Antiwar.com Blog

I suppose Tony Parsons’ apology of sorts in yesterday’s Daily Mirror is a giant step forward on the road to that warmonger’s redemption. And yet, his argument is tained by a simple fact that his comparison (Slobodan Milosevic and Tony Blair) is facetious.
Parsons assumes Milosevic was guilty of aggression and atrocities, calling him “the man at the top, and the indisputable architect of a mountain of misery.”
Indisputable? Not so. In fact, Milosevic’s exact role in the Balkans Mountain of Misery is very much in dispute. Evidence presented at his “trial” shows only that the prosecutors have a rich but depraved imagination.
On the other hand, Blair’s atrocities, lies and aggression are all amply documented, because he took pride in them. The question, then, isn’t “Why isn’t Blair on trial if Milosevic is?” but “Why is Milosevic on trial, and not Blair?” Or Clinton. Or Albright. Or Holbrooke. Or Robertson. Or any other Imperial official with blood on his or her hands from 1999.
We’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer. Or any answer at all.

“Next Door to Mohammed Atta”:

The Mossad apparently warned their American counterparts several times about the terrorists, especially about al-Midhar. … Apparently not until shortly before September 11 did the CIA recognize that al-Midhar was dangerous and asked law enforcement agencies to look for him.

“FBI Agent Was Prevented From Relaying Warning on 9/11 Hijackers“:

More than a year before 9/11, CIA officials prevented an FBI agent working with the CIA from passing vital information to his agency on two suspected al Qaeda members — men who later would become Sept. 11 hijackers.

U.S. officials told ABCNEWS the agent wanted to warn his FBI bosses about a gathering in Malaysia where al Qaeda suspects Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi met with suspects in the Oct. 12, 2000, bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen.

After the meeting, CIA officials learned Al-Midhar and Alhamzi had visas to enter the United States, the U.S. officials said. …

“If that information [got] disseminated, would it have had an impact on the events of 9/11?” asked Jack Cloonan, an ABCNEWS consultant who previously worked as an FBI agent assigned to pursue members of al Qaeda. “I’m telling you that it would have.” …

Al-Midhar left the United States and came back just two months before 9/11 attacks — no questions asked. He arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, using his own name.

Also see “Blinking Red,” “Did Al Qaeda Exploit Government Jihad Support?,” and “Preserved in Amber, Blind to Terror.”

The claim is that it is revenge for the torture of detained Iraqis in US military prisons.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit – similar to a prisoner’s uniform – who identified himself as Nick Berg, a contractor from West Chester, Pa., whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

“So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins … slaughtered in this way.”

The video bore the title “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American.” It was unclear whether al-Zarqawi – a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden – was shown in the video, or was claiming responsibility for ordering the execution.

The man was found today on an overpass in Baghdad. The military described the body as “showing signs of trauma.”

CORRECTION: The body was found Saturday. The announcement was made today.

UPDATE: The Guardian adds some dialogue:

“How can a free Muslim sleep well as he sees Islam slaughtered and its dignity bleeding, and the pictures of shame and the news of the devilish scorn of the people of Islam – men and women – in the prison of Abu Ghraib?” the speaker said on the video.
[…]
In the video, the speaker threatened both US President George Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

“As for you Bush … expect severe days. You and your soldiers will regret the day you stepped into the land of Iraq,” he said. He described Mr Musharraf as “a traitor agent.”

More from the Guardian piece:

Mr Berg was in Baghdad from late December to February 1 and returned to Iraq in March. He failed to find work and planned again to return home on March 30, but his daily communications with his family stopped on March 24. He later told his parents he was jailed by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in the northern city of Mosul.

On April 5, the Bergs filed a lawsuit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the US military. The next day Mr Berg was released. He told his parents he had not been mistreated.

The Bergs last heard from their son April 9, when he said he would come home by way of Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait.

Suzanne Berg said the family had been trying for weeks to learn where her son was but that federal officials had not been helpful.

“I went through this with them for weeks,” she said. “I basically ended up doing most of the investigating myself.”

This is a good post by Steve Gilliard referencing Juan Cole on the subject of the Spanish refusal to accept the suicide mission to bring al Sadr in “dead or alive,” which was what the Bushie Americans asked them to do. Steve points out that the US military is acting as a de facto proxy force for the Shi`a clerics opposed to al Sadr, and how stupid it is to be in that position. Next up watch for the US to use SCIRI, which most Shi`a think of as Iranian tools, against al Sadr, unleashing a Shi`a-Shi`a civil war.

Several blogging soldiers have pointed out how egregiously bad was Donald Rumsfeld’s inability to cite the chain of command leading from the “six morons” to the top. A non-military person would be likely to miss this:

Arkhangel:

I saw Don Rumsfeld’s testimony today, and there is no honor. Certainly, the other men present at the witness table did not acquit themselves well, but in the end, it comes down to Rumsfeld and the President. And there is no honor.

“Who was in charge? What was the chain of command?” Simple questions, these. Asked by John McCain, an honorable man. Simple questions, deserving of a simple answer. But the simple answer never made it past the lips of the Secretary. There were evasions and dodges, a dance of deceit, if you will.

No one was in charge, it seems–because that way, the only people who suffer punishment are the sergeants and privates in the photographs and videos. And as for the chain of command, well…uh…well, that was left behind somewhere in the recesses of the Pentagon. And there is no honor in that.

Phil Carter:

Sen. John McCain’s audition for a job in the U.S. Attorney’s office went quite well, in my opinion. He asked simple, direct questions like “What is the chain of command from the guards to you, Sec. Rumsfeld?” and “What were the guards’ orders?” These questions are critical. Anyone who’s been through basic training can tell you that one of the first things you learn is your chain of command, from you to the President. Moreover, every recruit learns the general orders of a sentry, and learns that knowing one’s orders is critical to mission success. Yet, Secretary Rumsfeld could not answer either simple question. He tapdanced around the question, but ultimately, never gave Sen. McCain an answer as to the line of command from PV2 Joe Snuffy up to the Secretary of Defense. PV2 Snuffy has to know that; shouldn’t the SecDef? That’s bad.

Now, via Muslim WakeUp, there is this pointer to a Josh Marshall post, who’s musing on a certain infamous figure in the chain of command:

In many of the articles on this emerging Iraqi prisoners story, it has been claimed that some of the key instigators or enablers of bad acts were military intelligence officers.

Now, who’s the head of military intelligence? ‘Head’ is too vague. There’s no such post per se. But what comes pretty close is the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

And who’s that? Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin.

Remember him? He’s the one who got in trouble last year for describing his battle with a Muslim Somali warlord by saying “I knew that my God was bigger than his God. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol”, saying President Bush was chosen by God, and generally that the war on terror is an apocalyptic struggle between Christianity and Satan.

Last fall, after Boykin’s efforts to channel Charlemagne or perhaps Urban II became known, he asked Don Rumsfeld to initiate an ‘investigation’ into whether his comments “violated any Pentagon rules or procedures” whatever that might mean. Just this week it was reported that the ‘investigation’ still continues; and Boykin has not been disciplined in any way.

In any case, I doubt very much that all this mess we’ve gotten ourselves into is attributable to this one man. But at what point in this scandal does someone ask whether some of this might have some connection to the fact that the guy running military intelligence believes the war on terror is a literal holy war pitting Christian America against Satan and his Muslim minions?

Here’s a story from the Guardian, reported in December of 2003, which you will recall is a date when the torture at US military prisons in Iraq was still in full swing:

Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq

Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

The Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has sent urban warfare specialists to Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US special forces, and according to two sources, Israeli military “consultants” have also visited Iraq.

US forces in Iraq’s Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics that echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centres of resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have been launched against US troops.

But the secret war in Iraq is about to get much tougher, in the hope of suppressing the Ba’athist-led insurgency ahead of next November’s presidential elections.
[…]
Colonel Ralph Peters, a former army intelligence officer and a critic of Pentagon policy in Iraq, said yesterday there was nothing wrong with learning lessons wherever possible.

“When we turn to anyone for insights, it doesn’t mean we blindly accept it,” Col Peters said. “But I think what you’re seeing is a new realism. The American tendency is to try to win all the hearts and minds. In Iraq, there are just some hearts and minds you can’t win. Within the bounds of human rights, if you do make an example of certain villages it gets the attention of the others, and attacks have gone down in the area.”

The new counter-insurgency unit made up of elite troops being put together in the Pentagon is called Task Force 121, New Yorker magazine reported in yesterday’s edition.

One of the planners behind the offensive is a highly controversial figure, whose role is likely to inflame Muslim opinion: Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin.

In October, there were calls for his resignation after he told a church congregation in Oregon that the US was at war with Satan, who “wants to destroy us as a Christian army”.

“He’s been promoted a rank above his abilities,” he said. “Some generals are pretty good on battlefield but are disastrous nearer the source of power.”

I think we can speculate from this information that it is possible that Rumsfeld didn’t want to describe the chain of command responsible for abusing prisoners in Iraq because it might just remind people that the issue of Jerry Boykin is not only unresolved, but rather than removing him from influence, he was instead setting up assassination teams in Iraq under the guidance of the IDF. And we surely don’t want to discuss the IDF in relation to the Iraqi torture scandal, do we?

MSNBC describes Boykin in an Oct 15, 2003 article just after his bigoted remarks surfaced:

This summer, Boykin was promoted to deputy undersecretary of defense, with a new mission for which many say he is uniquely qualified: to aggressively combine intelligence with special operations and hunt down so-called high-value terrorist targets including bin Laden and Saddam.

But that new assignment may be complicated by controversial views Boykin — an evangelical Christian — has expressed in dozens of speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts around the country. In a half-dozen video and audiotapes obtained by NBC News, Boykin says America’s true enemy is not bin Laden.

“Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.”

Why are terrorists out to destroy the United States? Boykin said: “They’re after us because we’re a Christian nation.”

Yeah, Don – best not get into that chain of command question. The less people know about Boykin, the less likely they are to ask you to undergo an emergency mental evaluation to see if you put this guy in Iraq because you’re criminally insane.

I hate to tell you this, Micah, but the current right-wing schtick is becoming impossible to parody. It’s like Michael Bérubé wrote:

INSULT-UPON-INJURY, New York (AP)– Conservative commentators have induced a “satire crisis” for liberal and progressive bloggers in recent days, producing a stream of remarks so bizarre and unhinged that the blogosphere’s sharpest wits are at a loss to respond, according to a statement released today by the newly-formed Association of Flabbergasted Liberals.

“It started, as it always does, with Rush Limbaugh,” noted an AFL spokesman. “First he said that the torture and rape at Abu Ghraib was nothing more than you’d see at a Britney Spears or Madonna concert, or maybe Lincoln Center, and now he’s saying that it was just a bunch of people ‘having a good time.’ What can you do with that? Look at Ezra Klein over at Pandagon– all he can do is say he’s speechless at this stuff………
[…]
The strain has been felt most severely at Tom Burka’s site, “Opinions You Should Have,” as Burka works overtime to try to stay ahead of the massive right-wing mental collapse. “It’s like trying to outrun a tsunami,” Burka might have said if I had interviewed him.

Burka admits it. OK, look. You write:

Micah: Enemies of America, such as newspapers, have criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, despite his many years of sterling service to America. Some even want Secretary Rumsfeld to resign.

And the next day, Barbara Amiel one ups you with this:

Barbara A: What a difference a year makes. In her fascinating 2003 biography Rumsfeld, Midge Decter gives a wry round-up of the “Rummy” love-ins that swept America when the defence secretary became a national celebrity in the wake of September 11. CNN called him a “virtual rock star”, Fox news “a babe magnet”.

People magazine named him one of the country’s “leading sex heroes”. Cut to last week’s blindingly thick Senate Armed Forces Committee Hearings, which resembled nothing so much as the preliminary inquiries of a war crimes trial. It was a couple of hours before one Democratic senator blew up like a puff adder to ask, portentously, the Killer Question: if it were in the national interest, would Mr Rumsfeld resign?

After a pause, the defence secretary, whose patriotism and press conference candour are no act, replied: “That’s possible.” The New York Times found this “stunning” in its “breathtaking simplicity”. I thought it a simple answer to a straw-man question.

How can that be parodied? There’s just no material to work with here – it’s already hilarious and over the top all on its own. Read the part where she compares handcuffing an old lady to the torture at Abu Ghraib. If that had been in your piece or on Burka’s site, people would have laughed and said you really nailed how ridiculous these people are. Check this out:

This is not to say we should withdraw from the Geneva Conventions in order to fight drug dealers and child molesters, but only to note that in some circumstances, our police may use such tactics. In Iraq, we are fighting men and women who routinely blow up civilians in a guerrilla war of the most merciless kind. If a 97-year-old woman is handcuffed for a traffic offence, what is the appropriate procedure for murderous guerrillas?

This is her actual argument!

At the rate the right is cribbing ideas from satirists, we should watch for this to be in an upcoming Presidential speech.

While diplomatic experts had questioned what exactly the sovereignty handed over to Iraq on June 30 would consist of, the president made it clear that it would consist solely of blame for the prison abuse scandal.

“As of June 30, we fully expect to put an Iraqi face on this fiasco,” Mr. Bush said.

At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that he was “delighted” by news of the decision to blame the prison scandal on the new Iraqi government.

“This is a solution that should satisfy even our toughest critics, because now those critics will be transferred to the new Iraqi government,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Prior to the president’s announcement, Mr. Rumsfeld had been bracing himself for the release of the Abu Ghraib Golden Edition DVD, including never-before-seen footage and special tormenters’ narration.

“This DVD is full of extremely radioactive stuff,” Mr. Rumsfeld. “Come June 30, the new government of Iraq will have a lot to answer for.”

---

Oh, and it’s Nikolai’s fault that I even read the dreadful Amiel piece in the first place.