Antiwar.com Blog

A Jordanian company has vowed to pull out of Iraq in response to the demands of kidnappers who hold two of it’s employees. A Saudi Arabian company did likewise a few weeks ago. I can’t help but wonder if these companies aren’t feeling a sense of relief to have a legitimate excuse to get out of Iraq. With operating costs so high due to the need for massive security, it is possible that the companies are making very little or losing money in Iraq, as well as placing all their personnel at extreme risk. Collier Lounsbury writes that even Halliburton might be losing money in Iraq.

In a demonstration of just how much territory they control, an Iraqi rebel group has announced that they will close the vital Jordan-Baghdad highway in 72 hours:

Militants bent on disrupting the supply chain to the U.S. military threatened Tuesday to cut the highway linking Iraq to Jordan in 72 hours and said it would hit at Jordanians as well as Americans.

The threat, from a group calling itself “The Group of Death,” was made in a video obtained by Associated Press Television News. The video showed seven men wearing black clothing and masks armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers and rifles.

The group’s warning comes amid a wave of kidnappings of foreigners, mainly truck drivers, entering Iraq from neighboring countries to deliver supplies and other cargo needed for this war-ravaged nation’s reconstruction effort.

A militant who read a statement on the tape criticized Jordan, Iraq’s western neighbor, for letting trucking firms enter Iraq to support the U.S.-led coalition.

“We consider all Jordanian interests, companies and businessmen and citizens as much a target as the Americans,” the speaker said.

You might remember that the insurgency successfully cut off US military supply routes before, to the point that Bremer and the rest of the Fortress Green Zone occupants were eating MREs. Clearly, the guerillas are slowly isolating the Americans by driving businesses out of Iraq, assassinations and attacks on collaborators, and relentless attacks on US military positions. Consider this bit from Knight Ridder’s Tom Lassiter:

“After more than a year of fighting, U.S. troops have stopped patrolling large swaths of Iraq’s restive Anbar province, according to the top American military intelligence officer in the area…. In the wreckage of the security situation, [Army Maj. Thomas] Neemeyer [the head American intelligence officer for the 1st Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, the main military force in the Ramadi area] said, U.S. officials have all but given up on plans to install a democratic government in the city [Ramadi], and are hoping instead that Islamic extremists and other insurgent groups don’t overrun the province in the same way that they’ve seized the region’s most infamous town, Fallujah…

“‘The only way to stomp out the insurgency of the mind,’ [Capt. Joe Jasper, a spokesman for the 1st Brigade] said, ‘would be to kill the entire population’… Pointing to a neighborhood outside the town of Habbaniyah, between Fallujah and Ramadi, he said, ‘We’ve lost a lot of Marines there and we don’t ever go in anymore. If they want it that bad, they can have it.’ And then to a spot on the western edge of Fallujah: ‘We find that if we don’t go there, they won’t shoot us.'”

“If they want it that bad, they can have it.” How long before this line is in a Bush or Kerry speech?

I’ll skip the standard analysis of the Dems’ first night – OK, Al Gore was kinda funny, Bill Clinton was kinda funny – and focus on a face in the crowd. At one point, Clinton said something ostensibly inspiring – I can’t remember what, which is probably comment enough – and the camera glommed on a middle-aged delegate who was beaming as if she had just regained the gift of sight. Her smile was bright, earnest, and unsettling. For behind that smile (and we’ll see more of them a month from now in New York) was the timeless hope that some Great Man holds the remedy. Make jobs! Heal the sick! End hate! Stop terror! Defeat evil!

And I would forgive these folks for insulting my intelligence if their fantasies didn’t entail stealing my money, shrinking my freedom, and encouraging foreigners to kill me. Which is not to say that I find all of the bright, earnest, smilers’ goals repugnant. As Christopher Preble and Justin Logan wrote regarding one do-gooder project in a Cato Institute op-ed Monday,

If the neoconservatives were simply seeking to head up a liberal Lincoln Brigade to fight tyranny across the globe, we would happily lend them our moral support and well wishes. But the U.S. military is not a Lincoln Brigade. It exists to defend the country from threats.

You say ya got a real solution? We’d all love to see the plan. But ya better take that gun from my temple. And you should really work on finding better Messiahs for yourselves.

The US Government has granted status as “protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention” to 3,800 persons who belong to a group, the Mujahideen-e Khalq or MEK, designated “terrorist” by Washington, according to the Czar of American Gulags-Iraq Branch, Major-General Geoffrey Miller (formerly of the Guantanamo Bay Branch.)

For a quick run-down on MEK, I’ll quote AntiWar’s own Justin Raimondo, writing somewhat prophetically last January:

MEK is a formerly Marxist group with odd, cultic overtones. Led by Maryam Rajavi, the self-proclaimed “President Elect” of Iran, and her husband, Massoud, head of the group’s military wing, they originally supported Khomeini when he overthrew the Shah, and carried out terroristic attacks on Americans, only to turn against the regime.

MEK took up residence in Iraq, where they were given sanctuary and armed by Saddam Hussein. They fought against their own country – on the Iraqi side – during the long Iran-Iraq war. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq, MEK carried out military operations in defense of the Ba’athist regime, and its main base came under attack by U.S. forces. MEK agreed to capitulate, but there was some question about to what extent they disarmed. Even today their main force remains intact.

Their fate has become a political football, pitting the U.S. State Department against the neoconservatives in Washington who now have Iran fixed in their sights. The neocons are pushing the idea that we can use the MEK to overthrow the Iranian regime: this is the same group that tried to ingratiate itself with the Bush administration by sharing “intelligence” that supposedly pointed to Iran’s intention of developing a nuclear weapons program.

U.S. law enforcement conducted a series of raids that rounded up prominent MEK cadre, closed down their offices, and froze their assets, but, operating under the protection of Washington’s War Party, these terrorists are freely going about their business, and even gaining open support from prominent U.S. government officials, like Perle. What’s interesting is that their support cuts across ideological and party lines.
[..]
Does it matter that MEK is a Marxist cult with a violent history, and longstanding links to the regime of Saddam Hussein – and that the group helped put down the 1991 Shi’ite rebellion, in which many thousands were killed or forced to flee? Does it matter to Pipes and Clawson that support for the MEK nutballs only discredits the U.S.?

Of course not. All that matters is the neoconservative goal of overthrowing the regime in Tehran.

Yes. Add this bit to the plethora of “Iran is next” speculation we’ve seen recently as well as the ridiculous “Iran helped Al Qaeda do 9/11” story currently making the rounds of neocon mouthpieces and listen carefully for the sound of neocon wardrums – they’re getting louder as they grow more and more desperate to get on with their next mideast invasion.

The second chapter of the 9/11 report chronicles the growth of modern Islamic terrorism, specifically the history of al Qaeda.

Why Do They Hate “US”?

One of the biggest disagreements between pro-war and anti-war pundits concerns the basis of the terrorists’ hatred towards America. Were those nineteen terrorists screaming “Down with freedom, capitalism and Western values!” when they crashed those planes? Or rather, did they scream “Down with American foreign policy!”? Bin Ladin admits to hating Western values, willing to kill all people associated with America. Still, where does this hatred come from. If you ask pro-war pundit Bill Kristol, he believes that it has nothing to do with foreign policy. The 9/11 report begins to address this issue in Chapter 2:

“Many Americans have wondered, ‘Why do ‘they’ hate us?’ Some also ask, ‘What can we do to stop these attacks?’ Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions.To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as ‘your agents'” (page 51)

But here is the kicker:

“Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper.” (ibid.)

Saddam and Osama: A First Look

I found four instances of the supposed “Saddam/Osama” alliance in chapter two. Each indicates that there is little evidence for such a claim, and clearly no link between Saddam and 9/11. I quote each instance here: Continue reading “Notes on Chapter 2 of the 9/11 Report”

This is a test

The members of the 9/11 commission claim that their report attempts "to provide the most complete account . . . of the events of September 11, what happened and why." (xvii) I decided to buy a copy and see for myself how well they perform. Chapter One sets out to detail the events of 9/11 and the government’s reaction to it. Given that many already know most of the details of that day, I will merely highlight some of the interesting points and themes that emerge from the chapter.

Government Responsibility

It was refreshing to see government criticize itself. First on the FAA’s failure to communicate the existence of multiple hijackings:

"Several FAA air traffic control officials told us it was the air carriers’ responsibility to notify their planes of security problems. One senior FAA air traffic control manager said that it was simply not the FAA’s place to order the airlines what to tell their pilots. We believe such statements do not reflect an adequate appreciation of the FAA’s responsibility for the safety and security of civil aviation. " (page 11)

and
"Most federal agencies learned about the crash in New York from CNN." (page 35)
Symbols?
In describing Flight 93, which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, the commission believes that the main motivation of Jarrah – the lead hijacker and pilot – "was to crash into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House." (pg 14) Since when were those two building symbols of the American Republic? Perhaps instead, Jarrah wanted to hit at the central node of federal power. One suspects that this type of emotion saturated rhetoric will be found throughout the book.
Protect the State First, Citizens…Next
The report details the administration’s response after the attacks began:
"At 9:59, an Air Force lieutenant colonel working in the White House Military Office joined the conference and stated that he has just talked top Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The White House requested (1) the implementation of continuity of government measures, (2) fighter escorts for Air Force One and (3) a fighter combat patrol over Washington D.C." (page 38)
Before this conference, there was a White House teleconference:
"The first topic addressed in the White House video teleconference — at about 9:40—was the physical security of the President, the White House, and federal agencies. " (page 36) Continue reading “Notes on Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Report”