There is No Such Thing as a War on Terrorism |
| by Javier Marías |
| Our perception of time is all too variable, and there are many factors that can strangely and dramatically affect it, breaking the thread of continuity. When a love affair ends, for example, everything that belonged to the time of that love suddenly becomes the "past," and things that happened only a year ago when you were with the person who left you, or whom you left, now seem distant and incongruously remote. The same happens after the death of someone we love, especially after the mourning is over. Then, even things that didn't directly concern that person seems part of some bygone era. These temporal abysses also open up in the aftermath of great catastrophes. All that happened before Sept. 11, 2001, has become remote. It's been three years, according to the calendar, but psychologically it feels like no fewer than 10 - and that's true for the entire world. Don't we all feel that the war in Afghanistan, which came only a little later, began decades ago? That might be because the Afghan war was the only truly direct consequence of the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon and was therefore in some way "contemporary" with those killings, unlike the outlandish, unjustified and illegal war in Iraq and its interminable and incomprehensible aftermath. Ordinary citizens, even those who were once most fully convinced of the justice and necessity of the invasion of Iraq, know instinctively and naturally that the Iraq war and the terrorist attacks are two separate events. Political leaders too often forget about this "perceptive factor" among the citizenry, which is not necessarily based on reason. They forget, too, that very little can be done against it. After the March 11 train bombings in Spain, Spaniards immediately perceived two things: First, that Prime Minister José María Aznar's administration was indirectly responsible for the horror, which would not have occurred if Aznar had not been so eager to promote his alliance with Tony Blair and George W. Bush. Second, that his administration lied about the probable authorship of the attacks - or delayed the truth, which under the circumstances amounted to the same thing - for political advantage. Whether accurate or erroneous, true or false, there's no way to uproot such perceptions. And while they are of little use in the eyes of the law, they are useful when it comes to deciding whom to vote for in an election. That, and nothing else, was what happened in Spain. Aznar's administration had been in power for eight years when it was voted out three days after the attacks. All those malicious commentators on our election results deliberately forgot two things: that in times of crisis, people tend to support the existing government, and that Spain has endured Basque terrorism for 30 years without faltering. Perhaps it's simply that our hides have toughened; our hearts and minds have grown more accustomed to futile, gratuitous murder. It is a terrible thing, but little by little you get used to the possibility of indiscriminate attack just as we've all grown used to the certainty that there will be deaths on the highways every weekend. "It's always going to happen - let's hope it doesn't happen to us," becomes the unformed, unconscious thought. Maybe that's why Spain, six months later, seems already to have overcome the trauma of the railway bombings. There is no more fear than there was before, nor fewer liberties. Today's Spanish government shows no interest in constantly sounding alarms. Our habits seem as unchanging as the streets, the bars, the restaurants, the airports and the train stations, all just as crowded as ever and as lively and buoyant. It's also certainly true that for most of us, not a day goes by without remembering the almost 200 victims of March 11, with pain and a keen awareness that chance, fate and bad luck continue to be as important today as they were in humanity's less foreseeing epochs. Here in Spain, we don't feel as if we are at war because we aren't. And neither are the inhabitants of the United States, however vociferously many Americans may insist that they are. War is something else entirely. No semi-normal life can be led while a war is going on. The residents of Madrid who lived through the siege of their city between 1936 and 1939 know that very well. The survivors of the daily bombardments of London during World War II know it, too. And those Americans who participated in that war know it, also. There is no war against terrorism. There can be no such thing against an enemy that remains dormant most of the time and is almost never visible. It's simply another of life's inevitable troubles, and all we can do as we continue to combat it is repeat Cervantes's famous phrase "Paciencia y barajar": "Have patience, and keep shuffling the cards." |
16.12.06
Make Believe Psyop
15.12.06
Merkel Makes Human Rights a Top Priority
A leader I could be proud to call my own
In keeping with her consistently outspoken stance on sensitive issues, Germany's chancellor did not mince words on human rights during her visit to China this week. Experts say her style will increase Germany's clout.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel is setting a clear course when it comes to human rights.
"This is an issue that is being supported from the top and it is significant that this is the case," said Günter Nooke, the German government's human rights representative.
He said the differences between Merkel and her predecessor Gerhard Schröder were "self-evident." Schröder, who had a very close relationship to Russian president Vladimir Putin, had called the leader a "flawless democrat." Merkel, on the other hand, addressed sensitive issues such as Chechnya when she went to Moscow in January.
She also broached the delicate subject of the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay before and during her inaugural visit to Washington in January.
No need to schmooze in China
Eberhard Sandschneider, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations' Research Institute, said he wasn't surprised that Merkel had talked about human rights concerns while in Beijing.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Experts estimate that at least 8,000 people get the death penalty in China each year
"It isn't astonishing, as human rights are always an issue when one of our politicians goes to China," Sandschneider said. "This sends a signal at home."
But Merkel's course was more positive than Schröder's, Sandschneider said.
"We finally have someone who recognizes that China doesn't need to be schmoozed," he said. "Rather, a common base needs to be found and we can go from there. They can handle the criticism."
Merkel is a tough but honest partner
Merkel said at the end of her China visit that the country "still had deficits in human rights.
"The Chinese are tough negotiators," Merkel told German television ZDF. "So we have to counter just as toughly and make clear that we don't have anything to give away."
This style of dialogue was by no means detrimental to international ties, Nooke said.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: US President Bush praised Merkel as a "clear thinker"
"An interesting partner is someone who has their own opinion," Nooke said. "The fact that there are differences of opinion doesn't make us any less interesting."
Merkel's criticism of human rights issues in Beijing, Moscow and Washington have been positively received on the international stage. Sandschneider said this was because she came across authentically.
"She has an honest and straightforward manner and people value this," Sandschneider said.
The first step in a long process
Human rights organizations have welcomed Merkel's course. Beate Wagner from the Human Rights Forum's (HRF) coordination group said there had been a consistent upgrading of human rights under Merkel. The HRF is a network of more than 40 German non-governmental organizations, which critically monitor the human rights policies of the German government.
"Human rights issues have been explicitly well positioned on her inaugural visits," said Wagner, who is also secretary general of the German Society for the United Nations. She said this marked an "improvement" to the Schröder government and was a first step.
"Now, more work needs to be done," Wagner said. "We'll have to see how much gets implemented in bilateral relations. But we are positively looking forward to see what happens next."
Of course, experts agree that Merkel's criticism will not solve problems overnight.
"You can't have the illusion that one government is going to make a difference," Wagner said. "But it is part of an international climate, which can exert pressure."
Germany should use its international role in 2007
In January, Germany will take over the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. It will also hold the G8 presidency in 2007.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Germany will chair the Council of the European Union for the first half of 2007
Wagner said Germany could use these positions to increase international pressure regarding human rights.
"It can set impulses in UN meetings, for example, when it has the voice as head of the European Council," she said.
Nooke said he was interested in keeping human rights on the agenda in the European Council next year.
"It is important that Europe pull together and carry weight in international bodies," Nooke said. "We have to have the courage to address critical issues. It can be that someone may not be happy with this, but in the medium and long term, it's worth it."
12.12.06
11.12.06
IVAW on Iraq Study Group Report: “It’s the Occupation, Stupid!”
IVAW on Iraq Study Group Report: “It’s the Occupation, Stupid!”
After nine months of extensive study and research, the Iraq Study Group has produced a comprehensive report that makes a realistic and horrifying assessment of the situation in Iraq as it stands today and proposes an incredibly ambitious and admittedly imperfect plan for the future of our involvement there. The report alludes to gross mismanagement by outgoing Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, but offers no critique of the U.S.’s preemptive invasion based on lies. While the report calls for some important steps toward undoing the quagmire in Iraq -- notably the need to send a message to the Iraqi people that the U.S. has no plans to stay indefinitely and should dismantle its permanent military bases there -- it ignores the fundamental circumstance that underlies the crisis we face in Iraq.
The real problem in Iraq is the U.S. military occupation.
The Iraq Study Group’s report has three basic recommendations:
1. It proposes a comprehensive diplomatic effort regionally and internationally to support stabilization of Iraq.
2. It lays out ambitious benchmarks for the Iraqi government to get them to “stand up” so that we can “stand down.”
3. It recommends maintaining significant troop levels in Iraq to provide logistical support, rapid response capabilities, and training to the Iraqi Army and Police well into 2008.
Each of these recommendations is problematic and will not end the war.
1. The Iraq Study Group report calls for diplomatic efforts with other countries in the region and beyond to help the U.S. stabilize Iraq. While there is no doubt that the U.S. should engage in sincere diplomatic efforts, this is unlikely given the U.S.'s track record in the region. The U.S. showed complete disinterest in genuine diplomacy during the build up to the war, and acted unilaterally and preemptively in its invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration, with the blessings of Congress, made it clear that the U.S. was going to invade Iraq regardless of a U.N. decision and despite the objections of the international community, including nations in the Middle East. After millions of people worldwide, including Americans, protested the invasion, Bush called them a “focus group.” We have lost credibility in the region and have shown scorn for diplomacy and international law and opinion. As long as the U.S. is militarily occupying Iraq, diplomatic efforts will fail.
Unless diplomacy is accompanied by a swift withdrawal, U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis will continue to be killed and wounded. A study published this October in The Lancet medical journal estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S. led war and occupation. The death toll of U.S. service members is quickly approaching 3,000, with at least an additional 50,000 wounded. In the time the Iraq Study Group spent developing their report, roughly 700 Americans and 27,000 Iraqis were killed in the increasing violence and chaos. What we need is an end to the occupation, not more inaction and stalling tactics from Washington. Each day this war continues, our brothers and sisters in the military are being killed and wounded, along with untold numbers of Iraqi civilians.
2. The Iraq Study Group report suggests that we need to “help Iraqis help themselves,” reflecting the condescending attitude of an occupying nation toward one of the oldest civilizations on earth. The problem in Iraq is not the Iraqi government’s failure to “stand up.” The foremost problem in Iraq is the U.S. occupation. As long as the occupation continues, any Iraqi government working in tandem with the United States will lack legitimacy among the Iraqi people, the vast majority of whom want the U.S. military to leave their country. Specific recommendations of the report appropriately call for the U.S. to send a clear message to the Iraqi people that we have no intention to stay in Iraq long-term or control Iraqi oil. But at the same time, the report rejects the idea of any timetable for withdrawal, and makes it clear that the U.S. will maintain a significant military force there well into 2008.
The Iraqi government's inability to provide security and stability has little to do with any incompetence of the Iraqis, but is a direct result of the chaos and political disunity that comes with this U.S. occupation. As the report describes, without the necessary national unity, the Iraqi government has little control outside of the Green Zone. It has been ineffective in providing its people with basic services such as electricity, drinking water, health care, and education, as well as being unable to provide even minimal security. Many Iraqis see the government as a tool of the U.S. occupation and no amount of “carrot and stick” incentives from the U.S. will change this basic reality. Until the occupation leaves, no Iraqi government will have the popular support of the Iraqi people and therefore will be unable to gain control and effect positive changes.
3. The Iraq Study Group recommends significant numbers of U.S. troops staying in Iraq through 2008 to continue to train and equip the Iraqi Army and Police. The report advises the number of U.S. troops assigned to this mission to rise from the current 4,000 to approximately 20,000 U.S. soldiers embedded with Iraqi units. Again, the problem in Iraq is the U.S. occupation, and no level of U.S. training of Iraqi military forces will succeed in providing security in Iraq. A consideration that the Iraq Study Group leaves out is the issue of Iraqi military loyalty. Many members of both the Iraqi army and police forces are loyal not to the Iraqi government, but to various local and ethnic militias and leaders who, in many cases, are doing more to support their needs and interests than the national government.
Many of us who served in Iraq training the Iraqi Army and Police can attest to the difficulty inherent in this relationship. A core problem is that there is a huge cultural and language barrier between us. In addition, from the U.S. troops' standpoint, there is a lack of trust of Iraqis because of a history of many Iraqi Army and police being members of militias or the insurgency. Every day we hear reports of armed men in military or police uniforms kidnapping and killing Iraqi civilians. Often, U.S. forces discover that the Iraqis they were working to train were giving information and assistance to the insurgency in order to attack American personnel. And from the standpoint of the Iraqis, the U.S. troops are seen as occupiers who have caused immense harm and destruction in their communities. Iraqis have seen the U.S. military operate with reckless disregard of their human rights, torturing them at Abu Ghraib, leveling Fallujah killing hundreds of civilians, and massacring children in Haditha. Iraqis cannot forget these war crimes that have largely gone unpunished.
No amount of training of the Iraqi Army will change the fact that as long as we occupy Iraq the insurgency will continue, Al Qaeda terrorists will be drawn to Iraq, and militias spurred by sectarian tensions will flourish. Providing the Iraqi Army with more weapons and equipment will only increase the chances that such weapons will be used against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.
The findings of the Iraq Study Group will be used as cover for the administration and Congress to save face about the horrible blunders of this war, and in effect, will allow the occupation to continue indefinitely. It's easy to analyze the problems from afar, but to those of us who have experienced the ground truth in Iraq and have sacrificed the most, we know that eventual peace and stability in Iraq begins with immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces. The only way this will happen is if the American people force Congress to stop funding the war. There are presently enough funds from the fall 2006 budget appropriations to ensure troops will have all supplies and equipment they need to come home quickly and safely. But we must not allow further appropriations for our continued occupation in Iraq to prolong the suffering of our troops and the Iraqi people.
10.12.06
Hypocrite is as Hypocrite Does
BUSH ADMINSTRATION IMPLICATED IN NARCO DEATH SQUAD COVER UP
by Alex Gabor
In a developing story that has barely received any national or international media attention, one that has been brewing for close to three years now, is finally coming to the attention of a growing number of Congressional leaders and international investigative journalists.
Narco News investigative journalist, government muckraker and "Borderline Security" author Bill Conroy has published over 41 articles on the growing cover-up involving a dozen dead bodies found just south of the Mexican border.
He has been intimidated by ICE (Homeland Security) agents and other government officials for his vast coverage of this story of corruption that leads to the highest officials in America and may result in further resignations in the Bush administrations' tattered war torn Presidency.
Recently, the London based Observer published a story written by David Rose that failed to mention the groundwork laid by Conroy, yet Rose acknowledged Conroy in a private email, highlighted by facts that the United States Department of Justice, through the United State's Attorney's Office is involved in a massive cover-up of the operations that paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to an informant directly involved in the murder of a Mexican attorney, one of the twelve bodies in the House of Death story.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been attempting to suppress evidence from public view by invoking national security issues in an attempt to distance itself from the fallout amid growing curiosity of non-mainstream investigative journalists and public citizens.
Recent coverage in a Dallas Morning News story by Alfredo Corchado contradicts the stories put out by Rose and court records show that a paid government confidential informant was involved in more than one murder.
A group calling itself the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition has filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit against the Department of Justice which seeks to expose information implicating government officials behind the death squads involved on both sides of the border in more than 50 murders related to DEA, Homeland Security and Mexican police covert operations.
Conroy, who claims the Attorney General knew about payments of funds to death squad operators in Mexico that resulted in at least a dozen murders, has been asking for a congressional investigation into the matter.
His work has apparently caught the attention of Henry Waxman's office in Los Angeles, who is soon to take over as head of the Government Reform Committee, and is not too keen on secrecy within the Bush administration.
The committee is gearing up for public hearings after the new majority Democrats take office on a wide range of topics including the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, government spending and government contracting. Prior efforts to bring this matter before Congressional leaders had failed.
It would appear that any information made public which exposes the federal government and reveals the truth about its secret covert operations that could be construed or in fact are illegal or actual war crimes comes under the heading of "national security", and tends to be discredited or confused by the governments' own bought and paid for press.
To date, over the past twenty years, the Federal government has spent over $500 billion on the war on drugs and the amount of money laundered from drug sales within the borders of the US and globally through an international network of bankers who take deposits from drug money launderers worldwide exceeds $1 trillion annually.
95% of the people listed on the DEA's most wanted fugitive list in Los Angeles are Latin American.
The questions that most international journalists should be asking is, did George Bush know that the US Department of Justice was paying confidential informants to be involved in racially motivated covert death squad operations and if so why were they allowed to continue, and if not, why not?
Isn't he after all, the Commander in Chief of the War on Drugs as well as the War on Terrorism and the War on Iraq?
Copyright © 2006 by Alex S. Gabor. All Rights Reserved.
If America Knew
If Americans Knew
http://ifamericaknew.orgIf Americans Knew Receives Death Threat
After debating on “How Can Peace Be Achieved Between Israelis and Palestinians?” Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, Alison Weir and If Americans Knew received a voicemail message saying: “On Monday, at 2 PM, you better not be in your office. Because me and my buddies, who were trained in the Israeli Army, will come and kill every single one of you...”
The caller went on to say, “This is not a joke. On Monday you better watch out. Don’t come to work. And close your organization or you’re going to die.”
The recipient of the threat, Alison Weir, speaks widely on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. She is executive director of If Americans Knew, a nonprofit organization known for providing information on the Middle East.
In last night’s debate she predicted that Israelis and Palestinians searching for a just peace would succeed when US tax money no longer goes to fuel Israeli militarists such as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Kahan Commission—an independent, official Israeli commission of inquiry—found Sharon indirectly and personally responsible for the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres in Lebaonon.
Weir said that she takes the caller seriously. “I am named an ‘enemy’ on a website of the Jewish Defense League, a group known for violent acts – most recently, police are investigating charges that its members planned to firebomb Congressman Darrell Issa’s office in southern California.”
Weir says that there has long been concerted efforts to intimidate people speaking out on this issue, but says, “We will not be silenced. I hope others will join us.”
Weir says that she plans to be in her office all day Monday, working to inform the public on this urgent issue.
Berkeley police are investigating the death threat.
Anyone with information about this incident can contact the Berkeley Police Department at 510-981-5900.
