned colonialism with its seizure and settlement of other people's land, they see the Iraqi intifada as popular defence against a more modern phenomenon. Washington does not need to settle Iraqi land, but it does want military bases and control of oil.
Many Arabs already define this neo-colonial war as a historic turning point which might have as profound an effect on the Arab psyche as September 11 did on Americans. Arabs have long been accustomed to seeing Israeli tanks running rampant. Now the puppet-master, arrogant and unashamed, has sent his helicopter gunships and armoured vehicles to Arab soil.
The US has mounted numerous coups in the Middle East to topple regimes in Egypt, Iran and Iraq itself. It has used crises, like the last Gulf war, to gain temporary bases and make them permanent. In Lebanon it once shelled an Arab capital and landed several hundred marines. But never before has it sent a vast army to change an Arab government. Even in Latin America, in two centuries of US hegemony, Washington has never dared to mount a full-scale invasion to overthrow a ruler in a major country. Its interventions in the Caribbean and Central America from 1898 to 1990 were against weak opponents in small states. Three years into the new millennium, the enormity of the shift and the impact of the spectacle on Arab television viewers cannot be over-estimated. Is it an image of the past or future, they ask, a one-off throw-back to Vietnam or a taste of things to come?
Blair sensed Arab suspicions about the fate of Iraq's oil when he persuaded Bush at their Azores summit to produce a "vision for Iraq" which pledged to protect its natural resources (they shrank from using the O word) as a "national asset of and for the Iraqi people". No neo-colonialism here.
Unfortunately, the small print is different, as could be expected from an administration run by oilmen. Leaks from the state department's "future of Iraq" office show Washington plans to privatise the Iraqi economy and particularly the state-owned national oil company. Experts on its energy panel want to start with "downstream" assets like retail petrol stations. This would be a quick way to gouge money from Iraqi consumers. Later they would privatise exploration and development.
Even if majority ownership were restricted to Iraqis, Russia's grim experience of energy privatisation shows how a new class of oil magnates quickly send their profits to offshore banks. If the interests of all Iraqis are to be protected, it would be better to keep state control and modify the UN oil-for-food programme, which has been a relatively efficient and internationally supervised way of channelling revenues to the country's poor.
Guardian: Read the small print: the US wants to privatise Iraq's oil
In this highly politicised city where anger over the invasion of Iraq alternates with pride in the resistance, there is one sure way to lighten the mood. Suggest that George Bush and Tony Blair launched their war because of Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction. Hoots of derision all round. Whether they are Syrians or members of the huge Iraqi exile community, everyone here believes this is a war for oil. In nearby Jordan and across the Arab world the view is the same.
Some suggest a second motive - Washington's desire to strengthen Israel. Under one theory US hawks want to break Iraq into several statelets and then do the same with Saudi Arabia, to confirm the Zionist state as the region's superpower. Others cite Donald Rumsfeld's recent comments about Iran and Syria as proof that war on Iraq is designed to frighten its neighbours, who happen to be the leading radicals in the anti-Zionist camp.
Oil is the war aim on which all Arabs agree. While the Palestinian intifada is resistance to old-fashioned colonialism with its seizure and settlement of other people's land, they see the Iraqi intifada as popular defence against a more modern phenomenon. Washington does not need to settle Iraqi land, but it does want military bases and control of oil.
Many Arabs already define this neo-colonial war as a historic turning point which might have as profound an effect on the Arab psyche as September 11 did on Americans. Arabs have long been accustomed to seeing Israeli tanks running rampant. Now the puppet-master, arrogant and unashamed, has sent his helicopter gunships and armoured vehicles to Arab soil.
The US has mounted numerous coups in the Middle East to topple regimes in Egypt, Iran and Iraq itself. It has used crises, like the last Gulf war, to gain temporary bases and make them permanent. In Lebanon it once shelled an Arab capital and landed several hundred marines. But never before has it sent a vast army to change an Arab government. Even in Latin America, in two centuries of US hegemony, Washington has never dared to mount a full-scale invasion to overthrow a ruler in a major country. Its interventions in the Caribbean and Central America from 1898 to 1990 were against weak opponents in small states. Three years into the new millennium, the enormity of the shift and the impact of the spectacle on Arab television viewers cannot be over-estimated. Is it an image of the past or future, they ask, a one-off throw-back to Vietnam or a taste of things to come?
Blair sensed Arab suspicions about the fate of Iraq's oil when he persuaded Bush at their Azores summit to produce a "vision for Iraq" which pledged to protect its natural resources (they shrank from using the O word) as a "national asset of and for the Iraqi people". No neo-colonialism here.
Unfortunately, the small print is different, as could be expected from an administration run by oilmen. Leaks from the state department's "future of Iraq" office show Washington plans to privatise the Iraqi economy and particularly the state-owned national oil company. Experts on its energy panel want to start with "downstream" assets like retail petrol stations. This would be a quick way to gouge money from Iraqi consumers. Later they would privatise exploration and development.
Even if majority ownership were restricted to Iraqis, Russia's grim experience of energy privatisation shows how a new class of oil magnates quickly send their profits to offshore banks. If the interests of all Iraqis are to be protected, it would be better to keep state control and modify the UN oil-for-food programme, which has been a relatively efficient and internationally supervised way of channelling revenues to the country's poor.
WAR ON IRAK
Times of India: Syria accuses US of serving Israeli interests
DAMASCUS: Responding to US criticism, Syria came out firmly behind Iraq
on
Monday, saying the US-led invasion was illegitimate and unjustified.
The
Syrian Foreign Ministry also accused Washington of catering to Israeli
interests in the Middle East. The Syrian comments came a day after US
Secretary of State Colin Powell told Syria to cease its support for
terrorism, suggesting it would otherwise face grave consequences.
``Syria
now faces a critical choice'' of whether to ``continue its direct
support
for terrorism in the dying days'' of President Saddam Hussein's
government
in Iraq, Powell said in a strongly worded speech on Sunday to a
pro-Israeli
lobby. ``Syria bears responsibility for its choices and consequences,''
he
added sternly. Powell's comments came on the heels of an accusation by
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Syria was supplying Iraq with
military equipment, including night-vision goggles. ``It is clear from
(Powell's) speech that he was submitting a report on his latest
achievements which confirm that what the US administration is doing in
our
region serves Israel and its interests and pleases (Israeli Prime
Minister
Ariel) Sharon,'' a Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Monday.
``By
doing that, the employees of this (US) administration get a report for
good
behaviour from Israel,'' the spokesman added. The statement said Syria
has
already made its choice: ``Syria has chosen to be with international
legality represented by the United Nations Security Council.'' ``Syria
has
also chosen to stand by the Iraqi people who are facing an illegitimate
and
unjustified invasion,'' the statement said. According to some Arab and
international media outlets, large numbers of Syrian and other Arab
volunteers are believed to be travelling to Iraq through Syria to fight
alongside the Iraqi people.
Times of India: Syria accuses US of serving Israeli interests
DAMASCUS: Responding to US criticism, Syria came out firmly behind Iraq
on
Monday, saying the US-led invasion was illegitimate and unjustified.
The
Syrian Foreign Ministry also accused Washington of catering to Israeli
interests in the Middle East. The Syrian comments came a day after US
Secretary of State Colin Powell told Syria to cease its support for
terrorism, suggesting it would otherwise face grave consequences.
``Syria
now faces a critical choice'' of whether to ``continue its direct
support
for terrorism in the dying days'' of President Saddam Hussein's
government
in Iraq, Powell said in a strongly worded speech on Sunday to a
pro-Israeli
lobby. ``Syria bears responsibility for its choices and consequences,''
he
added sternly. Powell's comments came on the heels of an accusation by
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Syria was supplying Iraq with
military equipment, including night-vision goggles. ``It is clear from
(Powell's) speech that he was submitting a report on his latest
achievements which confirm that what the US administration is doing in
our
region serves Israel and its interests and pleases (Israeli Prime
Minister
Ariel) Sharon,'' a Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Monday.
``By
doing that, the employees of this (US) administration get a report for
good
behaviour from Israel,'' the spokesman added. The statement said Syria
has
already made its choice: ``Syria has chosen to be with international
legality represented by the United Nations Security Council.'' ``Syria
has
also chosen to stand by the Iraqi people who are facing an illegitimate
and
unjustified invasion,'' the statement said. According to some Arab and
international media outlets, large numbers of Syrian and other Arab
volunteers are believed to be travelling to Iraq through Syria to fight
alongside the Iraqi people.
AFGHANISTAN
11 US-led forces come under attacks in Afghanistan
AP[ MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 02:40:00 PM ]
BAGRAM: Rebel fighters fired more than a dozen rockets and mortars at
US
military positions in eastern Afghanistan, prompting a precision air
bombing from a Marine Corps jet that left at least two attackers dead,
a US
Army spokesman said Monday. The mortar and rocket fire missed their
marks,
and no US soldiers were injured, Col. Roger King told reporters at
Bagram
Air Base, the headquarters of the US-led coalition north of Kabul. The
attacks Sunday came a day after an ambush in southern Helmand province
killed two US servicemen, the first American combat deaths in
Afghanistan
since December and a sign rebel activity is increasing after the start
of
the war in Iraq.
11 US-led forces come under attacks in Afghanistan
AP[ MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 02:40:00 PM ]
BAGRAM: Rebel fighters fired more than a dozen rockets and mortars at
US
military positions in eastern Afghanistan, prompting a precision air
bombing from a Marine Corps jet that left at least two attackers dead,
a US
Army spokesman said Monday. The mortar and rocket fire missed their
marks,
and no US soldiers were injured, Col. Roger King told reporters at
Bagram
Air Base, the headquarters of the US-led coalition north of Kabul. The
attacks Sunday came a day after an ambush in southern Helmand province
killed two US servicemen, the first American combat deaths in
Afghanistan
since December and a sign rebel activity is increasing after the start
of
the war in Iraq.
WAR ON IRAK: WAR AGAINST CIVILIANS
Guardian: US troops accused of excess force
Correspondents in Iraq have come upon a number of incidents in which the US military, especially the marines, have appeared to act with excessive force. Here are some examples.
The bridge at Nassiriya
After suffering heavy losses in the southern city of Nassiriya, US marines were ordered to fire at any vehicle which drove at American positions, Sunday Times reporter Mark Franchetti reported. He described how one night "we listened a dozen times as the machine guns opened fire, cutting through cars and trucks like paper".
Next morning he said he saw 15 vehicles, including a mini-van and two lorries, riddled with bullet holes. He said he counted 12 dead civilians lying in the road or in nearby ditches.
One man's body was still on fire. A girl aged no more than five lay dead in a ditch beside the body of a man who may have been her father. On the bridge an Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a donkey. A father, baby girl and boy had been buried in a shallow grave. Franchetti said the civilians had been trying to leave the town, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks or heavy artillery. He wrote: "Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved."
Cluster bombs
A surgical assistant at the Saddam hospital in Nassiriya, Mustafa Mohammed Ali, told the Guardian's James Meek that US aircraft had dropped three or four cluster bombs on civilian areas in the city, killing 10 and wounding 200.
He said he understood the US forces going straight to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but added: "I don't want forces to come into [this] city. They have an objective, they go straight to the target. There's no room in the hospital because of the wounded." When he saw the bodies of two dead marines, he revealed that he cheered silently.
Meek also told the story of a 50-year-old businessman and farmer, Said Yagur, who said marines searched his house and took his son, Nathen, his Kalashnikov rifle and 3m dinars (about £500). The marines argued the money was probably destined for terrorist activities. After protests by the father, who rose up against Saddam Hussein after the last Gulf War and had his house shelled by the dictator's artillery, they let the son go and returned the gun and money.
The road to Baghdad
Reporters have seen more than a dozen burnt-out buses and trucks and the bodies of at least 60 Iraqi men on the road north of Nassiriya. A photograph carried in the Guardian last week showed a bus which had been attacked by US troops. Bloodstained corpses lay nearby.
Reuters journalist Sean Maguire said there were four bodies outside the bus and - according to the marines - 16 more inside. The Americans told him the dead men wore a mix of civilian and military clothing and were in possession of papers "that appeared to identify them as Republican Guard". But Brigadier General John Kelly admitted to Maguire: "We have very little time to decide if a truck or bus is going to be hostile." The reporter described the bullet-ridden bus and the bodies as "evidence of the ruthless efficiency with which lead marine units are clearing the road north of Nassiriya to make way for a military convoy".
Exuberance
A British officer was alarmed when the American marines who were escorting him through the port of Umm Qasr let loose a volley of rifle fire at a house on the outskirts of town.
The officer told Reuters reporter David Fox: "They said they had been sniped out from there a few days ago so they like to give them a warning every now and then. That is something we [the British] would never condone." A US special forces officer said it was sometimes difficult to contain the exuberance of men doing the actual fighting. "You got to realise these guys are single-minded in their training. It's look after yourself and your buddies. How do we know who the enemy is?"
Guardian: US troops accused of excess force
Correspondents in Iraq have come upon a number of incidents in which the US military, especially the marines, have appeared to act with excessive force. Here are some examples.
The bridge at Nassiriya
After suffering heavy losses in the southern city of Nassiriya, US marines were ordered to fire at any vehicle which drove at American positions, Sunday Times reporter Mark Franchetti reported. He described how one night "we listened a dozen times as the machine guns opened fire, cutting through cars and trucks like paper".
Next morning he said he saw 15 vehicles, including a mini-van and two lorries, riddled with bullet holes. He said he counted 12 dead civilians lying in the road or in nearby ditches.
One man's body was still on fire. A girl aged no more than five lay dead in a ditch beside the body of a man who may have been her father. On the bridge an Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a donkey. A father, baby girl and boy had been buried in a shallow grave. Franchetti said the civilians had been trying to leave the town, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks or heavy artillery. He wrote: "Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition's supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved."
Cluster bombs
A surgical assistant at the Saddam hospital in Nassiriya, Mustafa Mohammed Ali, told the Guardian's James Meek that US aircraft had dropped three or four cluster bombs on civilian areas in the city, killing 10 and wounding 200.
He said he understood the US forces going straight to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but added: "I don't want forces to come into [this] city. They have an objective, they go straight to the target. There's no room in the hospital because of the wounded." When he saw the bodies of two dead marines, he revealed that he cheered silently.
Meek also told the story of a 50-year-old businessman and farmer, Said Yagur, who said marines searched his house and took his son, Nathen, his Kalashnikov rifle and 3m dinars (about £500). The marines argued the money was probably destined for terrorist activities. After protests by the father, who rose up against Saddam Hussein after the last Gulf War and had his house shelled by the dictator's artillery, they let the son go and returned the gun and money.
The road to Baghdad
Reporters have seen more than a dozen burnt-out buses and trucks and the bodies of at least 60 Iraqi men on the road north of Nassiriya. A photograph carried in the Guardian last week showed a bus which had been attacked by US troops. Bloodstained corpses lay nearby.
Reuters journalist Sean Maguire said there were four bodies outside the bus and - according to the marines - 16 more inside. The Americans told him the dead men wore a mix of civilian and military clothing and were in possession of papers "that appeared to identify them as Republican Guard". But Brigadier General John Kelly admitted to Maguire: "We have very little time to decide if a truck or bus is going to be hostile." The reporter described the bullet-ridden bus and the bodies as "evidence of the ruthless efficiency with which lead marine units are clearing the road north of Nassiriya to make way for a military convoy".
Exuberance
A British officer was alarmed when the American marines who were escorting him through the port of Umm Qasr let loose a volley of rifle fire at a house on the outskirts of town.
The officer told Reuters reporter David Fox: "They said they had been sniped out from there a few days ago so they like to give them a warning every now and then. That is something we [the British] would never condone." A US special forces officer said it was sometimes difficult to contain the exuberance of men doing the actual fighting. "You got to realise these guys are single-minded in their training. It's look after yourself and your buddies. How do we know who the enemy is?"
WAR ON IRAK
Washington Post: Residents Say Hussein Loyalists in Full Control
Impact of British Siege Described as Minimal
SHATT AL-BASRA BRIDGE, Iraq, April 1 -- For 13 days now, British artillery and U.S. helicopters have pounded Iraqi tanks, mortar positions and government targets inside Basra. The Baath Party headquarters has been hit twice. British commandos regularly raid the strategic port to abduct militia leaders -- all, British officials say, intended to pave the way for British troops to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city.
But to hear some Basra residents tell it, the punishing artillery barrages have had little effect in weakening the hold of President Saddam Hussein. At the Shatt al-Basra Bridge on the city's southern limits and along the highway linking Basra to the nearby town of Zubair, ask residents who is in charge of Basra today and the universal answer is: the same force that has held sway for the last three decades.
"The Baath Party and the army," said Ali, 39, who was on his way to the Zubair market to buy tomatoes to sell in Basra. "They are still very strong."
The accounts of travelers moving back and forth from the besieged city seem to belie the depiction of Basra as gripped by fear, with a restive population under the sway of a ruthless militia that uses people as human shields. People here crossing to the town of Zubair, mostly on the way to markets, said they are free to come and go, and most intended to return to Basra after shopping.
Washington Post: Residents Say Hussein Loyalists in Full Control
Impact of British Siege Described as Minimal
SHATT AL-BASRA BRIDGE, Iraq, April 1 -- For 13 days now, British artillery and U.S. helicopters have pounded Iraqi tanks, mortar positions and government targets inside Basra. The Baath Party headquarters has been hit twice. British commandos regularly raid the strategic port to abduct militia leaders -- all, British officials say, intended to pave the way for British troops to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city.
But to hear some Basra residents tell it, the punishing artillery barrages have had little effect in weakening the hold of President Saddam Hussein. At the Shatt al-Basra Bridge on the city's southern limits and along the highway linking Basra to the nearby town of Zubair, ask residents who is in charge of Basra today and the universal answer is: the same force that has held sway for the last three decades.
"The Baath Party and the army," said Ali, 39, who was on his way to the Zubair market to buy tomatoes to sell in Basra. "They are still very strong."
The accounts of travelers moving back and forth from the besieged city seem to belie the depiction of Basra as gripped by fear, with a restive population under the sway of a ruthless militia that uses people as human shields. People here crossing to the town of Zubair, mostly on the way to markets, said they are free to come and go, and most intended to return to Basra after shopping.
WAR ON IRAK
Independent: Children killed and maimed in bomb attack on town By Robert Fisk in Baghdad
At least 11 civilians, nine of them children, were killed in Hilla in central Iraq yesterday, according to reporters in the town who said they appeared to be the victims of bombing.
Reporters from the Reuters news agency said they counted the bodies of 11 civilians and two Iraqi fighters in the Babylon suburb, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Nine of the dead were children, one a baby. Hospital workers said as many as 33 civilians were killed.
Terrifying film of women and children later emerged after Reuters and the Associated Press were permitted by the Iraqi authorities to take their cameras into the town. Their pictures – the first by Western news agencies from the Iraqi side of the battlefront – showed babies cut in half and children with amputation wounds, apparently caused by American shellfire and cluster bombs.
Much of the videotape was too terrible to show on television and the agencies' Baghdad editors felt able to send only a few minutes of a 21-minute tape that included a father holding out pieces of his baby and screaming "cowards, cowards'' into the camera. Two lorryloads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, could be seen outside the Hilla hospital.
Iraqi officials have been insisting for 48 hours that the Americans have used cluster bombs on civilians in the region but this is the first time that evidence supporting these claims has come from Western news agencies. Most of the wounded said they were hit by American munitions and one man described how an American vehicle fired a shell into his family home. "I could see an American flag,'' he says.
Independent: Children killed and maimed in bomb attack on town By Robert Fisk in Baghdad
At least 11 civilians, nine of them children, were killed in Hilla in central Iraq yesterday, according to reporters in the town who said they appeared to be the victims of bombing.
Reporters from the Reuters news agency said they counted the bodies of 11 civilians and two Iraqi fighters in the Babylon suburb, 50 miles south of Baghdad. Nine of the dead were children, one a baby. Hospital workers said as many as 33 civilians were killed.
Terrifying film of women and children later emerged after Reuters and the Associated Press were permitted by the Iraqi authorities to take their cameras into the town. Their pictures – the first by Western news agencies from the Iraqi side of the battlefront – showed babies cut in half and children with amputation wounds, apparently caused by American shellfire and cluster bombs.
Much of the videotape was too terrible to show on television and the agencies' Baghdad editors felt able to send only a few minutes of a 21-minute tape that included a father holding out pieces of his baby and screaming "cowards, cowards'' into the camera. Two lorryloads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, could be seen outside the Hilla hospital.
Iraqi officials have been insisting for 48 hours that the Americans have used cluster bombs on civilians in the region but this is the first time that evidence supporting these claims has come from Western news agencies. Most of the wounded said they were hit by American munitions and one man described how an American vehicle fired a shell into his family home. "I could see an American flag,'' he says.
WAR ON IRAK: CHOMSKY
ZMAG: Iraq is a trial run Chomsky interviewed by Frontline
Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research, he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the current attack on Iraq.
V. K. Ramachandran :Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a qualitatively new stage in that policy?
Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless.
This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others.
The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action.
This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.
The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.
This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future.
This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963, Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S. attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said that "no legal issue arises when the United States responds to challenges to its position, prestige or authority", or words approximating that.
That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an important figure, what he said had not been official government policy in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the future.
Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something, not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture, going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is unconscious.
So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be......
CHECK IT CHECK IT CHECK IT
ZMAG: Iraq is a trial run Chomsky interviewed by Frontline
Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research, he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the current attack on Iraq.
V. K. Ramachandran :Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a qualitatively new stage in that policy?
Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless.
This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others.
The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action.
This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.
The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.
This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future.
This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963, Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S. attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said that "no legal issue arises when the United States responds to challenges to its position, prestige or authority", or words approximating that.
That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an important figure, what he said had not been official government policy in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the future.
Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something, not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture, going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is unconscious.
So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be......
CHECK IT CHECK IT CHECK IT
WAR ON IRAK
Yahoonews: U.S. military will start shoot on sight to prevent future suicide attacks in Iraq
NEAR NAJAF, Iraq - Nervous U.S. troops, wary of more guerrilla-style attacks by Iraqis in civilian clothing, warned approaching drivers Sunday they will be shot if they do not leave the area.
After fierce fighting, coalition forces surrounded the Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf in central Iraq (news - web sites) and were prepared — if so ordered — to go in and root out paramilitary forces whose stiff resistance has delayed the U.S. move on Baghdad.
U.S. forces have shut down all roads in the region north of Najaf — 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad — and any driver who approaches a military checkpoint will be shot on sight if they fail to stop or turn around after being warned, said Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division.
"This is a completely new dimension," Rutter said. "It is very difficult to distinguish civilians from possible fighters."
The purpose of the strict new measure is to deter attacks like the one on Saturday, when a taxi exploded at a checkpoint north of Najaf.
The driver was ordered to get out of his car and to open the front and back hoods. The car exploded when the back hood was opened, killing the driver and four soldiers. It was the first known suicide attack since the invasion began.
Meanwhile, tighter security is being imposed to protect soldiers from further attacks. A new sign, in large Arabic letters, warns drivers: "Leave The Area or We Will Fire." Soldiers will shout a final warning to any vehicle that disregards the sign, and then they will open fire.
The U.S. military is serious about enforcement: On Sunday, officers opened fire on two vehicles that failed to stop as they approached the checkpoint. One person was killed.
The U.S. military acknowledges the restriction places a burden on innocent Iraqi civilians, but that soldier safety must come first.
"Die Usa halten sehr viel von der Genfer Konvention wenn sie vom bösen Saadam missachtet wird, für sie selbst gelten alle diese Regeln nicht. Die stören nur. Blöde das man die Leute ermorden muss die man doch eigentlich befreien wollte weil sie nicht befreien lassen wollen"
Yahoonews: U.S. military will start shoot on sight to prevent future suicide attacks in Iraq
NEAR NAJAF, Iraq - Nervous U.S. troops, wary of more guerrilla-style attacks by Iraqis in civilian clothing, warned approaching drivers Sunday they will be shot if they do not leave the area.
After fierce fighting, coalition forces surrounded the Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf in central Iraq (news - web sites) and were prepared — if so ordered — to go in and root out paramilitary forces whose stiff resistance has delayed the U.S. move on Baghdad.
U.S. forces have shut down all roads in the region north of Najaf — 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad — and any driver who approaches a military checkpoint will be shot on sight if they fail to stop or turn around after being warned, said Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division.
"This is a completely new dimension," Rutter said. "It is very difficult to distinguish civilians from possible fighters."
The purpose of the strict new measure is to deter attacks like the one on Saturday, when a taxi exploded at a checkpoint north of Najaf.
The driver was ordered to get out of his car and to open the front and back hoods. The car exploded when the back hood was opened, killing the driver and four soldiers. It was the first known suicide attack since the invasion began.
Meanwhile, tighter security is being imposed to protect soldiers from further attacks. A new sign, in large Arabic letters, warns drivers: "Leave The Area or We Will Fire." Soldiers will shout a final warning to any vehicle that disregards the sign, and then they will open fire.
The U.S. military is serious about enforcement: On Sunday, officers opened fire on two vehicles that failed to stop as they approached the checkpoint. One person was killed.
The U.S. military acknowledges the restriction places a burden on innocent Iraqi civilians, but that soldier safety must come first.
"Die Usa halten sehr viel von der Genfer Konvention wenn sie vom bösen Saadam missachtet wird, für sie selbst gelten alle diese Regeln nicht. Die stören nur. Blöde das man die Leute ermorden muss die man doch eigentlich befreien wollte weil sie nicht befreien lassen wollen"
WAR ON IRAK
Guardian: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates by Arundhati Roy
How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many centuries, have hang-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? And now the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient civilisation
On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles.
On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."
To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said.
According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess
"CHECK IT" CHECK IT CHECK IT CHECK IT CHECK IT
Guardian: Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates by Arundhati Roy
How many children, in how many classrooms, over how many centuries, have hang-glided through the past, transported on the wings of these words? And now the bombs are falling, incinerating and humiliating that ancient civilisation
On the steel torsos of their missiles, adolescent American soldiers scrawl colourful messages in childish handwriting: For Saddam, from the Fat Boy Posse. A building goes down. A marketplace. A home. A girl who loves a boy. A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles.
On March 21, the day after American and British troops began their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, an "embedded" CNN correspondent interviewed an American soldier. "I wanna get in there and get my nose dirty," Private AJ said. "I wanna take revenge for 9/11."
To be fair to the correspondent, even though he was "embedded" he did sort of weakly suggest that so far there was no real evidence that linked the Iraqi government to the September 11 attacks. Private AJ stuck his teenage tongue out all the way down to the end of his chin. "Yeah, well that stuff's way over my head," he said.
According to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 42 per cent of the American public believes that Saddam Hussein is directly responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. And an ABC news poll says that 55 per cent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein directly supports al-Qaida. What percentage of America's armed forces believe these fabrications is anybody's guess
"CHECK IT" CHECK IT CHECK IT CHECK IT CHECK IT
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
WAR ON IRAK: CENSORED
Mirror: THIS WAR IS NOT WORKING by Peter Arnett
I am still in shock and awe at being fired. There is enormous sensitivity within the US government to reports coming out from Baghdad.
They don't want credible news organisations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems.
I reported on the original bombing for NBC and we were half a mile away from those massive explosions. Now I am really shocked that I am no longer reporting this story for the US and awed by the fact that it actually happened.
That overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why?
But whatever happens I will never stop reporting on the truth of this war whether I am in Baghdad or somewhere else in the Middle East - or even back in Washington.
I was here in 1991 and the bombing is very similar to that conflict but the reality is very different.
The US and British want to come here, take over the city, upturn the government and take us through to a new era. The troops are in the country and fighting there way up here. It creates a very different atmosphere.
The Ba'ath party, currently led by Saddam Hussein, has been in power for 34 years. Tariq Aziz told me the US will have to brainwash 25 million Iraqis because these people think exactly the same as Saddam does.
Times of India: UK tabloid hires sacked NBC scribe Arnett
NEW YORK: Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett, fired by America's NBC TV network after he said the US war plans in Iraq had failed, has been hired by a British tabloid.
The British newspaper 'Daily Mirror' said it was hiring Arnett so that he can continue to tell truth about the war.
"Fired By America For Telling The Truth," the tabloid said of Arnett in a front page headline.
Arnett, who said on Iraqi TV in an interview that US war plans have failed because of Iraqi resistance and they are trying to write another, apologised to the American people.
Soviel zu unseren ach so freien Medien in unseren ach so freien Demokratien. Man kann als Reporter alles sagen was man will. Ausser die Wahrheit. Dann verliert man seinen Job
Mirror: THIS WAR IS NOT WORKING by Peter Arnett
I am still in shock and awe at being fired. There is enormous sensitivity within the US government to reports coming out from Baghdad.
They don't want credible news organisations reporting from here because it presents them with enormous problems.
I reported on the original bombing for NBC and we were half a mile away from those massive explosions. Now I am really shocked that I am no longer reporting this story for the US and awed by the fact that it actually happened.
That overnight my successful NBC reporting career was turned to ashes. And why?
But whatever happens I will never stop reporting on the truth of this war whether I am in Baghdad or somewhere else in the Middle East - or even back in Washington.
I was here in 1991 and the bombing is very similar to that conflict but the reality is very different.
The US and British want to come here, take over the city, upturn the government and take us through to a new era. The troops are in the country and fighting there way up here. It creates a very different atmosphere.
The Ba'ath party, currently led by Saddam Hussein, has been in power for 34 years. Tariq Aziz told me the US will have to brainwash 25 million Iraqis because these people think exactly the same as Saddam does.
Times of India: UK tabloid hires sacked NBC scribe Arnett
NEW YORK: Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett, fired by America's NBC TV network after he said the US war plans in Iraq had failed, has been hired by a British tabloid.
The British newspaper 'Daily Mirror' said it was hiring Arnett so that he can continue to tell truth about the war.
"Fired By America For Telling The Truth," the tabloid said of Arnett in a front page headline.
Arnett, who said on Iraqi TV in an interview that US war plans have failed because of Iraqi resistance and they are trying to write another, apologised to the American people.
Soviel zu unseren ach so freien Medien in unseren ach so freien Demokratien. Man kann als Reporter alles sagen was man will. Ausser die Wahrheit. Dann verliert man seinen Job
WAR ON IRAK
SundayMorniingHerald: Mass opposition grows in Europe
Spain's Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, the third man on the international stage beside the US President, George Bush, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the run-up to war, is staring at political disaster.
The most recently published poll on attitudes to war, by the state's own official pollsters, showed 91 per cent opposed.
Recent polls of voting intention show that, over two months, his People's Party has gone from running neck-and-neck with the anti-war Socialists to trailing them by six points. A clear majority of people now expect the Socialists to win next year's election.
The Government said that it was thinking "not of future elections but of future generations".
But Mr Aznar's one-time political mentor, Felix Pastor, a former party president who sits on its ruling committee, broke ranks to accuse him of destroying the years of work to creating a moderate, centre-right party.
"The idea of a moderate, humanitarian, Christian People's Party has been blown away," he told El Mundo newspaper. "The Spanish people have the right to expect their government to keep them away from all wars ... Bush's policies are so detestable that we should keep well away."
SundayMorniingHerald: Mass opposition grows in Europe
Spain's Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, the third man on the international stage beside the US President, George Bush, and the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the run-up to war, is staring at political disaster.
The most recently published poll on attitudes to war, by the state's own official pollsters, showed 91 per cent opposed.
Recent polls of voting intention show that, over two months, his People's Party has gone from running neck-and-neck with the anti-war Socialists to trailing them by six points. A clear majority of people now expect the Socialists to win next year's election.
The Government said that it was thinking "not of future elections but of future generations".
But Mr Aznar's one-time political mentor, Felix Pastor, a former party president who sits on its ruling committee, broke ranks to accuse him of destroying the years of work to creating a moderate, centre-right party.
"The idea of a moderate, humanitarian, Christian People's Party has been blown away," he told El Mundo newspaper. "The Spanish people have the right to expect their government to keep them away from all wars ... Bush's policies are so detestable that we should keep well away."
WAR ON IRAK
Independent: Robert Fisk: A quiet Baghdad night of occasional air raid sirens and mysterious explosions
On the roof of the al-Jazeera office in Baghdad, you could hear the missile coming. It swooped down out of the clouds of smoke south of the Tigris, hissed past the office and disappeared over the old Ahrar bridge. "Was that what I think it was?" the anchorman asked me down the line from Doha. Ah yes, indeed. It was one of those days. A few minutes later, chatting to the al-Jazeera staff in their waterfront villa, an old colonial home with wooden bannisters and beautifully crafted blue-and-white patterned floor tiles, came the sound of supersonic jets.
We looked at each other with that special intensity that members of the most successful Arab television channel do when they smell danger. Only 18 months ago, the Americans sent a cruise missile into al-Jazeera's office in Kabul, an attack for which the United States neither apologised nor explained. But Tony Blair was attacking the station last week for showing videotape of two dead British soldiers in Basra and, only a few days ago, who should turn up at al-Jazeera's Baghdad office but Taiseer Alouni, former manager of the Kabul office who was lucky to avoid the earlier cruise attack.
Baghdad is also a city of rumours, sometimes confirmed, often tantalisingly obscure. The Iraqi army has announced the arrival of Arab volunteers "seeking heaven", who have arrived from every Middle Eastern country to fight for Iraq. I would have doubted all this had I not met on Saturday three serious young men, all wearing leather jackets and khaki trousers and black berets who informed me, seriously and with the sincerity of youth, that they intended to fight and if necessary die in Iraq. One was Palestinian, the other two Syrian, the first explaining to me that he was inspired by patriotism for the "pan-Arab cause" and by God.
Two more American aircraft have been shot down, the Iraqi army claimed. Again, scepticism is an essential response, as it is to more and more statements by the Anglo-American forces. Then there's the Baath Party official I meet as the American jets were sweeping back over Baghdad last night. "We shot down a plane over the Tigris and I saw the pilot bail out," he tells me.
He was from the Emirates, he was an Arab. When he landed, the people heard he was an Arab and started to beat him. He said he had an American female co-pilot who had also bailed out. She was captured later. True or false? Why on earth should Arabs be flying over Iraq in an American plane? Or was the pilot, if the story bears any relation to the truth, an Arab-American in the US Air Force? There are other stories of a Kuwaiti pilot also captured. Now the rumour is of up to 500 American prisoners-of-war, most of them taken into custody in the Najaf area. "They will be part of a political solution, if there is any," the Baath official says. Five hundred, I ask in disbelief? I do not accept this. But then I never believed that, 10 days after the start of this war, the Americans and British would still be fighting for Basra and Nassariyah and Kerbala and Najaf.
Independent: Robert Fisk: A quiet Baghdad night of occasional air raid sirens and mysterious explosions
On the roof of the al-Jazeera office in Baghdad, you could hear the missile coming. It swooped down out of the clouds of smoke south of the Tigris, hissed past the office and disappeared over the old Ahrar bridge. "Was that what I think it was?" the anchorman asked me down the line from Doha. Ah yes, indeed. It was one of those days. A few minutes later, chatting to the al-Jazeera staff in their waterfront villa, an old colonial home with wooden bannisters and beautifully crafted blue-and-white patterned floor tiles, came the sound of supersonic jets.
We looked at each other with that special intensity that members of the most successful Arab television channel do when they smell danger. Only 18 months ago, the Americans sent a cruise missile into al-Jazeera's office in Kabul, an attack for which the United States neither apologised nor explained. But Tony Blair was attacking the station last week for showing videotape of two dead British soldiers in Basra and, only a few days ago, who should turn up at al-Jazeera's Baghdad office but Taiseer Alouni, former manager of the Kabul office who was lucky to avoid the earlier cruise attack.
Baghdad is also a city of rumours, sometimes confirmed, often tantalisingly obscure. The Iraqi army has announced the arrival of Arab volunteers "seeking heaven", who have arrived from every Middle Eastern country to fight for Iraq. I would have doubted all this had I not met on Saturday three serious young men, all wearing leather jackets and khaki trousers and black berets who informed me, seriously and with the sincerity of youth, that they intended to fight and if necessary die in Iraq. One was Palestinian, the other two Syrian, the first explaining to me that he was inspired by patriotism for the "pan-Arab cause" and by God.
Two more American aircraft have been shot down, the Iraqi army claimed. Again, scepticism is an essential response, as it is to more and more statements by the Anglo-American forces. Then there's the Baath Party official I meet as the American jets were sweeping back over Baghdad last night. "We shot down a plane over the Tigris and I saw the pilot bail out," he tells me.
He was from the Emirates, he was an Arab. When he landed, the people heard he was an Arab and started to beat him. He said he had an American female co-pilot who had also bailed out. She was captured later. True or false? Why on earth should Arabs be flying over Iraq in an American plane? Or was the pilot, if the story bears any relation to the truth, an Arab-American in the US Air Force? There are other stories of a Kuwaiti pilot also captured. Now the rumour is of up to 500 American prisoners-of-war, most of them taken into custody in the Najaf area. "They will be part of a political solution, if there is any," the Baath official says. Five hundred, I ask in disbelief? I do not accept this. But then I never believed that, 10 days after the start of this war, the Americans and British would still be fighting for Basra and Nassariyah and Kerbala and Najaf.
WAR ON IRAK
Sunday Mirror: I'LL SHOOT YANKS TO SAVE IRAQ
THE china has been packed away, the walls are bare and the family silver has been spirited away to a safer place.
Now all that is left in the Baghdad sitting room is a sagging armchair - and an automatic rifle resting on enough ammunition to kill a hundred men.
The weapon is more than 20 years old, a relic from the Iran-Iraq war. But when the Americans come rolling into town, Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar will use it to kill as many as he can.
"The more of those American bastards I get the happier I will be," says the father-of-three.
Ghazwan, 59, is no ardent supporter of Saddam Hussein. He loves English pubs and American diners, often visited the UK and points out he was even educated in the US.
He is no friend of the Iraqi regime. He just hates George Bush and Tony Blair more.
Ask why, and you get a one-word answer: sanctions
Sunday Mirror: I'LL SHOOT YANKS TO SAVE IRAQ
THE china has been packed away, the walls are bare and the family silver has been spirited away to a safer place.
Now all that is left in the Baghdad sitting room is a sagging armchair - and an automatic rifle resting on enough ammunition to kill a hundred men.
The weapon is more than 20 years old, a relic from the Iran-Iraq war. But when the Americans come rolling into town, Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar will use it to kill as many as he can.
"The more of those American bastards I get the happier I will be," says the father-of-three.
Ghazwan, 59, is no ardent supporter of Saddam Hussein. He loves English pubs and American diners, often visited the UK and points out he was even educated in the US.
He is no friend of the Iraqi regime. He just hates George Bush and Tony Blair more.
Ask why, and you get a one-word answer: sanctions
WAR ON IRAK
Independent: Robert Fisk: Sergeant's suicidal act of war has struck fear into Allied hearts
Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi al-Nomani was the first Iraqi combatant known to stage a suicide attack. Not even during the uprising against British rule did an Iraqi kill himself to destroy his enemies.
Nomani was also a Shia Muslim – a member of the same sect the Americans faithfully believed to be their secret ally in their invasion of Iraq. Even the Iraqi government initially wondered how to deal with his extraordinary action, caught between its desire to dissociate themselves from an event that might remind the world of Osama bin Laden and its determination to threaten the Americans with more such attacks.
The details of the 50-year-old sergeant's life are few but intriguing. He was a soldier in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and volunteered to fight in the 1991 Gulf War, called the "Mother of All Battles" by President Saddam Hussein, who believes he was the victor. Then, though he was overage for further fighting, Nomani volunteered to fight the Anglo-American invasion. And so it was, without telling his commander and in his own car, he drove into the US Marine checkpoint outside Najaf.
Within hours of his death, Taha Yassin Ramadan, the Iraqi Vice-President, was talking like a Palestinian or Hizbollah leader, emphasising the inequality of arms between the Iraqis and the Americans.
"The US administration is going to turn the whole world into people prepared to die for their nations," he said. "All they can do now is turn themselves into bombs. If the B-52 bombs can now kill 500 or more in our war, then I'm sure that some operations by our freedom fighters will be able to kill 5,000."
It was clear what this meant; the Iraqi leadership was just as surprised at Nomani's attack as were his American victims.
In a strange way, therefore, 11 September at last finds a symbolic connection with Iraq. While the attempts to link President Saddam's regime with Osama bin Laden turned out to be fraudulent, the anger that the US has unleashed is real, and has met the weapon the Americans fear most. Most suicide bombers are younger than Nomani and unmarried. But someone must have helped him to rig the explosives in his car, must have taught him how to set off the detonator. And if this was not the Iraqis, as they claim, then was there an organisation involved of which both the Americans and the Iraqis know nothing?
Independent: Robert Fisk: Sergeant's suicidal act of war has struck fear into Allied hearts
Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi al-Nomani was the first Iraqi combatant known to stage a suicide attack. Not even during the uprising against British rule did an Iraqi kill himself to destroy his enemies.
Nomani was also a Shia Muslim – a member of the same sect the Americans faithfully believed to be their secret ally in their invasion of Iraq. Even the Iraqi government initially wondered how to deal with his extraordinary action, caught between its desire to dissociate themselves from an event that might remind the world of Osama bin Laden and its determination to threaten the Americans with more such attacks.
The details of the 50-year-old sergeant's life are few but intriguing. He was a soldier in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and volunteered to fight in the 1991 Gulf War, called the "Mother of All Battles" by President Saddam Hussein, who believes he was the victor. Then, though he was overage for further fighting, Nomani volunteered to fight the Anglo-American invasion. And so it was, without telling his commander and in his own car, he drove into the US Marine checkpoint outside Najaf.
Within hours of his death, Taha Yassin Ramadan, the Iraqi Vice-President, was talking like a Palestinian or Hizbollah leader, emphasising the inequality of arms between the Iraqis and the Americans.
"The US administration is going to turn the whole world into people prepared to die for their nations," he said. "All they can do now is turn themselves into bombs. If the B-52 bombs can now kill 500 or more in our war, then I'm sure that some operations by our freedom fighters will be able to kill 5,000."
It was clear what this meant; the Iraqi leadership was just as surprised at Nomani's attack as were his American victims.
In a strange way, therefore, 11 September at last finds a symbolic connection with Iraq. While the attempts to link President Saddam's regime with Osama bin Laden turned out to be fraudulent, the anger that the US has unleashed is real, and has met the weapon the Americans fear most. Most suicide bombers are younger than Nomani and unmarried. But someone must have helped him to rig the explosives in his car, must have taught him how to set off the detonator. And if this was not the Iraqis, as they claim, then was there an organisation involved of which both the Americans and the Iraqis know nothing?
WAR ON IRAK
Times of India: Indian ship turned back by Allies at Umm Qasr
DUBAI: Iraq on Sunday said an Indian vessel was among three ships that were turned back by US-led coalition forces from the southern port of Umm Qasr.
An Indian ship carrying 13,000 tonnes of sugar was not allowed to unload its cargo by the coalition, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf said in Baghdad.
The ship, along with two others including a Brazilian vessel, were forced to turn back, he told reporters while commenting on the reported humanitarian assistance given by the coalition forces.
British forces outside Basra destroyed warehouses storing 70,000 tonnes of food supplies, Sayyaf claimed.
Times of India: Indian ship turned back by Allies at Umm Qasr
DUBAI: Iraq on Sunday said an Indian vessel was among three ships that were turned back by US-led coalition forces from the southern port of Umm Qasr.
An Indian ship carrying 13,000 tonnes of sugar was not allowed to unload its cargo by the coalition, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf said in Baghdad.
The ship, along with two others including a Brazilian vessel, were forced to turn back, he told reporters while commenting on the reported humanitarian assistance given by the coalition forces.
British forces outside Basra destroyed warehouses storing 70,000 tonnes of food supplies, Sayyaf claimed.
WAR ON IRAK
Straitstimes: Shi'ite headache for the Americans
'WIMPS go to Baghdad,' they say in neo-conservative circles in Washington. 'Real men go to Teheran.'
It sounds tough at dinner parties, and the macho intellectuals who talk like that never worry that genuinely hard men can overhear their silly chatter. But they can, and they are already taking measures to protect themselves. They live in Iran.
Iran's Islamist government is split between the moderate reformers around President Mohammad Khatami and the radical mullahs around Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but it is the mullahs who control the army and foreign policy.
They are terrified by the imminent arrival of the United States army on Iran's western frontier, only a couple of hours' drive from the country's biggest oil fields, especially as US President George W. Bush has put Iran on his 'axis of evil' hit-list. So the more trouble the US has in Iraq, the better.
The biggest problem facing an American occupation regime in Iraq is the fact that the Sunni Arab minority, only 17 per cent of the population, has dominated the government and the army for generations. The Shi'ite Arabs have been largely excluded from power and are relatively poor, but they are almost two thirds of the population and, in a democratic Iraq, they would automatically dominate the government.
The problem is that their sympathies lie with their fellow Shi'ites in Iran, and a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad is not exactly what the US had in mind as an outcome to this war. That prospect is why the US has frozen the exiled Iraqi opposition parties out of the post-war administration of Iraq.
Sciri has no intention of allowing the US to rule Iraq even for a day: It will resist, and it will do so in a distinctively Shi'ite way.
Muslims of the Shi'ite persuasion, though bitterly hostile to Sunni extremists like Al-Qaeda, are equally adept at violence. The very first suicide truck bomb, the one that killed 242 US Marines in a Beirut barracks in 1983 and caused the rapid withdrawal of American troops from Lebanon, was a Shi'ite innovation, and it was the Shi'ite guerilla organisation Hizbollah that forced the chaotic Israeli retreat from southern Lebanon in 2000.
But an even greater threat to the American occupation of Iraq is the Shi'ite tradition of martyrdom.
Straitstimes: Shi'ite headache for the Americans
'WIMPS go to Baghdad,' they say in neo-conservative circles in Washington. 'Real men go to Teheran.'
It sounds tough at dinner parties, and the macho intellectuals who talk like that never worry that genuinely hard men can overhear their silly chatter. But they can, and they are already taking measures to protect themselves. They live in Iran.
Iran's Islamist government is split between the moderate reformers around President Mohammad Khatami and the radical mullahs around Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but it is the mullahs who control the army and foreign policy.
They are terrified by the imminent arrival of the United States army on Iran's western frontier, only a couple of hours' drive from the country's biggest oil fields, especially as US President George W. Bush has put Iran on his 'axis of evil' hit-list. So the more trouble the US has in Iraq, the better.
The biggest problem facing an American occupation regime in Iraq is the fact that the Sunni Arab minority, only 17 per cent of the population, has dominated the government and the army for generations. The Shi'ite Arabs have been largely excluded from power and are relatively poor, but they are almost two thirds of the population and, in a democratic Iraq, they would automatically dominate the government.
The problem is that their sympathies lie with their fellow Shi'ites in Iran, and a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad is not exactly what the US had in mind as an outcome to this war. That prospect is why the US has frozen the exiled Iraqi opposition parties out of the post-war administration of Iraq.
Sciri has no intention of allowing the US to rule Iraq even for a day: It will resist, and it will do so in a distinctively Shi'ite way.
Muslims of the Shi'ite persuasion, though bitterly hostile to Sunni extremists like Al-Qaeda, are equally adept at violence. The very first suicide truck bomb, the one that killed 242 US Marines in a Beirut barracks in 1983 and caused the rapid withdrawal of American troops from Lebanon, was a Shi'ite innovation, and it was the Shi'ite guerilla organisation Hizbollah that forced the chaotic Israeli retreat from southern Lebanon in 2000.
But an even greater threat to the American occupation of Iraq is the Shi'ite tradition of martyrdom.
WAR ON IRAK
New York Times: The War in Iraq Turns Ugly. That's What Wars Do.
This campaign was begun, like so many others throughout history, with lofty exhortations from battlefield commanders to their troops, urging courage, patience, compassion for the Iraqi people and even chivalry. Within a week it had degenerated into an unexpected ugliness in virtually every populated area where American and British forces have come under fire. Those who believed from intelligence reports and Pentagon war planners that the Iraqi people, and particularly those from the Shiite sections of the southeast, would rise up to greet them as liberators were instead faced with persistent resistance.
Near Basra, as The Financial Times reported, "soldiers were not being welcomed as liberators but often confronted with hatred." In the increasingly messy fights around Nasiriya, Marine units, which earlier were ambushed while responding to what appeared to be a large-scale surrender, had by the end of the week destroyed more than 200 homes.
Visions of cheering throngs welcoming them as liberators have vanished in the wake of a bloody engagement whose full casualties are still unknown. Snippets of news from Nasiriya give us a picture of chaotic guerrilla warfare, replete with hit-and-run ambushes, dead civilians, friendly fire casualties from firefights begun in the dead of night and a puzzling number of marines who are still unaccounted for. And long experience tells us that this sort of combat brings with it a "downstream" payback of animosity and revenge.
The moral and tactical confusion that surrounds this type of warfare is enormous. It is also one reason that the Marine Corps took such heavy casualties in Vietnam, losing five times as many killed as in World War I, three times as many as in Korea and more total casualties than in World War II. Guerrilla resistance has already proved deadly in the Iraq war, and far more effective than the set-piece battles that thus far have taken place closer to Baghdad. A majority of American casualties at this point have been the result of guerrilla actions against Marine and Army forces in and around Nasiriya. As this form of warfare has unfolded, the real surprise is why anyone should have been surprised at all. But people have been, among them many who planned the war, many who are fighting it and a large percentage of the general population.
New York Times: The War in Iraq Turns Ugly. That's What Wars Do.
This campaign was begun, like so many others throughout history, with lofty exhortations from battlefield commanders to their troops, urging courage, patience, compassion for the Iraqi people and even chivalry. Within a week it had degenerated into an unexpected ugliness in virtually every populated area where American and British forces have come under fire. Those who believed from intelligence reports and Pentagon war planners that the Iraqi people, and particularly those from the Shiite sections of the southeast, would rise up to greet them as liberators were instead faced with persistent resistance.
Near Basra, as The Financial Times reported, "soldiers were not being welcomed as liberators but often confronted with hatred." In the increasingly messy fights around Nasiriya, Marine units, which earlier were ambushed while responding to what appeared to be a large-scale surrender, had by the end of the week destroyed more than 200 homes.
Visions of cheering throngs welcoming them as liberators have vanished in the wake of a bloody engagement whose full casualties are still unknown. Snippets of news from Nasiriya give us a picture of chaotic guerrilla warfare, replete with hit-and-run ambushes, dead civilians, friendly fire casualties from firefights begun in the dead of night and a puzzling number of marines who are still unaccounted for. And long experience tells us that this sort of combat brings with it a "downstream" payback of animosity and revenge.
The moral and tactical confusion that surrounds this type of warfare is enormous. It is also one reason that the Marine Corps took such heavy casualties in Vietnam, losing five times as many killed as in World War I, three times as many as in Korea and more total casualties than in World War II. Guerrilla resistance has already proved deadly in the Iraq war, and far more effective than the set-piece battles that thus far have taken place closer to Baghdad. A majority of American casualties at this point have been the result of guerrilla actions against Marine and Army forces in and around Nasiriya. As this form of warfare has unfolded, the real surprise is why anyone should have been surprised at all. But people have been, among them many who planned the war, many who are fighting it and a large percentage of the general population.
ISRAEL
Iviews: Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches!
No country in the Middle East has more weapons of mass destruction than Israel and no other country other than Israel has escaped scrutiny of its nuclear arsenal..
The Bush administration has taken a hypocritical stand against weapons of mass destruction (WMD), beginning from Iraq. The existence of a tremendous stockpile of WMD in one Middle Eastern country is systematically ignored. Alone among its neighbors, Israel possesses an advanced nuclear capability and a sophisticated delivery system. "No country in the Middle East has more weapons of mass destruction than Israel and no other country other than Israel has escaped scrutiny of its nuclear arsenal," reports the Center for Defense Information. Yet Israel is never publicly recognized as the largest producer of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East region.
With stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. Citizens concerned with the unilateral invasion of US upon Iraq and pursuit of peace in the Middle East have an obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli WMD program.
Iviews: Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches!
No country in the Middle East has more weapons of mass destruction than Israel and no other country other than Israel has escaped scrutiny of its nuclear arsenal..
The Bush administration has taken a hypocritical stand against weapons of mass destruction (WMD), beginning from Iraq. The existence of a tremendous stockpile of WMD in one Middle Eastern country is systematically ignored. Alone among its neighbors, Israel possesses an advanced nuclear capability and a sophisticated delivery system. "No country in the Middle East has more weapons of mass destruction than Israel and no other country other than Israel has escaped scrutiny of its nuclear arsenal," reports the Center for Defense Information. Yet Israel is never publicly recognized as the largest producer of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East region.
With stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual use, Israel represents an acute threat to peace and stability in the Middle East. Citizens concerned with the unilateral invasion of US upon Iraq and pursuit of peace in the Middle East have an obligation to speak out forcefully against the Israeli WMD program.
WAR ON IRAK
Guardian: It will end in disaster by George Monibot
The US and British governments have dragged us into a mess that will last for years
So far, the liberators have succeeded only in freeing the souls of the Iraqis from their bodies. Saddam Hussein's troops have proved less inclined to surrender than they had anticipated, and the civilians less prepared to revolt. But while no one can now ignore the immediate problems this illegal war has met, we are beginning, too, to understand what should have been obvious all along: that, however this conflict is resolved, the outcome will be a disaster.
The US will almost certainly then have engineered the improbable chimera it claims to be chasing: the marriage of Saddam's well-armed secular brutality and al-Qaida's global insurrection. Even if, having held out for many weeks or months, Saddam Hussein is found and killed, his spirit may continue to inspire a revolt throughout the Muslim world, against the Americans, the British and, of course, Israel. Pakistan's unpopular leader, Pervez Musharraf, would then find himself in serious trouble. If, as seems likely in these circumstances, he is overthrown in an Islamic revolt, then a fundamentalist regime, deeply hostile to the west, would possess real nuclear weapons, primed and ready to fire.
I hope I've missed something here, and will be proved spectacularly wrong, but it seems to me that the American and British governments have dragged us into a mess from which we might not emerge for many years. They have unlocked the spirit of war, and it could be unwilling to return to its casket until it has traversed the world.
"CHECK IT"
Guardian: It will end in disaster by George Monibot
The US and British governments have dragged us into a mess that will last for years
So far, the liberators have succeeded only in freeing the souls of the Iraqis from their bodies. Saddam Hussein's troops have proved less inclined to surrender than they had anticipated, and the civilians less prepared to revolt. But while no one can now ignore the immediate problems this illegal war has met, we are beginning, too, to understand what should have been obvious all along: that, however this conflict is resolved, the outcome will be a disaster.
The US will almost certainly then have engineered the improbable chimera it claims to be chasing: the marriage of Saddam's well-armed secular brutality and al-Qaida's global insurrection. Even if, having held out for many weeks or months, Saddam Hussein is found and killed, his spirit may continue to inspire a revolt throughout the Muslim world, against the Americans, the British and, of course, Israel. Pakistan's unpopular leader, Pervez Musharraf, would then find himself in serious trouble. If, as seems likely in these circumstances, he is overthrown in an Islamic revolt, then a fundamentalist regime, deeply hostile to the west, would possess real nuclear weapons, primed and ready to fire.
I hope I've missed something here, and will be proved spectacularly wrong, but it seems to me that the American and British governments have dragged us into a mess from which we might not emerge for many years. They have unlocked the spirit of war, and it could be unwilling to return to its casket until it has traversed the world.
"CHECK IT"
WAR ON IRAK
SMH: Iraqi's To Be Sent To Guantanamo Bay
United States forces have begun rounding up Iraqi men in civilian
clothes
suspected of being involved with paramilitary squads attacking them in
southern Iraq and may ship some to the notorious detention centre at
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Coalition lawyers have put aside the original
rules
of engagement and are drafting new guidelines for front-line troops on
when
to take into custody Iraqi men - and possibly women. Among those
already
targeted are men in civilian clothes who appear to be well fed
SMH: Iraqi's To Be Sent To Guantanamo Bay
United States forces have begun rounding up Iraqi men in civilian
clothes
suspected of being involved with paramilitary squads attacking them in
southern Iraq and may ship some to the notorious detention centre at
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Coalition lawyers have put aside the original
rules
of engagement and are drafting new guidelines for front-line troops on
when
to take into custody Iraqi men - and possibly women. Among those
already
targeted are men in civilian clothes who appear to be well fed
WAR ON IRAK
Reuters: US Said Prepared to Pay 'High Price' to Oust Saddam
AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar (Reuters) - The United States is prepared to pay a "very high price" in terms of casualties to capture Baghdad and oust President Saddam Hussein, a senior official of the U.S. Central Command said Monday.
"We're prepared to pay a very high price because we are not going to do anything other than ensure that this regime goes away," the official told reporters, adding that U.S. casualties in the 12-day-old war had so far been "fairly" light.
"If that means there will be a lot of casualties, then there will be a lot of casualties," said the official, who spoke on condition that he not be named.
"Leider bleibt den Amerikanern gar nichts Anderes übrig als einen sehr hohen Preis für die Entmachtung Sadaam Husseins zu zahlen. Sollten sie dieses Ziel nicht erreichen haben sie ein zweites Vietnam und andere Reierungen könnten auf die Idee kommen Befehle aus Washington nicht mehr auszuführen."
Reuters: US Said Prepared to Pay 'High Price' to Oust Saddam
AS SAYLIYA CAMP, Qatar (Reuters) - The United States is prepared to pay a "very high price" in terms of casualties to capture Baghdad and oust President Saddam Hussein, a senior official of the U.S. Central Command said Monday.
"We're prepared to pay a very high price because we are not going to do anything other than ensure that this regime goes away," the official told reporters, adding that U.S. casualties in the 12-day-old war had so far been "fairly" light.
"If that means there will be a lot of casualties, then there will be a lot of casualties," said the official, who spoke on condition that he not be named.
"Leider bleibt den Amerikanern gar nichts Anderes übrig als einen sehr hohen Preis für die Entmachtung Sadaam Husseins zu zahlen. Sollten sie dieses Ziel nicht erreichen haben sie ein zweites Vietnam und andere Reierungen könnten auf die Idee kommen Befehle aus Washington nicht mehr auszuführen."
AFGHANISTAN
Independent: Afghan clerics call for new holy war
Posters apparently endorsed by one of America's most wanted fugitives, Mullah Mohammed Omar, have appeared in Afghanistan calling for renewed holy war, providing a further sign that the conflict is worsening.
Signed by 600 Islamic clerics, the posters appeared amid a flurry of attacks which saw guerrillas fire rockets at a United Nations base in Kabul and at US military installations.
The deteriorating situation has been underscored in the past few days by the killing of two American special forces soldiers in an ambush in southern Afghanistan and the death of a Red Cross worker, shot through the head while on a mission to install water wells.
The posters are circulating in eastern Afghanistan – a main area of opposition to the US and the Washington-backed government of Hamid Karzai – and call for a jihad against the Americans and Afghans who work with them.
They aim to undermine efforts by Karzai to build a national army and police force to establish control over the country. Six Afghan soldiers have been killed.
Suspicion is directed at the Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and elements of al-Qa'ida and Taliban with whom he appears to have forged links. Recent reports of interviews with Taliban loyalists in hiding in tribal regions of Pakistan say they have regrouped and built an alliance with Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami faction. Preparations are said to be under way for the next phase – hit-and-run attacks.
The US military and international peacekeepers say that recent attacks against them are not linked to the invasion of Iraq.
But the text of the posters – reportedly a decree from the Taliban leader Mullah Omar himself – made a specific link: "Whenever the non-Muslims attack a Muslim land it is the duty of everyone to rise up against the aggressor.
"We were blamed for Osama bin Laden because they said he was a terrorist and was taking shelter with us. But what is the fault of Iraq? Iraq has no Osama bin Laden in his country."
Independent: Afghan clerics call for new holy war
Posters apparently endorsed by one of America's most wanted fugitives, Mullah Mohammed Omar, have appeared in Afghanistan calling for renewed holy war, providing a further sign that the conflict is worsening.
Signed by 600 Islamic clerics, the posters appeared amid a flurry of attacks which saw guerrillas fire rockets at a United Nations base in Kabul and at US military installations.
The deteriorating situation has been underscored in the past few days by the killing of two American special forces soldiers in an ambush in southern Afghanistan and the death of a Red Cross worker, shot through the head while on a mission to install water wells.
The posters are circulating in eastern Afghanistan – a main area of opposition to the US and the Washington-backed government of Hamid Karzai – and call for a jihad against the Americans and Afghans who work with them.
They aim to undermine efforts by Karzai to build a national army and police force to establish control over the country. Six Afghan soldiers have been killed.
Suspicion is directed at the Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and elements of al-Qa'ida and Taliban with whom he appears to have forged links. Recent reports of interviews with Taliban loyalists in hiding in tribal regions of Pakistan say they have regrouped and built an alliance with Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami faction. Preparations are said to be under way for the next phase – hit-and-run attacks.
The US military and international peacekeepers say that recent attacks against them are not linked to the invasion of Iraq.
But the text of the posters – reportedly a decree from the Taliban leader Mullah Omar himself – made a specific link: "Whenever the non-Muslims attack a Muslim land it is the duty of everyone to rise up against the aggressor.
"We were blamed for Osama bin Laden because they said he was a terrorist and was taking shelter with us. But what is the fault of Iraq? Iraq has no Osama bin Laden in his country."
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
b>WAR ON IRAK
electroniciraq.com/AP: Peace activists confirm Iraqi hospital bombed
AFP: Twenty Iraqi Civilians Killed As US Hits Farm
Rense/Sunday Times: US Soldiers Turn Fire On Civilians At 'Bridge Of Death'
The light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.
Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.
Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery.
electroniciraq.com/AP: Peace activists confirm Iraqi hospital bombed
AFP: Twenty Iraqi Civilians Killed As US Hits Farm
Rense/Sunday Times: US Soldiers Turn Fire On Civilians At 'Bridge Of Death'
The light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.
Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.
Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery.
WAR ON IRAK
The Guardian: British Military Critical Of US Troops' Heavy-handed Style With Civilians
Cracks are appearing between British and American commanders which have serious implications for their future operations in Iraq.
Senior British military officers on the ground are making it clear they are dismayed by the failure of US troops to try to fight the battle for hearts and minds.
They also made plain they are appalled by reports over the weekend that US marines killed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, as they seized bridges outside Nassiriya in southern Iraq.
"You can see why the Iraqis are not welcoming us with open arms," a senior defence source said yesterday.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, drove home the point at a press conference in London on Friday. "We have a very considerable hearts and minds challenge," he said, adding: "We are not interested in gratuitous violence."
The Guardian: British Military Critical Of US Troops' Heavy-handed Style With Civilians
Cracks are appearing between British and American commanders which have serious implications for their future operations in Iraq.
Senior British military officers on the ground are making it clear they are dismayed by the failure of US troops to try to fight the battle for hearts and minds.
They also made plain they are appalled by reports over the weekend that US marines killed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, as they seized bridges outside Nassiriya in southern Iraq.
"You can see why the Iraqis are not welcoming us with open arms," a senior defence source said yesterday.
General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, drove home the point at a press conference in London on Friday. "We have a very considerable hearts and minds challenge," he said, adding: "We are not interested in gratuitous violence."
WAR ON IRAK: USA ERMORDET FRAUEN UND KINDER
Spiegel: TODESSCHÜSSE AM CHECKPOINT
Die Nerven der US-Soldaten sind bis zum Zerreißen angespannt, die Angst vor neuen Selbstmordattentaten irakischer Kämpfer sitzt tief. Als heute Morgen ein Kleinbus auf einen US-Kontrollpunkt zufuhr, kam es zu einer tragischen Verkettung von Missverständnissen und Fehleinschätzungen - mindestens sieben Frauen und Kinder starben.
Bagdad/Washington - Als die Soldaten den Fahrer des Wagens zum Anhalten bewegen wollten, fuhr er weiter auf den Stützpunkt zu, so die Armee. Strittig ist, was in den folgenden Sekunden geschah. Die Soldaten der 3. Infanteriedivision gaben nach Angaben des US-Militärs zunächst Warnschüsse auf den Kleinbus ab - dabei sollen sie auf den Kühler gezielt haben. Schließlich hätten sie als "letztes Mittel" in den Fahrgastraum gefeuert. In dem Bus waren den Angaben zufolge 13 Frauen und Kinder mit ihrer persönlichen Habe.
Der Bericht eines Reporters der "Washington Post", der Augenzeuge des Zwischenfalls war, liest sich allerdings anders. "Feuert einen Warnschuss ab", habe Captain Ronny Johnson der Besatzung eines M2-"Bradley"-Panzers vor dem Stützpunkt befohlen. Als der Kleinbus nicht anhielt, sollte die Panzerbesatzung einen Schuss aus einem Maschinengewehr des Kalibers 7,62 Millimeter in den Kühler des Wagens feuern. Doch die Besatzung des Panzers reagierte offenbar nicht sofort. "Macht endlich!", habe Johnson in sein Funkgerät gerufen, als sich noch immer nichts tat. Dann habe er geschrieen: "Stoppt ihn, Rot eins, stoppt ihn!"
Offenbar fatales Zögern der Soldaten
Diesmal sei der Befehl sofort befolgt worden: Etwa ein halbes Dutzend Schüsse aus der 25-Millimeter-Bordkanone des "Bradley" schlugen im Fahrgastraum des Busses ein. "Feuer einstellen!", habe Johnson über Funk gerufen. "Verflucht, ihr habt eben eine Familie umgebracht, weil ihr nicht rechtzeitig einen Warnschuss abgegeben habt!"
Washington Post: 10 Dead After Vehicle Shelled at Checkpoint
"Solche Vorfälle sind Grund für die vorsorgliche Propaganda der Allierten von letzter Woche wonach die Irakischen Soldaten sich als Zivilisten verkleiden. Man wird mit Sicherheit den Irakischen Selbstmordanschlag vom Wochenende für den Vorfall verantwortlich machen"
Spiegel: TODESSCHÜSSE AM CHECKPOINT
Die Nerven der US-Soldaten sind bis zum Zerreißen angespannt, die Angst vor neuen Selbstmordattentaten irakischer Kämpfer sitzt tief. Als heute Morgen ein Kleinbus auf einen US-Kontrollpunkt zufuhr, kam es zu einer tragischen Verkettung von Missverständnissen und Fehleinschätzungen - mindestens sieben Frauen und Kinder starben.
Bagdad/Washington - Als die Soldaten den Fahrer des Wagens zum Anhalten bewegen wollten, fuhr er weiter auf den Stützpunkt zu, so die Armee. Strittig ist, was in den folgenden Sekunden geschah. Die Soldaten der 3. Infanteriedivision gaben nach Angaben des US-Militärs zunächst Warnschüsse auf den Kleinbus ab - dabei sollen sie auf den Kühler gezielt haben. Schließlich hätten sie als "letztes Mittel" in den Fahrgastraum gefeuert. In dem Bus waren den Angaben zufolge 13 Frauen und Kinder mit ihrer persönlichen Habe.
Der Bericht eines Reporters der "Washington Post", der Augenzeuge des Zwischenfalls war, liest sich allerdings anders. "Feuert einen Warnschuss ab", habe Captain Ronny Johnson der Besatzung eines M2-"Bradley"-Panzers vor dem Stützpunkt befohlen. Als der Kleinbus nicht anhielt, sollte die Panzerbesatzung einen Schuss aus einem Maschinengewehr des Kalibers 7,62 Millimeter in den Kühler des Wagens feuern. Doch die Besatzung des Panzers reagierte offenbar nicht sofort. "Macht endlich!", habe Johnson in sein Funkgerät gerufen, als sich noch immer nichts tat. Dann habe er geschrieen: "Stoppt ihn, Rot eins, stoppt ihn!"
Offenbar fatales Zögern der Soldaten
Diesmal sei der Befehl sofort befolgt worden: Etwa ein halbes Dutzend Schüsse aus der 25-Millimeter-Bordkanone des "Bradley" schlugen im Fahrgastraum des Busses ein. "Feuer einstellen!", habe Johnson über Funk gerufen. "Verflucht, ihr habt eben eine Familie umgebracht, weil ihr nicht rechtzeitig einen Warnschuss abgegeben habt!"
Washington Post: 10 Dead After Vehicle Shelled at Checkpoint
"Solche Vorfälle sind Grund für die vorsorgliche Propaganda der Allierten von letzter Woche wonach die Irakischen Soldaten sich als Zivilisten verkleiden. Man wird mit Sicherheit den Irakischen Selbstmordanschlag vom Wochenende für den Vorfall verantwortlich machen"
WAR ON IRAK ANALYSIS
Aronautics.ru: 31th March Analysis
March 31, 2003, 1828hrs MSK (GMT +4 DST), Moscow - During the night of March 30-31 the situation on the US-Iraqi front became increasingly more critical. All indications are that the coalition has launched a new attack.
Following a three-hour-long artillery barrage and several nighttime aviation strikes the coalition forces came in contact with the Iraqi troops near Karabela and attempted to move around the Iraqi defenses from the east.
For now the coalition is limiting its actions to probing the forward layer of the Iraqi defenses, attempting to assess its density and organization after nearly five days of artillery and aerial bombardment. There have been no reports of any coalition breaks through the Iraqi defenses in this area. At the same time morning radio intercepts uncovered a large US military convoy moving around the Razzaza Lake. At the moment it is unclear whether the purpose of this movement is to get to the town of Ar-Ramdia or a wider maneuver leading to the town of Al-Falludja.
Another [coalition] convoy numbering up to 100 combat vehicles was seen near the town of Al-Hillah moving in the southeaster direction 30 kilometers from the strategic Baghdad-Basra highway. Given there is no Iraqi resistance this coalition force will be able to reach the highway by today’s night. So far there were no reports of any losses in this area.
The US forces resumed attacking Iraqi defenses near An-Najaf. The US group of force in this area has been reinforced with at least three reserve Marine battalions and now Americans are trying once again to capture this key town. According to the US intelligence Iraqi defenses in this area number up to 3,000 troops aided by around 1,500 volunteers and [Ba’ath] party activists. The Iraqis here are armed with around 30 T-55 and T-62 tanks, up to four artillery batteries and more than 300 various anti-tank weapons. The town is being stormed by the elements of the 1st Marine Division numbering up to 6,000 troops assisted by 80 tanks and 60 artillery systems. Additionally, aerial support is provided by up to 40 helicopters. So far the Americans were unable to push the enemy. Early today morning an American tank was destroyed near An-Najaf. At least two of its crew were killed.
Intensive exchange of fire is continuing in the vicinity of An-Nasiriya. The US Marines have so far been unable to side nth staging area they captured seven days ago on the left bank of Euphrates. The bridge connecting this staging area with the main coalition forces is nearly destroyed and is under constant fire from the Iraqi defenses located in the riverside city blocks. This is the reason why the [coalition] troops holding the staging area can only be reinforced by small and lightly-armed units and only during nighttime. During the past night alone the Marines holding the staging area sustained 2 killed and 5 wounded.
The situation [for the coalition] is complicated by the fact that the residential blocks occupied by the defending Iraqis come to the very edge of the river, giving a significant advantage to the defenders who control the river and all approaches to the river. Currently the coalition artillery and aviation is methodically destroying these blocks in an attempt to push the Iraqis away from the shoreline.
Intercepted radio communications indicate that the Marines engineering units are ordered to build a pontoon crossing up the stream from An-Nasiriya and move up to three battalions of Marines and troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the left bank of the Euphrates for a future strike in the rear of the An-Nasiriya garrison. The coalition command would have been ready to bypass other defended crossings on the Euphrates if it wasn’t for one problem: the entire group of forces has only two pontoon units. Any new pontoon units will arrive not sooner than in mid-April.
A standoff between the Basra garrison and the British marine infantry is continuing in the area of Basra. Using localized attacks the British are attempting to “lean” on Basra as closely as possible and to tighten the blockade, but so far they were unsuccessful. Thus, during the last night the British attempted to take the town of Al-Hasib located 7 kilometers southeast of Basra. The British plan was to reach the Al-Arab River and to slice the local Iraqi defenses in half, separating Basra from the defending Iraqi forces on the Fao peninsula. Up to a battalion of the British marine infantry supported by armored vehicles entered the town of Al-Hasib from south but in less than an hour they were stopped by Iraqi fire and requested aviation and artillery support.
Fighting for the control of the town is continuing. At least two British soldiers were killed and three were wounded in this battle. One British armored personnel carrier was destroyed. British commanders are reporting killing 50 Iraqis and capturing 10. In the area of the As-Zubair River port, which was declared to be under full coalition control just a week ago, a British patrol boat was attacked. The boat was carrying its crew and a marine infantry unit. As the result of the attack at least 4 British soldiers were killed and 9 were wounded.
The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, “falling behind” the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. “We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time – occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days…” [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network.
Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people.
US experts at the coalition command headquarters studied the cases of destroyed and damaged M1A2 tanks and various APCs. The conclusion was that without a doubt the Iraqis do possess modern anti-tank weapons but so far use them on a “very limited scale.” Only three tanks have been hit by guided weapons which destroyed these tanks with the first hit. The rest of the tanks were destroyed with more standard weapons. Some of the most common causes [of destroyed armor] include: anti-tank guns (about 40% of all hits), man-portable rocket-propelled grenade launchers (25% of hits), and landmines (25% of hits). Effectiveness of anti-tank artillery has been particularly high. “Impacts by high-velocity projectiles do not always destroy the tank and its crew. However, in 90% of all cases the tank is disabled and the crew is forced to abandon the tank on the battlefield…” – says the report that was distributed to the commanders of the forward units for analysis.
Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism. There is no question that the US “blitzkrieg” failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and the military campaign hit a snag. However, the Iraqi command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For now there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal – complete occupation of Iraq.
In reality, despite of some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition’s high command, the [coalition] troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The losses sustained during the past 12 days of fighting, although delivering a painful blow to the pride and striking the public opinion, are entirely insignificant militarily speaking. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition. Under such circumstances Iraqi announcements of a swift victory over the enemy will only confuse its own troops and the Iraq’s population and, as the result, may lead to demoralization and a reduced defensive potential…
Russian military analysts believe that the critical for the US duration of the war would be over 90 days provided that during that time the coalition will sustain over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the US and in the world will be unavoidable.
(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-31-03, translated by Venik)
Aronautics.ru: 31th March Analysis
March 31, 2003, 1828hrs MSK (GMT +4 DST), Moscow - During the night of March 30-31 the situation on the US-Iraqi front became increasingly more critical. All indications are that the coalition has launched a new attack.
Following a three-hour-long artillery barrage and several nighttime aviation strikes the coalition forces came in contact with the Iraqi troops near Karabela and attempted to move around the Iraqi defenses from the east.
For now the coalition is limiting its actions to probing the forward layer of the Iraqi defenses, attempting to assess its density and organization after nearly five days of artillery and aerial bombardment. There have been no reports of any coalition breaks through the Iraqi defenses in this area. At the same time morning radio intercepts uncovered a large US military convoy moving around the Razzaza Lake. At the moment it is unclear whether the purpose of this movement is to get to the town of Ar-Ramdia or a wider maneuver leading to the town of Al-Falludja.
Another [coalition] convoy numbering up to 100 combat vehicles was seen near the town of Al-Hillah moving in the southeaster direction 30 kilometers from the strategic Baghdad-Basra highway. Given there is no Iraqi resistance this coalition force will be able to reach the highway by today’s night. So far there were no reports of any losses in this area.
The US forces resumed attacking Iraqi defenses near An-Najaf. The US group of force in this area has been reinforced with at least three reserve Marine battalions and now Americans are trying once again to capture this key town. According to the US intelligence Iraqi defenses in this area number up to 3,000 troops aided by around 1,500 volunteers and [Ba’ath] party activists. The Iraqis here are armed with around 30 T-55 and T-62 tanks, up to four artillery batteries and more than 300 various anti-tank weapons. The town is being stormed by the elements of the 1st Marine Division numbering up to 6,000 troops assisted by 80 tanks and 60 artillery systems. Additionally, aerial support is provided by up to 40 helicopters. So far the Americans were unable to push the enemy. Early today morning an American tank was destroyed near An-Najaf. At least two of its crew were killed.
Intensive exchange of fire is continuing in the vicinity of An-Nasiriya. The US Marines have so far been unable to side nth staging area they captured seven days ago on the left bank of Euphrates. The bridge connecting this staging area with the main coalition forces is nearly destroyed and is under constant fire from the Iraqi defenses located in the riverside city blocks. This is the reason why the [coalition] troops holding the staging area can only be reinforced by small and lightly-armed units and only during nighttime. During the past night alone the Marines holding the staging area sustained 2 killed and 5 wounded.
The situation [for the coalition] is complicated by the fact that the residential blocks occupied by the defending Iraqis come to the very edge of the river, giving a significant advantage to the defenders who control the river and all approaches to the river. Currently the coalition artillery and aviation is methodically destroying these blocks in an attempt to push the Iraqis away from the shoreline.
Intercepted radio communications indicate that the Marines engineering units are ordered to build a pontoon crossing up the stream from An-Nasiriya and move up to three battalions of Marines and troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the left bank of the Euphrates for a future strike in the rear of the An-Nasiriya garrison. The coalition command would have been ready to bypass other defended crossings on the Euphrates if it wasn’t for one problem: the entire group of forces has only two pontoon units. Any new pontoon units will arrive not sooner than in mid-April.
A standoff between the Basra garrison and the British marine infantry is continuing in the area of Basra. Using localized attacks the British are attempting to “lean” on Basra as closely as possible and to tighten the blockade, but so far they were unsuccessful. Thus, during the last night the British attempted to take the town of Al-Hasib located 7 kilometers southeast of Basra. The British plan was to reach the Al-Arab River and to slice the local Iraqi defenses in half, separating Basra from the defending Iraqi forces on the Fao peninsula. Up to a battalion of the British marine infantry supported by armored vehicles entered the town of Al-Hasib from south but in less than an hour they were stopped by Iraqi fire and requested aviation and artillery support.
Fighting for the control of the town is continuing. At least two British soldiers were killed and three were wounded in this battle. One British armored personnel carrier was destroyed. British commanders are reporting killing 50 Iraqis and capturing 10. In the area of the As-Zubair River port, which was declared to be under full coalition control just a week ago, a British patrol boat was attacked. The boat was carrying its crew and a marine infantry unit. As the result of the attack at least 4 British soldiers were killed and 9 were wounded.
The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, “falling behind” the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. “We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time – occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days…” [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network.
Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people.
US experts at the coalition command headquarters studied the cases of destroyed and damaged M1A2 tanks and various APCs. The conclusion was that without a doubt the Iraqis do possess modern anti-tank weapons but so far use them on a “very limited scale.” Only three tanks have been hit by guided weapons which destroyed these tanks with the first hit. The rest of the tanks were destroyed with more standard weapons. Some of the most common causes [of destroyed armor] include: anti-tank guns (about 40% of all hits), man-portable rocket-propelled grenade launchers (25% of hits), and landmines (25% of hits). Effectiveness of anti-tank artillery has been particularly high. “Impacts by high-velocity projectiles do not always destroy the tank and its crew. However, in 90% of all cases the tank is disabled and the crew is forced to abandon the tank on the battlefield…” – says the report that was distributed to the commanders of the forward units for analysis.
Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism. There is no question that the US “blitzkrieg” failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and the military campaign hit a snag. However, the Iraqi command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For now there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal – complete occupation of Iraq.
In reality, despite of some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition’s high command, the [coalition] troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The losses sustained during the past 12 days of fighting, although delivering a painful blow to the pride and striking the public opinion, are entirely insignificant militarily speaking. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition. Under such circumstances Iraqi announcements of a swift victory over the enemy will only confuse its own troops and the Iraq’s population and, as the result, may lead to demoralization and a reduced defensive potential…
Russian military analysts believe that the critical for the US duration of the war would be over 90 days provided that during that time the coalition will sustain over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the US and in the world will be unavoidable.
(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-31-03, translated by Venik)
Monday, March 31, 2003
WAR ON IRAK ANALYSIS
Aeronautics: 29th march 2003
March 29, 2003, 0924hrs MSK (GMT +4 DST), Moscow - During the past day the situation on the US-Iraqi front remained largely unchanged. The US is continuing reinforcing the attack group near Karabela for a thrust toward Baghdad. By the morning of March 29 up to 20,000 coalition troops were massed in the area of Karabela. This forces includes up to 200 tanks, 150 artillery systems and more than 250 helicopters. The order for the attack will be given by the coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks, who, according to intercepted radio communications, will personally inspect the troops during the next several hours.
Around 1900hrs yesterday an Apache attack helicopter crashed. Intercepted radio communications show that the helicopter was heavily damaged in a combat mission. The helicopter's pilot lost control during landing and the helicopter crashed, causing serious damage to another helicopter that landed earlier.
The coalition troops have so far failed to take An-Nasiriya despite of the categorical orders from the command and more than 800 combat missions by the strike aircraft. All attempts to break through the Iraqi defense were met by Iraqi counterattacks. After 24 hours of fighting the coalition troops only managed to advance several hundred meters in two sectors near An-Nasiriya at the cost of 4 destroyed armored personnel carriers, no less that 3 Marines killed by sniper and mortar fire, 10 wounded and 2 missing in action. The exact Iraqi losses are being determined.
The Americans have also failed to advance near An-Najaf. Every coalition attack was met by massive artillery barrages from the Iraqi side. Later during the day the Iraqis mounted a counterattack throwing the US forces back by 1.5-2 kilometers. No fewer than 10 Marines were killed or wounded. After exchanging fire for six hours both warring sides remained in the same positions. Iraqi losses in this area are estimated to be 20 killed and up to 40 wounded.
Near Basra the British troops pushed the Iraqi defense lines on the Fao peninsula but were unable to capture the entire peninsula. The British advance was a maximum of 4 kilometers from the highway leading to Basra. Radio intercepts show that in this attack the Iraqis shot down a British helicopter. Additionally, two tanks and one APCs were destroyed by landmines. At least 2 [British] servicemen were killed, around 20 were wounded and 15 were captured by the Iraqis.
Exchange of fire continued in the area of the Basra airport. The Iraqis destroyed one coalition APC wounding two coalition soldiers. The Iraqi losses are difficult to estimate, but available information suggests that up to 20 Iraqi soldiers and local militia members might have been killed in the air and artillery strikes.
All attempts by the British troops to break through the Iraqi defenses from the south along the Al-Arab river have yielded not results. The British command reported that it is unable to storm Basra with the available forces and will require no less than two additional brigades and at least five additional artillery battalions. Thus, to avoid further casualties the British are adopting defensive tactics, while trying to maintain a tight blockade around Basra and trying to improve their positions with small localized attacks. The British are also maintaining pressure on the Iraqi positions on the Fao peninsula.
The psychological levels among the city's residents, according to interviews, is far from critical. The Iraqi military made several public announcements to the residents offering them a chance to leave the city. However, most of the residents do not want to leave, fearing the faith of the Palestinian refugees, who, after losing their homes, gained pariah status in the Arab world. Basra's residents were extremely depressed by the video footage aired by the coalition command showing Iraqis on the occupied territories fighting for food and water being distributed by the coalition soldiers. The city's population views this as a sample of what awaits them if the Americans come...
At the Al-Kuwait airport the unloading of the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division is continuing and is expected to be completed by the night of April 1. During a night flight one of the US military transport aircraft requested an emergency landing. What happened to the plane is still being determined.
Currently the coalition command is deciding how better use the 4th Infantry Division. The complete deployment [of the division] and preparations for combat are expected to take at least 10 days. However, the combat units require immediate reinforcements and it is possible that the [4th Infantry} Division will be joining combat in stages, as the units become ready. This will mean a considerable reduction of the Division's combat effectiveness.
A report was obtained, prepared by the Al-Kuwait-based [coalition] Psychological Operations Tactical Group for the [coalition] Special Ground Forces Command. The report analyzed the effectiveness of the information and propaganda war. According to the report, analysis of the television broadcasts, intercepted radio communications, interrogations of Iraqi POWs show that psychologically the Iraqis are now "more stable and confident" that they were during the last days before the war. This, according to the report, is due primarily to the coalition's numerous military failures.
"...Following nervousness and depression [of the Iraqis] during the first days of the war we can now observe a burst of patriotic and nationalistic feelings. ...There has been a sharp increase in the number of Iraqi refugees, who left the country before the war, returning to Iraq. A "cult of war" against the US and the UK is now emerging among the Iraqis...", the report states. [Reverse translation from Russian]
[Coalition] analysts believe that if this attitude of the Iraqis is not changed within the next 7 days, a "resistance ideology" may take over the Iraqi minds, making the final [coalition] victory even more difficult. In response to this report the US Army Psychological Operations command decided to combine all Iraqi POWs into large groups and to distribute the resulting video footage to the world media. A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."
Radio communications intercepted during the last five days suggest that the coalition is using Israeli airfield for conducting night air strikes against Iraq. Combat aircraft are taking off regularly from the [Israeli] Hatzerim and the Navatim airbases do not return to the same bases but fly toward the border with Jordan while maintaining complete radio silence.
Possibly these are just Israeli Air Force exercises, However, [Russian] radio intercept and radar units observe increased intensity of radio communications coming from the Jordanian air force and air defense communication centers during such overflights, as well as changes in the operating modes of the US Army "Patriot" tracking radars deployed in Jordan. This indicates the Israeli airbases as used as forward airfield or that some of the coalition air force units are based there. Normally the IAF F-15I fighter-bombers and A-4N strike aircraft operate from the Hatzerim airbase and the F-16 fighter-bombers operate from the Nevatim base.
Experts believe that these airbases may be used by the F-117 stealth bombers "officially" based at the Al-Udaid airbase in Qatar. Using these two locations minimizes the risk to the F-117s by allowing them to fly along the left bank of the Euphrates (in the direction of Turkey) and to avoid the dangerous maneuvering over Iraq.
The destruction of the telephone stations in Baghdad did nothing to disrupt the communications of the Iraqi army. The coalition command acknowledged this fact after analyzing the dense [Iraqi] radio traffic. Because of that the USAF was ordered to employ the most powerful available [conventional] munitions against predetermined strategic targets. This attacks will be carried out immediately before renewing ground advance.
Aeronautics: 29th march 2003
March 29, 2003, 0924hrs MSK (GMT +4 DST), Moscow - During the past day the situation on the US-Iraqi front remained largely unchanged. The US is continuing reinforcing the attack group near Karabela for a thrust toward Baghdad. By the morning of March 29 up to 20,000 coalition troops were massed in the area of Karabela. This forces includes up to 200 tanks, 150 artillery systems and more than 250 helicopters. The order for the attack will be given by the coalition commander Gen. Tommy Franks, who, according to intercepted radio communications, will personally inspect the troops during the next several hours.
Around 1900hrs yesterday an Apache attack helicopter crashed. Intercepted radio communications show that the helicopter was heavily damaged in a combat mission. The helicopter's pilot lost control during landing and the helicopter crashed, causing serious damage to another helicopter that landed earlier.
The coalition troops have so far failed to take An-Nasiriya despite of the categorical orders from the command and more than 800 combat missions by the strike aircraft. All attempts to break through the Iraqi defense were met by Iraqi counterattacks. After 24 hours of fighting the coalition troops only managed to advance several hundred meters in two sectors near An-Nasiriya at the cost of 4 destroyed armored personnel carriers, no less that 3 Marines killed by sniper and mortar fire, 10 wounded and 2 missing in action. The exact Iraqi losses are being determined.
The Americans have also failed to advance near An-Najaf. Every coalition attack was met by massive artillery barrages from the Iraqi side. Later during the day the Iraqis mounted a counterattack throwing the US forces back by 1.5-2 kilometers. No fewer than 10 Marines were killed or wounded. After exchanging fire for six hours both warring sides remained in the same positions. Iraqi losses in this area are estimated to be 20 killed and up to 40 wounded.
Near Basra the British troops pushed the Iraqi defense lines on the Fao peninsula but were unable to capture the entire peninsula. The British advance was a maximum of 4 kilometers from the highway leading to Basra. Radio intercepts show that in this attack the Iraqis shot down a British helicopter. Additionally, two tanks and one APCs were destroyed by landmines. At least 2 [British] servicemen were killed, around 20 were wounded and 15 were captured by the Iraqis.
Exchange of fire continued in the area of the Basra airport. The Iraqis destroyed one coalition APC wounding two coalition soldiers. The Iraqi losses are difficult to estimate, but available information suggests that up to 20 Iraqi soldiers and local militia members might have been killed in the air and artillery strikes.
All attempts by the British troops to break through the Iraqi defenses from the south along the Al-Arab river have yielded not results. The British command reported that it is unable to storm Basra with the available forces and will require no less than two additional brigades and at least five additional artillery battalions. Thus, to avoid further casualties the British are adopting defensive tactics, while trying to maintain a tight blockade around Basra and trying to improve their positions with small localized attacks. The British are also maintaining pressure on the Iraqi positions on the Fao peninsula.
The psychological levels among the city's residents, according to interviews, is far from critical. The Iraqi military made several public announcements to the residents offering them a chance to leave the city. However, most of the residents do not want to leave, fearing the faith of the Palestinian refugees, who, after losing their homes, gained pariah status in the Arab world. Basra's residents were extremely depressed by the video footage aired by the coalition command showing Iraqis on the occupied territories fighting for food and water being distributed by the coalition soldiers. The city's population views this as a sample of what awaits them if the Americans come...
At the Al-Kuwait airport the unloading of the 4th Mechanized Infantry Division is continuing and is expected to be completed by the night of April 1. During a night flight one of the US military transport aircraft requested an emergency landing. What happened to the plane is still being determined.
Currently the coalition command is deciding how better use the 4th Infantry Division. The complete deployment [of the division] and preparations for combat are expected to take at least 10 days. However, the combat units require immediate reinforcements and it is possible that the [4th Infantry} Division will be joining combat in stages, as the units become ready. This will mean a considerable reduction of the Division's combat effectiveness.
A report was obtained, prepared by the Al-Kuwait-based [coalition] Psychological Operations Tactical Group for the [coalition] Special Ground Forces Command. The report analyzed the effectiveness of the information and propaganda war. According to the report, analysis of the television broadcasts, intercepted radio communications, interrogations of Iraqi POWs show that psychologically the Iraqis are now "more stable and confident" that they were during the last days before the war. This, according to the report, is due primarily to the coalition's numerous military failures.
"...Following nervousness and depression [of the Iraqis] during the first days of the war we can now observe a burst of patriotic and nationalistic feelings. ...There has been a sharp increase in the number of Iraqi refugees, who left the country before the war, returning to Iraq. A "cult of war" against the US and the UK is now emerging among the Iraqis...", the report states. [Reverse translation from Russian]
[Coalition] analysts believe that if this attitude of the Iraqis is not changed within the next 7 days, a "resistance ideology" may take over the Iraqi minds, making the final [coalition] victory even more difficult. In response to this report the US Army Psychological Operations command decided to combine all Iraqi POWs into large groups and to distribute the resulting video footage to the world media. A more active use of the Iraqi opposition was suggested for propaganda work in the occupied villages. The same opposition members will be used to create video footage of the "repented" Iraqi POWs and footage of the local [Iraqi] population "opposing Saddam."
Radio communications intercepted during the last five days suggest that the coalition is using Israeli airfield for conducting night air strikes against Iraq. Combat aircraft are taking off regularly from the [Israeli] Hatzerim and the Navatim airbases do not return to the same bases but fly toward the border with Jordan while maintaining complete radio silence.
Possibly these are just Israeli Air Force exercises, However, [Russian] radio intercept and radar units observe increased intensity of radio communications coming from the Jordanian air force and air defense communication centers during such overflights, as well as changes in the operating modes of the US Army "Patriot" tracking radars deployed in Jordan. This indicates the Israeli airbases as used as forward airfield or that some of the coalition air force units are based there. Normally the IAF F-15I fighter-bombers and A-4N strike aircraft operate from the Hatzerim airbase and the F-16 fighter-bombers operate from the Nevatim base.
Experts believe that these airbases may be used by the F-117 stealth bombers "officially" based at the Al-Udaid airbase in Qatar. Using these two locations minimizes the risk to the F-117s by allowing them to fly along the left bank of the Euphrates (in the direction of Turkey) and to avoid the dangerous maneuvering over Iraq.
The destruction of the telephone stations in Baghdad did nothing to disrupt the communications of the Iraqi army. The coalition command acknowledged this fact after analyzing the dense [Iraqi] radio traffic. Because of that the USAF was ordered to employ the most powerful available [conventional] munitions against predetermined strategic targets. This attacks will be carried out immediately before renewing ground advance.
WAR ON IRAK
Spiegel: Powell warnt Syrien und Iran
Die Iraker lassen sich längst nicht so schnell und leicht besiegen und von der Demokratie überzeugen, wie es sich viele in den USA vorgestellt haben. Washington hat deshalb offenbar schon die nächsten Gegner im Visier: Sie residieren in Damaskus und Teheran.
Washington - US-Außenminister Colin Powell rief Iran und Syrien auf, sich jetzt gegen den Terrorismus und für den Frieden zu entscheiden. Iran müsse sein Streben nach Massenvernichtungswaffen einstellen und seine "Opposition gegen alle Terrorgruppen erklären, die gegen den Friedensprozess im Nahen Osten arbeiten", sagte der Minister.
Syrien stehe ebenfalls vor einer entscheidenden Wahl: Die Regierung in Damaskus könne "mit der direkten Unterstützung für terroristische Gruppen und das sterbende Regime von Saddam Hussein fortfahren, oder es kann einen anderen, hoffnungsvolleren Kurs" einschlagen. "So oder so, hat Syrien die Verantwortung für seine Entscheidung und die Konsequenzen", stellte Powell klar
Spiegel: Powell warnt Syrien und Iran
Die Iraker lassen sich längst nicht so schnell und leicht besiegen und von der Demokratie überzeugen, wie es sich viele in den USA vorgestellt haben. Washington hat deshalb offenbar schon die nächsten Gegner im Visier: Sie residieren in Damaskus und Teheran.
Washington - US-Außenminister Colin Powell rief Iran und Syrien auf, sich jetzt gegen den Terrorismus und für den Frieden zu entscheiden. Iran müsse sein Streben nach Massenvernichtungswaffen einstellen und seine "Opposition gegen alle Terrorgruppen erklären, die gegen den Friedensprozess im Nahen Osten arbeiten", sagte der Minister.
Syrien stehe ebenfalls vor einer entscheidenden Wahl: Die Regierung in Damaskus könne "mit der direkten Unterstützung für terroristische Gruppen und das sterbende Regime von Saddam Hussein fortfahren, oder es kann einen anderen, hoffnungsvolleren Kurs" einschlagen. "So oder so, hat Syrien die Verantwortung für seine Entscheidung und die Konsequenzen", stellte Powell klar
WAR ON IRAK
The Mirror: Allied Generals Draw Up New Iraq War Plan
Rumsfeld Tactics Fail As Chief Admits:
"This is not what we war-gamed for."
IT has all begun to go horribly wrong for Donald Rumsfeld. The White House's No1 hawk dreamed of a swift, hi-tech precision war. Smart bombs and Special Forces would triumphantly sweep all before them.
Basra would revolt, Baghdad would follow. Saddam would be his. But, nine days in, it hasn't quite turned out like that.
And yesterday, as US Defence chief Donald Rumsfeld's grand design for a quick victory lay in tatters, the coalition's top brass were frantically redrawing battle plans. The rethink came as the US army's most senior ground commander admitted they had underestimated Iraqi tactics and the fierce levels of resistance.
Lt General William Wallace said: "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against, because of the paramilitary forces.
"We knew they were here, but we did not know how they would fight."
General Wallace, head of US 5th Corps, said he was aware of pressure for a quick victory, but admitted it will take longer than planned.
He said: "We've got to take this pause. We're still fighting the enemy every night. We're doing things to keep him operating at a higher tempo than the one we're at."
The general confessed he was stunned by Iraqi tactics.
He said: "The attacks we're seeing are bizarre. Technical vehicles with .50-calibre weapons - any kind of weapon - leading the charge. They were even charging tanks."
The Mirror: Allied Generals Draw Up New Iraq War Plan
Rumsfeld Tactics Fail As Chief Admits:
"This is not what we war-gamed for."
IT has all begun to go horribly wrong for Donald Rumsfeld. The White House's No1 hawk dreamed of a swift, hi-tech precision war. Smart bombs and Special Forces would triumphantly sweep all before them.
Basra would revolt, Baghdad would follow. Saddam would be his. But, nine days in, it hasn't quite turned out like that.
And yesterday, as US Defence chief Donald Rumsfeld's grand design for a quick victory lay in tatters, the coalition's top brass were frantically redrawing battle plans. The rethink came as the US army's most senior ground commander admitted they had underestimated Iraqi tactics and the fierce levels of resistance.
Lt General William Wallace said: "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against, because of the paramilitary forces.
"We knew they were here, but we did not know how they would fight."
General Wallace, head of US 5th Corps, said he was aware of pressure for a quick victory, but admitted it will take longer than planned.
He said: "We've got to take this pause. We're still fighting the enemy every night. We're doing things to keep him operating at a higher tempo than the one we're at."
The general confessed he was stunned by Iraqi tactics.
He said: "The attacks we're seeing are bizarre. Technical vehicles with .50-calibre weapons - any kind of weapon - leading the charge. They were even charging tanks."
911
NY Times: Undercutting the 9/11 Inquiry
It's hard to believe that everything related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks will not get the most thorough public scrutiny possible. But the federal investigative committee so reluctantly supported by the White House now seems in danger of being undermined. As the first hearings open in Manhattan today, committee members are chagrined to be going hat in hand to Congress for adequate financing. White House assurances led them to believe needed funds would be included in the supplemental war budget sent to the Capitol last week. But the commission's $11 million request was not there.
Reasonable people might wonder if the White House, having failed in its initial attempt to have Henry Kissinger steer the investigation, may be resorting to budgetary starvation as a tactic to hobble any politically fearless inquiry. The committee's mandate includes scrutiny of intelligence failures and eight other government areas.
The White House vows that in coming budget initiatives there will be no shortchanging of the nation's duty to face the facts of the tragedy. As things now stand, $3 million budgeted as start-up funding could run out this summer. An estimated $14 million is needed for the task of finding out precisely how the attackers were able to pull off their plot in which nearly 3,000 people died. This seems a bargain given the importance of the mission. By comparison, the inquiry into the shuttle disaster's loss of seven lives may cost an estimated $40 million, and the inquiry into the Whitewater controversy ate up more than $30 million.
The nation demands an unflinching 9/11 search. A forthright Congress could easily shake the money loose from the Capitol leadership. Everyone claims to have homeland security as a top priority, but anything less than a robust inquiry will amount to a fresh assault on domestic safety. Tim Roemer, a former congressman and a commission member now buttonholing old colleagues for the missing money, makes the case best: "Facing the facts won't kill us. Not getting them might."
NY Times: Undercutting the 9/11 Inquiry
It's hard to believe that everything related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks will not get the most thorough public scrutiny possible. But the federal investigative committee so reluctantly supported by the White House now seems in danger of being undermined. As the first hearings open in Manhattan today, committee members are chagrined to be going hat in hand to Congress for adequate financing. White House assurances led them to believe needed funds would be included in the supplemental war budget sent to the Capitol last week. But the commission's $11 million request was not there.
Reasonable people might wonder if the White House, having failed in its initial attempt to have Henry Kissinger steer the investigation, may be resorting to budgetary starvation as a tactic to hobble any politically fearless inquiry. The committee's mandate includes scrutiny of intelligence failures and eight other government areas.
The White House vows that in coming budget initiatives there will be no shortchanging of the nation's duty to face the facts of the tragedy. As things now stand, $3 million budgeted as start-up funding could run out this summer. An estimated $14 million is needed for the task of finding out precisely how the attackers were able to pull off their plot in which nearly 3,000 people died. This seems a bargain given the importance of the mission. By comparison, the inquiry into the shuttle disaster's loss of seven lives may cost an estimated $40 million, and the inquiry into the Whitewater controversy ate up more than $30 million.
The nation demands an unflinching 9/11 search. A forthright Congress could easily shake the money loose from the Capitol leadership. Everyone claims to have homeland security as a top priority, but anything less than a robust inquiry will amount to a fresh assault on domestic safety. Tim Roemer, a former congressman and a commission member now buttonholing old colleagues for the missing money, makes the case best: "Facing the facts won't kill us. Not getting them might."
WORLD WIDE PROTEST
BBC: No let-up in anti-war protests
Protesters across the world are taking to the streets this weekend to demand an end to the US-led war on Iraq.
Rallies have been taking place in the cities of Europe and the Americas, and, in Asia, China is due to hold its first officially sanctioned protests on Sunday.
Tactics among the protesters range from rallies under banners to a "die-in" in Genoa where people lay down in busy streets to simulate Iraqis killed in air raids, to a naked march through the streets of Bogota.
"The Yankees are gangsters," one speaker told a rally in Moscow, asking who would be the next US target after Iraq.
In the United States itself, the city of Boston held what observers said was the biggest march since the Vietnam War.
Tens of thousands, many of them students or academics, chanted "this is what democracy looks like".
Independent: Fresh wave of anger spreads worldwide, Human chain stretches from
Munster to Osnabruck in Germany as hundreds block Rhine-Main US air base
Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators around the world staged a fresh
wave
of peace protests yesterday, including the first officially sanctioned
anti-war marches in China. In a deliberately restrained criticism of
the
US-led war in Iraq, the Chinese authorities allowed 150 foreign
residents
to march past the US ambassador's residence and British embassy in
Beijing,
while another 100 protested in a walled park in east Beijing. The
rallies,
tightly scripted to avoid repeating the violent protests that followed
the
US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, came as hundreds
of
thousands of demonstrators again targeted US, British and Australian
military bases and embassies.
BBC: No let-up in anti-war protests
Protesters across the world are taking to the streets this weekend to demand an end to the US-led war on Iraq.
Rallies have been taking place in the cities of Europe and the Americas, and, in Asia, China is due to hold its first officially sanctioned protests on Sunday.
Tactics among the protesters range from rallies under banners to a "die-in" in Genoa where people lay down in busy streets to simulate Iraqis killed in air raids, to a naked march through the streets of Bogota.
"The Yankees are gangsters," one speaker told a rally in Moscow, asking who would be the next US target after Iraq.
In the United States itself, the city of Boston held what observers said was the biggest march since the Vietnam War.
Tens of thousands, many of them students or academics, chanted "this is what democracy looks like".
Independent: Fresh wave of anger spreads worldwide, Human chain stretches from
Munster to Osnabruck in Germany as hundreds block Rhine-Main US air base
Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators around the world staged a fresh
wave
of peace protests yesterday, including the first officially sanctioned
anti-war marches in China. In a deliberately restrained criticism of
the
US-led war in Iraq, the Chinese authorities allowed 150 foreign
residents
to march past the US ambassador's residence and British embassy in
Beijing,
while another 100 protested in a walled park in east Beijing. The
rallies,
tightly scripted to avoid repeating the violent protests that followed
the
US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, came as hundreds
of
thousands of demonstrators again targeted US, British and Australian
military bases and embassies.
WAR ON IRAK
Seattle Times: The Empire Falls Down
It wasn’t even a fair fight. I don’t know why they don’t just surrender.
—Col. Marc Hildenbrand, commander, 937th Engineer Group (Combat), near Najaf, Iraq, talking about resistance on the drive toward Baghdad.
You’d think people who come from the land built on slogans such as “Live Free or Die” or “Don’t Tread on Me” would understand something about grassroots resistance to invasion. Whatever you think about Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime, it is also true that the United States and its so-called “coalition” is an invading force. And it shouldn’t surprise us that the Iraqis are fighting back. Think of the boys who fought to the death to save Hitler.
How would we feel if America were invaded by “liberators?” Remember Red Dawn? I can safely say that if the Germans, Russians, French, or Canadians—or even the French Canadians—stormed into America to liberate us from George W. Bush, I would take up arms and fight them in the streets. Not because I love Bush and “freedom fries,” but damn it, this is our country, and he’s our problem.
The propaganda machine has convinced the troops and the American public that ours is an army of liberation. We expected to be welcomed like the Allies during WWII: with flowers, kisses, and flags. Our soldiers have even been supplied with pocketfuls of candy to hand out to the kids. Candy from a country that has helped starve thousands of Iraqi children to death with sanctions. Candy from a country that denies any interest in Iraqi oil, yet whose troops name their camps after oil companies like Shell. Candy from a country demanding “democracy” at the point of a gun. Candy from an ignorant pit-bull puppy loose in the world. There are 30 nations—generously interpreted—in our “coalition of the willing.” The other 170 countries are thinking, “Crikey, who’s next?”
Seattle Times: The Empire Falls Down
It wasn’t even a fair fight. I don’t know why they don’t just surrender.
—Col. Marc Hildenbrand, commander, 937th Engineer Group (Combat), near Najaf, Iraq, talking about resistance on the drive toward Baghdad.
You’d think people who come from the land built on slogans such as “Live Free or Die” or “Don’t Tread on Me” would understand something about grassroots resistance to invasion. Whatever you think about Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime, it is also true that the United States and its so-called “coalition” is an invading force. And it shouldn’t surprise us that the Iraqis are fighting back. Think of the boys who fought to the death to save Hitler.
How would we feel if America were invaded by “liberators?” Remember Red Dawn? I can safely say that if the Germans, Russians, French, or Canadians—or even the French Canadians—stormed into America to liberate us from George W. Bush, I would take up arms and fight them in the streets. Not because I love Bush and “freedom fries,” but damn it, this is our country, and he’s our problem.
The propaganda machine has convinced the troops and the American public that ours is an army of liberation. We expected to be welcomed like the Allies during WWII: with flowers, kisses, and flags. Our soldiers have even been supplied with pocketfuls of candy to hand out to the kids. Candy from a country that has helped starve thousands of Iraqi children to death with sanctions. Candy from a country that denies any interest in Iraqi oil, yet whose troops name their camps after oil companies like Shell. Candy from a country demanding “democracy” at the point of a gun. Candy from an ignorant pit-bull puppy loose in the world. There are 30 nations—generously interpreted—in our “coalition of the willing.” The other 170 countries are thinking, “Crikey, who’s next?”
FINANCE
Yahoo: 'TIME-TRAVELER' BUSTED FOR INSIDER TRADING
NEW YORK -- Federal investigators have arrested an enigmatic Wall Street wiz on insider-trading charges -- and incredibly, he claims to be a time-traveler from the year 2256!
Sources at the Security and Exchange Commission confirm that 44-year-old Andrew Carlssin offered the bizarre explanation for his uncanny success in the stock market after being led off in handcuffs on January 28.
"We don't believe this guy's story -- he's either a lunatic or a pathological liar," says an SEC insider.
"But the fact is, with an initial investment of only $800, in two weeks' time he had a portfolio valued at over $350 million. Every trade he made capitalized on unexpected business developments, which simply can't be pure luck.
"The only way he could pull it off is with illegal inside information. He's going to sit in a jail cell on Rikers Island until he agrees to give up his sources."
The past year of nose-diving stock prices has left most investors crying in their beer. So when Carlssin made a flurry of 126 high-risk trades and came out the winner every time, it raised the eyebrows of Wall Street watchdogs.
"If a company's stock rose due to a merger or technological breakthrough that was supposed to be secret, Mr. Carlssin somehow knew about it in advance," says the SEC source close to the hush-hush, ongoing investigation.
When investigators hauled Carlssin in for questioning, they got more than they bargained for: A mind-boggling four-hour confession.
Carlssin declared that he had traveled back in time from over 200 years in the future, when it is common knowledge that our era experienced one of the worst stock plunges in history. Yet anyone armed with knowledge of the handful of stocks destined to go through the roof could make a fortune.
"It was just too tempting to resist," Carlssin allegedly said in his videotaped confession. "I had planned to make it look natural, you know, lose a little here and there so it doesn't look too perfect. But I just got caught in the moment."
In a bid for leniency, Carlssin has reportedly offered to divulge "historical facts" such as the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and a cure for AIDS.
All he wants is to be allowed to return to the future in his "time craft."
However, he refuses to reveal the location of the machine or discuss how it works, supposedly out of fear the technology could "fall into the wrong hands."
Officials are quite confident the "time-traveler's" claims are bogus. Yet the SEC source admits, "No one can find any record of any Andrew Carlssin existing anywhere before December 2002."
Yahoo: 'TIME-TRAVELER' BUSTED FOR INSIDER TRADING
NEW YORK -- Federal investigators have arrested an enigmatic Wall Street wiz on insider-trading charges -- and incredibly, he claims to be a time-traveler from the year 2256!
Sources at the Security and Exchange Commission confirm that 44-year-old Andrew Carlssin offered the bizarre explanation for his uncanny success in the stock market after being led off in handcuffs on January 28.
"We don't believe this guy's story -- he's either a lunatic or a pathological liar," says an SEC insider.
"But the fact is, with an initial investment of only $800, in two weeks' time he had a portfolio valued at over $350 million. Every trade he made capitalized on unexpected business developments, which simply can't be pure luck.
"The only way he could pull it off is with illegal inside information. He's going to sit in a jail cell on Rikers Island until he agrees to give up his sources."
The past year of nose-diving stock prices has left most investors crying in their beer. So when Carlssin made a flurry of 126 high-risk trades and came out the winner every time, it raised the eyebrows of Wall Street watchdogs.
"If a company's stock rose due to a merger or technological breakthrough that was supposed to be secret, Mr. Carlssin somehow knew about it in advance," says the SEC source close to the hush-hush, ongoing investigation.
When investigators hauled Carlssin in for questioning, they got more than they bargained for: A mind-boggling four-hour confession.
Carlssin declared that he had traveled back in time from over 200 years in the future, when it is common knowledge that our era experienced one of the worst stock plunges in history. Yet anyone armed with knowledge of the handful of stocks destined to go through the roof could make a fortune.
"It was just too tempting to resist," Carlssin allegedly said in his videotaped confession. "I had planned to make it look natural, you know, lose a little here and there so it doesn't look too perfect. But I just got caught in the moment."
In a bid for leniency, Carlssin has reportedly offered to divulge "historical facts" such as the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden and a cure for AIDS.
All he wants is to be allowed to return to the future in his "time craft."
However, he refuses to reveal the location of the machine or discuss how it works, supposedly out of fear the technology could "fall into the wrong hands."
Officials are quite confident the "time-traveler's" claims are bogus. Yet the SEC source admits, "No one can find any record of any Andrew Carlssin existing anywhere before December 2002."
WAR ON IRAK
Arabicnews.com:American organizations condemn bombardment of the Iraqi TV
The Human rights and mass media watch defense organizations on Wednesday denounced the US bombardment of the Iraqi TV center, considering that it does not represent a legitimate target.
The director of the Human Rights Watch Organization which takes New York as a headquarters Kenneth Roth said " TV stations can not be attacked just for the fact they are used for campaigning activities." He added that the US "has to explain how an attack against the Iraqi TV will be useful for a military operation," considering that this attack is considered a violation for international laws.
Arabicnews.com:American organizations condemn bombardment of the Iraqi TV
The Human rights and mass media watch defense organizations on Wednesday denounced the US bombardment of the Iraqi TV center, considering that it does not represent a legitimate target.
The director of the Human Rights Watch Organization which takes New York as a headquarters Kenneth Roth said " TV stations can not be attacked just for the fact they are used for campaigning activities." He added that the US "has to explain how an attack against the Iraqi TV will be useful for a military operation," considering that this attack is considered a violation for international laws.
WAR ON IRAK
Pravda: Resignation of US "Hawk" Exposes Iraqi War as Pursuing Commercial Gain
Washington did not expect such a shameful setback. At the height of the most righteous war for a liberated and democratic Iraq, its main proponent was caught out in a corruption scandal. The person who resigned "over a conflict of business interests" was none other than Richard Pearle, head of the Pentagon's defence policy commission.
It is equivalent to taking a handcuffed pastor away during a pious sermon for stealing.
While still a deputy defence secretary in the Ronald Reagan administration, Pearle won the nickname of "Prince of Darkness" for his unparalleled obscurantism over nuclear arms control. He was the most zealous advocate of abandoning the ABM Treaty, a most cherished dream of his, which was fulfilled under George W. Bush.
The Prince of Darkness rules the roost within a narrow circle of neo-Conservative intellectuals who preach the doctrine of the "new American century", that is a sort of US historical mission as the main architect of a new global system. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under-Secretary John Bolton and head of the US vice-presidential administration Lewis Libby, are all the prince's close associates and friends.
Pravda: Resignation of US "Hawk" Exposes Iraqi War as Pursuing Commercial Gain
Washington did not expect such a shameful setback. At the height of the most righteous war for a liberated and democratic Iraq, its main proponent was caught out in a corruption scandal. The person who resigned "over a conflict of business interests" was none other than Richard Pearle, head of the Pentagon's defence policy commission.
It is equivalent to taking a handcuffed pastor away during a pious sermon for stealing.
While still a deputy defence secretary in the Ronald Reagan administration, Pearle won the nickname of "Prince of Darkness" for his unparalleled obscurantism over nuclear arms control. He was the most zealous advocate of abandoning the ABM Treaty, a most cherished dream of his, which was fulfilled under George W. Bush.
The Prince of Darkness rules the roost within a narrow circle of neo-Conservative intellectuals who preach the doctrine of the "new American century", that is a sort of US historical mission as the main architect of a new global system. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Under-Secretary John Bolton and head of the US vice-presidential administration Lewis Libby, are all the prince's close associates and friends.
WAR ON IRAK
Sunday Herald: US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'
BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.
Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.
Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent
According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts
Sunday Herald: US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal'
BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.
Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.
Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent
According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts
WAR ON IRAK
Progressive.org: Now They Cite the Toll of Sanctions
At the Bush-Blair press conference on March 27, I heard an increasingly common and absolutely shameful justification for this Iraq war.
Tony Blair was the one who uttered it. To illustrate the brutality of Saddam's regime, Blair said, "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living."
But that's not exactly right. All those children died, in large part, because the United Nations--at the behest of Britain and the United States--insisted upon maintaining economic sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions prevented basic items from getting to Iraq, items like chlorine to purify the water supply there. And, yes, Saddam is partially responsible, as well. If he had obeyed U.N. Security Council resolutions, those sanctions might have been lifted.
This is the bottom of the barrel of immorality. During the Clinton Administration, Madeleine Albright notoriously told Lesley Stahl of Sixty Minutes that this civilian death toll was "worth it." Albright understood and acknowledged U.S. complicity in those deaths, but accepted them anyway. That was bad enough.
Now Blair and Bush have finally discovered the sanctions issue themselves, but they refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for those deaths and instead seize upon them simply to justify their war of aggression.
Progressive.org: Now They Cite the Toll of Sanctions
At the Bush-Blair press conference on March 27, I heard an increasingly common and absolutely shameful justification for this Iraq war.
Tony Blair was the one who uttered it. To illustrate the brutality of Saddam's regime, Blair said, "Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living."
But that's not exactly right. All those children died, in large part, because the United Nations--at the behest of Britain and the United States--insisted upon maintaining economic sanctions on Iraq. These sanctions prevented basic items from getting to Iraq, items like chlorine to purify the water supply there. And, yes, Saddam is partially responsible, as well. If he had obeyed U.N. Security Council resolutions, those sanctions might have been lifted.
This is the bottom of the barrel of immorality. During the Clinton Administration, Madeleine Albright notoriously told Lesley Stahl of Sixty Minutes that this civilian death toll was "worth it." Albright understood and acknowledged U.S. complicity in those deaths, but accepted them anyway. That was bad enough.
Now Blair and Bush have finally discovered the sanctions issue themselves, but they refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for those deaths and instead seize upon them simply to justify their war of aggression.
Sunday, March 30, 2003
WAR ON IRAK
Independent: Robert Fisk: In Baghdad, blood and bandages for the Innocent
The piece of metal is only a foot high, but the numbers on it hold the clue to the latest atrocity in Baghdad.
At least 62 civilians had died by yesterday afternoon, and the coding on that hunk of metal contains the identity of the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their best yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed those dozens of lives, adding that they were "still investigating" the carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic. And many of the survivors heard the plane.
In the Al-Noor hospital yesterday morning, there were appalling scenes of pain and suffering. A two-year-old girl, Saida Jaffar, swaddled in bandages, a tube into her nose, another into her stomach. All I could see of her was her forehead, two small eyes and a chin. Beside her, blood and flies covered a heap of old bandages and swabs. Not far away, lying on a dirty bed, was three-year-old Mohamed Amaid, his face, stomach, hands and feet all tied tightly in bandages. A great black mass of congealed blood lay at the bottom of his bed.
This is a hospital without computers, with only the most primitive of X-ray machines. But the missile was guided by computers and that vital shard of fuselage was computer-coded. It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans – if they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number. It is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09.
The piece of metal bearing the codings was retrieved only minutes after the missile exploded on Friday evening, by an old man whose home is only 100 yards from the 6ft crater. Even the Iraqi authorities do not know that it exists. The missile sprayed hunks of metal through the crowds – mainly women and children – and through the cheap brick walls of local homes, amputating limbs and heads. Three brothers, the eldest 21 and the youngest 12, for example, were cut down inside the living room of their brick hut on the main road opposite the market. Two doors away, two sisters were killed in an identical manner. "We have never seen anything like these wounds before," Dr Ahmed, an anaesthetist at the Al-Noor hospital told me later. "These people have been punctured by dozens of bits of metal." He was right. One old man I visited in a hospital ward had 24 holes in the back of his legs and buttocks, some as big as pound coins. An X-ray photograph handed to me by one of his doctors clearly showed at least 35 slivers of metal still embedded in his body
Independent: Robert Fisk: In Baghdad, blood and bandages for the Innocent
The piece of metal is only a foot high, but the numbers on it hold the clue to the latest atrocity in Baghdad.
At least 62 civilians had died by yesterday afternoon, and the coding on that hunk of metal contains the identity of the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their best yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed those dozens of lives, adding that they were "still investigating" the carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic. And many of the survivors heard the plane.
In the Al-Noor hospital yesterday morning, there were appalling scenes of pain and suffering. A two-year-old girl, Saida Jaffar, swaddled in bandages, a tube into her nose, another into her stomach. All I could see of her was her forehead, two small eyes and a chin. Beside her, blood and flies covered a heap of old bandages and swabs. Not far away, lying on a dirty bed, was three-year-old Mohamed Amaid, his face, stomach, hands and feet all tied tightly in bandages. A great black mass of congealed blood lay at the bottom of his bed.
This is a hospital without computers, with only the most primitive of X-ray machines. But the missile was guided by computers and that vital shard of fuselage was computer-coded. It can be easily verified and checked by the Americans – if they choose to do so. It reads: 30003-704ASB 7492. The letter "B" is scratched and could be an "H". This is believed to be the serial number. It is followed by a further code which arms manufacturers usually refer to as the weapon's "Lot" number. It reads: MFR 96214 09.
The piece of metal bearing the codings was retrieved only minutes after the missile exploded on Friday evening, by an old man whose home is only 100 yards from the 6ft crater. Even the Iraqi authorities do not know that it exists. The missile sprayed hunks of metal through the crowds – mainly women and children – and through the cheap brick walls of local homes, amputating limbs and heads. Three brothers, the eldest 21 and the youngest 12, for example, were cut down inside the living room of their brick hut on the main road opposite the market. Two doors away, two sisters were killed in an identical manner. "We have never seen anything like these wounds before," Dr Ahmed, an anaesthetist at the Al-Noor hospital told me later. "These people have been punctured by dozens of bits of metal." He was right. One old man I visited in a hospital ward had 24 holes in the back of his legs and buttocks, some as big as pound coins. An X-ray photograph handed to me by one of his doctors clearly showed at least 35 slivers of metal still embedded in his body
WAR ON IRAK
Observer: 'Liberation' is not freedom
Iraqis mistrust the intentions of the West, and a history of failures supports their attitude
The fierce resistance that British and American troops have encountered must have come as a very unpleasant surprise to Tony Blair and George Bush. They assumed Saddam Hussein was so unpopular and isolated that the Iraqi people would welcome the troops as liberators and help them to overthrow his regime.
But the popular uprising has not materialised. However much they detest Saddam's regime, a great many Iraqis view the coalition forces as invaders rather than liberators. Our leaders gravely underestimated the force of Iraqi nationalism.
Observer: 'Liberation' is not freedom
Iraqis mistrust the intentions of the West, and a history of failures supports their attitude
The fierce resistance that British and American troops have encountered must have come as a very unpleasant surprise to Tony Blair and George Bush. They assumed Saddam Hussein was so unpopular and isolated that the Iraqi people would welcome the troops as liberators and help them to overthrow his regime.
But the popular uprising has not materialised. However much they detest Saddam's regime, a great many Iraqis view the coalition forces as invaders rather than liberators. Our leaders gravely underestimated the force of Iraqi nationalism.
WAR ON IRAK
SKYnews: Bush Sr. Warned Against Baghdad War In 1998
Another voice against the current action in Iraq comes from none other that President Bush's father, George Bush Senior.
"We should not march into Baghdad," he wrote in his 1998 book, A World Transformed.
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war.
"It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
SKYnews: Bush Sr. Warned Against Baghdad War In 1998
Another voice against the current action in Iraq comes from none other that President Bush's father, George Bush Senior.
"We should not march into Baghdad," he wrote in his 1998 book, A World Transformed.
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war.
"It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
WAR ON IRAK
ABC: US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush
They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.
Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.
"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.
The pamphlet, produced by a group called In Touch Ministries, offers a daily prayer to be made for the US president, a born-again Christian who likes to invoke his God in speeches.
Sunday's is "Pray that the President and his advisers will seek God and his wisdom daily and not rely on their own understanding".
Monday's reads "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics".
ABC: US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush
They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.
Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.
"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.
The pamphlet, produced by a group called In Touch Ministries, offers a daily prayer to be made for the US president, a born-again Christian who likes to invoke his God in speeches.
Sunday's is "Pray that the President and his advisers will seek God and his wisdom daily and not rely on their own understanding".
Monday's reads "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)