Author: Mike Ewens

Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda’s Ranks, Report Says

Can’t say I’m surprised…in fact, I and many other critics of the war on Iraq used just this very scenario as an argument against intervention. I suspected that those who supported the march to war understood that this was an inevitable effect of invading an Arab nation. The question remains: did those same war-advocates believe the supposed “gains” from invading Iraq outweigh these and other costs? Or, perhaps their reason was blinded by a desire for revenge. I admit, I may be presenting a false dichotomy, but it still seems reasonable to me.

The report cited above claims that their was a “plus” to the invasion of Iraq:

“On the plus side, war in Iraq has denied al Qaeda a potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction and discouraged state sponsors of terrorism from continuing to support it,” the report said.

Um, what WMD? In fact, as Paul Sperry reported, the Bush administration was told by its intelligence services that an invasion of Iraq would be one of the only ways that bin Laden et al could receive such weapons. Sperry quotes the report:

“Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.”

Sufficiently desperate? If he “feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime,” the report explained.

“In such circumstances,” it added, “he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.”
In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even consider taking the “extreme step” of reaching out to al-Qaida, an organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He wasn’t about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with al-Qaida – unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime.

qed

A reader directed me to an article that shows the wounded count I keep at Antiwar.com may be “way off base.” From the Army Public Affairs:

As of Sept. 16, Landstuhl[U.S. base in Germany] has treated approximately 6,000 service members from Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1,800 patients from Operation Enduring Freedom.

Note that this is a gov’t website. Now, add this account of casualties that arrive in the US:

“Since the war has started, I [ Lieutenant-Colonel Allen DeLane, who is in charge of the airlift of the wounded into Andrews air base] can’t give you an exact number because that’s classified information, but I can say to you over 4,000 have stayed here at Andrews, and that number doubles when you count the people that come here to Andrews and then we send them to other places like Walter Reed and Bethesda, which are in this area also.”

If these two numbers are valid (and disjoint sets), then the “real” total number of wounded is upwards of 10,000. I gather that some, or perhaps even a lot of these casualties are those who fall ill, trip on a stick or suffer from other “non-combat” injuries. Nonetheless, the total will still be higher than any official release.

The current count of wounded (see top right corner of the blog page) is 1507. This number is based on my own running tally of injuries coupled with the official CentCom and DOD releases. Perhaps I should distinguish between “Maximum Wounded” and “Minimum Wounded.” Thoughts?

From “turning-tables” — a blog written by a US soldier in Baghdad:

at the doors of the palace there are filipino guards in tan uniforms…i think they are part of a civilian security company…brought in by the u.s….i recognize the uniforms…they had them in doha…but in kuwait they were americans…guarding all the gates to doha and arifjan…I read yesterday that close to a third of the billion dollars a week that we are spending out here goes straight into contractors pockets…I can believe it…we’ve got some civilian dudes out here who are doing my exact job as contractors…they are each getting paid $120,000 a year…they’re both 26 years old…the money is out there…but money isn’t everything…

Brendan O’Neill writes:

For all the claims about saboteurs bringing Iraq to its knees, it was the coalition’s war that devastated Iraq. As the war was coming to an end in late April, the International Committee of the Red Cross claimed that: ‘This country has collapsed. Nothing works – no phones, no electricity, no schools, no proper medical care, no transportation.’ (9) Towards the end of the war, 32 out of Baghdad’s 35 hospitals were forced to close, while the war’s impact on electricity meant that ‘pumping plants are often shut down, cutting off water for hours at a time’ (10). Yet according to yesterday’s Glasgow Herald, it is a ‘wave of sabotage’ that has ‘pour[ed] misery on Iraq’ (11).

Simply, the US deserves as much blame for the dire situation in Iraq as the “guerilla fighters” who are attempting to thwart the occupation.

“Turning Tables” — a US soldier “blogging” from Baghdad — Read more…

Apparently Paul Wolfwitz has begun reading Antiwar.com:

“I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq,” said Wolfowitz, who is touring the country to meet U.S. troops and Iraqi officials.

“Those who want to come and help are welcome,” he said. “Those who come to interfere and destroy are not.”

This clearly contradicts his bosses desires:

Speaking at his Texas ranch with the leader of one supportive country, Premier Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Bush said, “The more people involved in Iraq, the better off we will be.”