US Carries Out Massive Bombing on Outskirts of Baghdad

By James Cogan
12 January, 2008
WSWS.org

Excerpt

The US military unleashed a huge bombardment on the Arab Jubour district just 15 kilometres south-east of Baghdad on Thursday. In the space of 10 minutes, B-1 Stealth bombers and F-16 fighter-bombers pounded 47 targets with 47,500 pounds of high explosive bombs. A military spokesman, Major Alayne Conway, boasted that the operation “was one of the largest air strikes since the onset of the war”. The blasts were seen, heard and felt in the suburbs of Iraq’s capital.
…….
The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has ordered increasing use of air strikes in order to meet the Bush administration’s desperate demands for reduced US casualties and the suppression of the ongoing insurgency. In 2007, there were at least 1,119 air strikes, according to the US Air Force, compared with 229 the previous year.

American spokesmen have claimed that four targets were not hit due to concerns over civilian casualties. As in Afghanistan, however, the reliance on air power against guerrillas embedded within the Iraqi civilian population leads to the slaughter of non-combatants. In the Arab Jubour area, three women and two children were killed by an air strike 10 days ago, according to a source cited by the New York Times on Friday.

The largest operations are taking place in districts of Diyala province to the north east of Baghdad, and further north in regions near the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul. In all areas, the US military is receiving assistance from sections of the Sunni establishment to hunt down opponents.

The towns, villages and hamlets of Arab Jubour have been a major battleground between the US occupation and insurgents, and in the civil war between rival Sunni factions. The area, which had a pre-war population of more than 100,000, is now a wasteland of bombed-out buildings, dried-up channels and abandoned fields. It was once renowned for its intricate and centuries-old irrigation systems which fed off the Tigris River and supplied productive date and fruit orchards. Its beauty, rural charm and proximity to Baghdad made it a desirable location for the homes of better-off Iraqis, including officials of the Baathist government and military officers.
Following the US invasion, it was a logical base of operations for Iraqi guerrillas. It was close to the capital and the population was sympathetic to the resistance. The terrain both provided ample hide-outs and made operations by US armoured vehicles difficult.

Just 12 months ago, on January 18, 2007, the then US commander in the area, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Odom, told CBS News: “We’re up against a Sunni-based insurgency that is dissatisfied with the Iraqi government. They think the government does not support them with basic services like electricity, food and fuel vouchers. They view the Iraqi government as essentially supporting Shiite militias. Ninety to 100 percent of the area’s residents either actively or passively support the insurgency. Clearly, many of them have been in the military, based on the engagements we have had. Their tactics, their employment of indirect fire systems, indicates something beyond just paramilitary training.”

A great deal is said in the US media about the ruthlessness of Islamist insurgent groups in dealing with opponents, but the savage methods employed by the US military and the anti-democratic character of their new Sunni allies are allowed to pass without comment.
http://www.countercurrents.org/cogan120108.htm

'U.S. Special Forces' = 'Black and Tans'

Picture from the film "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" about the struggle in the early 20's to free IRELAND from British rule

The following interesting post is by 'Left i on the news':

Wednesday, December 26, 2007
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html#3518166240893041366

Body count, Iraq

Not to be confused with Iraq Body Count, with its "media and politician-friendly" undercount of Iraqi fatalities, requiring "confirmation" by publication in two different English-language sources.

Leila Fadel reports on one of those uncounted deaths, a report which as far as I can determine appears only on her blog despite the fact that she is the Baghdad bureau chief for a major newspaper chain:

Suheila Hammad held her daughter in her arms before dawn on Tuesday. Outside she heard the U.S. Special Forces and the Iraqi Army in her area just south of Fallujah. First they raided a home two doors down, blew the doors out and went in looking for their target.

The soldiers pulled the family out of the home and the second floor was destroyed, the family said. A picture shows a burned out room and shattered glass.The soldiers progressed to the second house, searching for their target, an Al Qaida in Iraq member who was believed responsible for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.

At the second house in this place, once an Al Qaida bastion, they blew the doors off and pulled the residents from the house. The Iraqi soldiers toyed with them, telling them to raise their arms up, drop their arms and raise them again.

A few soldiers walked away speaking a language the families didn't understand. It was then that a bullet pierced the window where Suheila held her daughter Hadil. The bullet pierced Hadil's neck and passed through her, embedding in the wall of the room. No one came into the house and Suheila was too afraid to call out for help, she said.

Hadil bled to death in her mother’s arms. Three men were detained, two were later released. The U.S. military said the man detained is an Al Qaida in Iraq member. There were no reports of Hadil's death, they said.

Having just watched (see post below) "Black and Tans" performing exactly the same kind of brutal assault on civilians in "The Wind that Shakes the Barley," the picture painted by Fadel of this raid was all too vivid in my mind.


Left I at the Movies: "The Wind That Shakes the Barley"

Last night I got to watch a movie that has been touted in progressive circles - "The Wind That Shakes the Barley," about the struggle in the early 20's to free Ireland from British rule, a subject about which I acknowledge only rudimentary knowledge. The film was difficult to watch, not because it was poorly made, but because of the opposite - because it was so well made, a seemingly realistic portrayal of the very harsh reality of a brutal war.

What is particularly interesting about the movie, and, from reading some reviews, of other movies by director Ken Loach, is its overt thought-provoking nature regarding questions facing all those who struggle for revolutionary change - when to fight and when not, when is a compromise the "best you can get" and when is it a "sell out," is it possible to fight to end an occupation without fighting to institute a new social order at the same time, what do you do when the struggle changes stages and those who were previously on the same side find themselves on opposite sides?

To me, without trying to force the parallel, the Irish struggle in this film, and particularly the struggle within the revolutionary forces, is the struggle between Hamas and Fatah in Palestine, the fight between those in Iraq who have now taken American money to fight for the Americans and those who still fight against the Americans, and no doubt many other examples as well.

Curiously enough, none of the reviews I read (post-viewing) mentioned this timely relevance of the movie, but in one quite interesting review, I found the director himself making the point:

"There is a pattern you see again and again - this kind of manipulation by the ruling power, how different interests will unite in the face of a common oppressor and then ultimately how those contradictions inevitably have to work their way out. I’m sure you can see it in places like Iraq now, where the opposition to the US and Britain brings together a lot of people who will find that they have different interests when the US and the British are finally forced out."

I'm pretty sure that was written by Loach before the creation of the "Awakening Councils" in Iraq, which makes the parallels with the movie even more striking.
Two thumbs (all I've got) up.

Democracy Now!: Ambivalent on Occupation?

Killed under US fire

Sympathy for the Occupiers
Democracy Now!: Ambivalent on Occupation?
by Kim Petersen / December 24th, 2007

I rode a tank

Held a generals rank

When the blitzkrieg raged

And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah

– Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, “Sympathy for the Devil”

Democracy Now! carried an extremely sympathetic interview on the 2nd Platoon, Charlie Company in Adhamiya, Iraq.1 The platoon refused to go out on patrol fearing that they might commit a massacre. People of good conscience would applaud this “mutiny” of Charlie Company.

The interview is with Kelly Kennedy of the Army Times, a newspaper geared toward US Army and US National Guard personnel and their families.

It is predictable that Kelly, a veteran, would impart a sympathetic view toward the men of Charlie Platoon. But her propaganda went unchallenged on the “independent,”2 left-leaning DN. For instance, she talked about “catching insurgents,” a demonization of the Iraqi resistance.3 Iraqis have a legitimate right to resist occupation.

Kelly enumerated how 14 men out of probably 138 men in Charlie Company had been “lost” in 12 months and 31 people from a battalion of about a thousand people. Kelly found this to be “pretty extreme.” Extreme? Unmentioned in the interview is how extreme the 14 or 31 occupation troops killed is in comparison to the over one million Iraqi people killed during the US invasion-occupation?”4
Viewers are told about a first sergeant McKinney “well loved by his men,” who killed himself in front of his men. Viewers are not told about the Iraqis, well loved by their family, who are slaughtered in front of their family members.

Said Kelly, “Early on in this war, we did umm … have situations were, were troops did not behave properly … for these guys to, to stand up and say ‘Listen we’re not, we’re not sure we can handle it right now,’ could be considered very courageous, in my mind.”

Yes, if not courageous,5 then at least the moral thing to do. But the troops didn’t rise to the challenge. In other words, the troops were not courageous and behaved improperly — a naughty-child euphemism for murderous acts by adults. This obfuscation by Kelly went unchallenged by DN hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales who were drawn to Kelly’s “really fascinating picture.”

Kelly talked about the ordeals US occupation soldiers in Iraq cope with, helped by the strong bonding among soldiers. Therefore, after an IED attack killed some men, the incapacitated soldiers couldn’t sleep, reacted poorly, and needed medication. The platoon refused to go out on patrol … “mutiny.” The army brass responded by splitting up the closely knit group and denying promotions.

“They are good guys,” asserted Kelly. These guys were just “going out and patrolling and doing what they thought they were supposed to be doing — in their minds.”
What does “in their minds” mean? Does the fact that the soldiers considered improper behaviors — such as occupying a people thousands of kilometers from the US, shooting them at checkpoints, barging into their homes during the night and, as Kelly admitted, “waking people” — the right thing to do “in their minds” exculpate the soldiers?

Kelly continued on about the “good guys”:6
When they lost their five men, they (pause) think they gave up on the Iraqi people. If, if the Iraqi people weren’t willing to fight for them, (pause) then what was the point? They were so angry. They just wanted to go out and take out the whole city. They didn’t understand why they couldn’t finish up what they call the war, and the whole idea of counterinsurgency is that you’re supposed to be building relationships, but they’re trying to build relationships with people who obviously aren’t that concerned about them. So this idea of a massacre was just (pause) they were just so angry, they could barely contain it anymore.

DN host Gonzales wondered about “the soldiers finding that they’re on a mission to help a people, but they have so much hostility from the very people that they are there to help, the impact of that on their fighting ability or on the morale.” Does Gonzales really wish to leave the viewers with the impression that he believes the soldiers are in Iraq on a noble mission to help Iraqis!? Does he want to portray Iraqis as ungrateful because of their hostility to foreign occupation? Should Iraqis be culpable for impacting the “fighting ability” and “morale” of their occupiers?

It sure is tough having to invade, kill, and occupy on behalf of a superpower. Kelly agreed, adding that the soldiers “never felt safe.”

Maybe they did never feel safe.

Are Iraqi soldiers attaching electrodes to the penises of US soldiers in Attica?

Are Iraqi troops raping American women?

Are Iraqis occupying US soil and shooting Americans at checkpoints?

Did Iraqis rewrite the US Constitution?

Was the Criminal US president hanged under an Iraqi occupation?

Did Iraqis wipe out the economic infrastructure of the US, causing great shortages of potable water and a lack of sewage treatment; destroy hospitals, expose Americans to disease epidemics and depleted uranium; destroy and defile American churches; allow the plunder of American antiquities; maneuver to grab control of US oil and natural resources for Iraqi companies; make refugees of 44 million Americans;7; etc.?

If Iraqis were committing these improper behaviors on the soil of the United Sates of America, would these “good guys” be able to feel safe?

Why did the DN hosts seemingly defend the US occupation of Iraq through nauseating commentary and silence? Indeed, Charlie Company did the right thing by pulling back from committing a massacre. Nonetheless, while one should not demonize individual soldiers with a broad brush, certainly, creating sympathy for the minions of US military-industrial complex while totally neglecting the victims’ blood spilled by the troops is sending out a dark signal.

1. Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, “U.S. Soldiers Stage Mutiny, Refuse Orders in Iraq Fearing They Would Commit Massacre in Revenge for IED Attack,” Democracy Now!, 21 December 2007. #
2. DN calls itself “independent” while accepting large sums of money from foundations. #
3. See Kim Petersen, “‘Insurgents’: Hermeneutics Are Not a Substitute for Clarity!” Dissident Voice, 3 March 2006. #
4. More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered,” ORB, September 2007. #
5. Kim Petersen, “An Act of Cowardice that Must Surely be Unrivalled in History: Challenging the Assumption of Valor,” Dissident Voice, 29 July 2003. #
6. Kelly thinks the soldiers are “good guys,” but what do Iraqi civilians who live under the muzzles of M15s think? While primary blame lies with decision-makers in government, soldiers do bear culpability for war and killing. See Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri, “American Violence in Iraq: Necrophilia or Savagery? Part 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5,” Dissident Voice, 15 August-19 September 2005. #
7. Amnesty International reports 4 million Iraqi refugees displaced by the invasion and occupation of their country. See “Refugee crisis unfolds amid global apathy,” 21 September 2007. Based on population data from the CIA Factbook which reports the 2007 US population at 301.1 million and the 2007 Iraqi population at 27.4 million, by simple extrapolation 4 million Iraqi refugees would be the equivalent of 44 million US refugees.

#
Kim Petersen is co-editor of Dissident Voice. He can be reached at: kim@dissidentvoice.org. Read other articles by Kim.
This article was posted on Monday, December 24th, 2007 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/sympathy-for-the-occupiers/

The on-going resistance against foreign occupation: principles according to international law

Civilians in an occupied country have no obligation of loyalty towards the Occupying Power regardless of the motives of the invading forces. The only obligations they have relate to their civilian status: civilians are protected by applicable human rights law as well as by Geneva Convention IV relating to civilians and the provisions relating to civilians in Protocol Additional I. A civilian who takes up arms against the Occupying Power loses rights as a civilian, but takes on the rights and obligations of combatant forces. This is the situation of the classic levee en masse: the Geneva Conventions recognize the combatant status of persons who spontaneously take up arms on the approach of the enemy.

This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of self-determination, a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign occupier. The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take up arms as insurgents against any occupier. As protected combatants they have the right to take up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered “terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.

The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labelling of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”

The U.S. seeks to avoid application of the self-determination rules by claiming that Iraq is no longer an “occupied” county but rather a sovereign State with a government. In this regard there has been some lukewarm recognition of an “interim” Iraqi government since 2004, but this was more for practical reasons than for legal ones. For example, UN Security Council resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004, while seeming to recognize Iraq’s sovereignty, is notable for its contradictions and ambivalence. It records “that …by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full Sovereignty,” but then notes “the situation in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,” thus requiring that “the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq….”

Regardless of the intent of this resolution, the U.S. has not ceased either its military operations in or its military occupation of Iraq according to the terms of humanitarian law. U.S. military commanders acknowledge that they retain control in most areas. For example, Col. David R. Gray, commander of the Army’s 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, said in April 2006, “We maintain over-all control in the Kirkuk province.” Similar statements by other U.S. military officers attest to the continued commitment of the military to its overall control over most of Iraq. Under the terms of Article 2 of each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Geneva Conventions continue to apply as long as there is partial or total foreign military control.

The hand-over of some administrative functions to civil servants does not relieve the Occupying Power of its obligations under humanitarian law or terminate the right of the Iraqi people to resist a foreign occupation: the right to self-determination stays in force until the Occupying Power cedes all power and ceases all military operations.11 In any case, the continuous on-going clashes in Iraq demonstrate the limits of the Iraq “government” to fulfil its security and welfare responsibilities. At the same time, the U.S., by promoting that “government,” improperly seeks to limit its responsibilities as an Occupying Power while still retaining direct, if not sole, influence on the course of Iraq’s decision-making.

(written in consultation with Karen Parker, JD, Advisory Committee of BRussells Tribunal)


http://brusselstribunal.org/