More Evidence That the Iraq War Was Unnecessary

July 5, 2009 by peacepundit

The FBI interviewed deposed and captured Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein before he was executed. Transcripts of those interviews were recently made public by a non-governmental think-tank as a result of a Freedom of Information request. The interviews show that it might have been possible to avoid war with Iraq, had then-President GW Bush and his cronies wanted to. A Washington Post story, excerpted below, summarizes important findings from the transcipts.

Hussein Pointed to Iranian Threat

By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as “a zealot” and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

Hussein, in fact, said he felt so vulnerable to the perceived threat from “fanatic” leaders in Tehran that he would have been prepared to seek a “security agreement with the United States to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region.”

Former president George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq six years ago on the grounds that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to international security. Administration officials at the time also strongly suggested Iraq had significant links to al-Qaeda, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Hussein … wistfully acknowledged that he should have permitted the United Nations to witness the destruction of Iraq’s weapons stockpile after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The FBI summaries of the interviews — 20 formal interrogations and five “casual conversations” in 2004 — were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute, and posted on its Web site yesterday. The detailed accounts of the interviews were released with few deletions, though one, a last formal interview on May 1, 2004, was completely redacted.

…

The 20 formal interviews took place between Feb. 7 and May 1, followed by the casual conversations between May 10 and June 28. Hussein was later transferred to Iraqi custody, and he was hanged in December 2006.

…

In an interview last year on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” George L. Piro, the agent who conducted the interviews, said he … did not use coercive interrogation techniques, because “it’s against FBI policy.” …

During the interviews, Piro, who conducted them in Arabic, often appeared to challenge Hussein’s account of events, citing facts that contradicted his recollections. He even forced Hussein to watch a graphic British documentary on his treatment of the Shiites, though that did not appear to shake the former president.

…

Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. “Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran,” Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”

…

Piro raised bin Laden in his last conversation with Hussein, on June 28, 2004, but the information he yielded conflicted with the Bush administration’s many efforts to link Iraq with the terrorist group. Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that “he was a believer in God but was not a zealot . . . that religion and government should not mix.” Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them “did not have the same belief or vision.”

When Piro noted that there were reasons why Hussein and al-Qaeda should have cooperated — they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia — Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies.

[Read Entire Article]

Posted in A War Based on Lies, Lessons from History, War on Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

Two Fine Books about Boyhood in War-Torn Africa

June 30, 2009 by peacepundit

Read these two books if you want to see how the other half lives. I don’t mean the other half that lives on the “other side of the tracks” in your developed-world town. I mean the other half that lives on the other side of the world and on the other side of the global poverty chasm. They live in conditions that we would consider medieval, eking out subsistence lives on one dollar a day or outside the money economy altogether. To make their lives worse — much worse — they often live in the midst of war.

The books each tell the story of a boy who survived horrific experiences in war-torn countries as refugees and child-soldiers — one in Sierra Leone and one in Sudan.

Both are highly recommended.

A Long Way Gone

My high school friends have begun to suspect I haven’t told them the full story of my life.
“Why did you leave Sierra Leone?”
“Because there is a war.”
“Did you witness some of the fighting?”
“Everyone in the country did.”
“You mean you saw people running around with guns and shooting each other?”
“Yes, all the time.”
“Cool.”
I smile a little.
“You should tell us about it sometime.”
“Yes, sometime.”

That is how the book begins. The rest of it is the fulfillment of the promise.

The story starts when Beah is twelve years old. That’s when the civil war first came to the rural village in Sierra Leone where his family lived. Beah and some of his friends were away in a neighboring village, and heard from others that rebels had attacked his village and killed many people, possibly including his family.

From that moment on, Beah is a refugee, wanting to find out if his family is still alive but warned not to return home. With other boys, he wanders the countryside, looking for food and avoiding danger. Eventually, he is forcibly inducted into the Government Army as a child soldier, where under threat of death if he tries to escape he is kept drugged and made to fight the rebels and to commit atrocities against civilians. After several years, just as he is getting used to the soldier’s life, he is “rescued” by the United Nations against his will and taken to a rehabilitation camp. Eventually, he comes to the US and is adopted into an American family.

Beah recounts his experiences clearly and matter-of-factly. Given what he experienced, there is no need for florid writing; the story itself is florid enough. At times I almost felt like I could get post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD) just from reading his story.

One wonders how Beah could remember so much of his experiences without having kept any notes. He says that he had to retell parts of the story many times before he wrote it down, keeping it fresh in his mind. Some have accused him of fabricating and combining events or describing experiences of other boys as his own. If that’s true, I don’t care. Most of the story is clearly Beah’s authentic experience, and that’s good enough for me.

What is the What

The first mystery of this biographical “novel” about the experiences of one of Sudan’s “Lost Boys”, who escaped the war there and eventually came to the US, is the title. The mystery is not revealed until well into the book. I won’t spoil it for you. In fact, not being Sudanese, I probably couldn’t explain it very well even if I wanted to. To find out what it means, you’ll have to read the book.

Even though Valentino Achek Deng is a very smart, articulate fellow (see videos listed below), he chose to engage writer Dave Eggers rather than write his own story. He and Eggers faced issues similar to what Beah faced: how to weave a captivating story from Deng’s memories — some vivid, some not so vivid, and some intertwined with stories Deng heard from others. Their solution was to declare the book a “novel”, even though it reads like a biography.

Eggers and Deng tell the story in an unusual way. As the story begins, Deng is already living in the US in an apartment in Atlanta with another Sudanese “lost boy”. In the first few pages, robbers invade Deng’s apartment, beat him up, tie him up, and steal his and his housemate’s few possessions.

While tied up helpless on the floor, he wants to tell the robbers about the hellish conditions he lived through before coming to America, and that begins a series of flashbacks about how he became a refugee in the Sudanese civil war. His attempts to escape the robbery and seek aid from the Atlanta police and the medical system are intertwined with stories about how the Sudanese civil war came to his home village when he was seven years old and quickly turned him into a refugee. After living — and often nearly dying — in the desserts of Sudan and Ethiopia, he landed in a series of refugee camps, where he spent many years of his life.

One thing that struck me — and Deng mentions this also — is how he and his fellow Sudanese quickly adjust their expectations from life after coming to the US. One might think that after their experiences in Africa, nothing the US could throw at them would seem bad. But within months of arriving Deng finds himself complaining about the same setbacks and problems that we who have lived in the developed world all our lives complain about. He says he thinks he has grown “soft”.

Unlike Beah, Deng managed to escape becoming a child soldier. That is fortunate, because when the US agreed to accept “Lost Boys” from Sudan, they rejected those who had been soldiers. And then we probably would never have heard his story.

Further information about the books and Ismael Beah and Valentino Achak Deng:

Posted in Civilian Casualties, Cost of War, Reviews | Leave a Comment »

Support Congr. Jim McGovern’s Afghanistan Timetable Bill

June 23, 2009 by peacepundit

Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) recently proposed a one-sentence bill calling for the US to state a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan:

“Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report outlining the United States exit strategy for United States military forces in Afghanistan participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.”

He plans to attach that sentence to the 2010 military authorization bill.

Please call your Congressional Representative and express your support for this bill, which is called House Resolution 2404 (H.R. 2404).

For further information, please read this article by defense analyst Robert Naiman:
Congress Should Require an Exit Strategy from Afghanistan

Posted in Peace Action, Peace Plans, War on Terrorism | 2 Comments »

New Greenwald Documentary: Rethink Afghanistan

June 19, 2009 by peacepundit

Acclaimed documentary film director Robert Greenwald is currently finishing up a new documentary about the war in Afghanistan. The basic message is that pursuing a military solution in Afghanistan is not working and won’t work, and should be abandoned.

One reason for releasing the film now is that the Obama administration is preparing a “troop surge” in Afghanistan. Among other things, the film points out that even with the “surge”, the troop levels will be far below the half a million troops that the Soviets deployed, which as we all know failed to defeat the Afghan insurgents.

Greenwald is releasing a preliminary version of the film in several parts — four so far, with a fifth due to be released soon. Trailers and the complete segments can be viewed online at the film’s website: RethinkAfghanistan.com.

The released segments:

  • Part 1: what military escalation will achieve in Afghanistan.
  • Part 2: how the war could further destabilize a nuclear-armed Pakistan
  • Part 3: the staggering costs of the war, which could easily exceed $1 trillion.
  • Part 4: civilian casualties

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts:

Posted in A War Based on Lies, Civilian Casualties, Cost of War, Lessons from History, Peace Plans, Reviews, War on Terrorism | 1 Comment »

House Progressives Oppose More War Funding

June 16, 2009 by peacepundit

The Obama Administration, allied with Congressional leaders, is trying to push through additional funding to wind down the war in Iraq and build up the one in Afghanistan. The war-funding bill is opposed by both Republicans (because of its funding for the IMF) and progressive Democrats (because it does not end the war quickly enough), and as a result may not pass. See the news report excerpted below.

Now is a good time to call your Congressional representative and tell them to end war funding, and instead to fund infrastructure development in Iraq and Afghanistan and health-care at home.

Pelosi puts pressure on Dems to OK war funding

(06-16) 04:00 PDT Washington — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the White House will try to muscle through a $106 billion war funding bill today, hoping to quell a rebellion among liberal Democrats against further support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The fight has two Bay Area Democrats from across the Golden Gate locked in a seesaw struggle to corral votes: Pelosi, of San Francisco, against Petaluma’s Lynn Woolsey, co-chairwoman of the House Progressive Caucus and a fierce opponent of the war.

“I see no reason to be keeping our troops in Iraq that much longer and to start into Afghanistan when there’s no end in sight,” Woolsey said Monday. …

…

Democratic leaders added sweeteners to lure votes for the war bill, including $7.7 billion to prepare for flu pandemics and $1 billon for a “cash for clunkers” program to provide as much as $4,500 in rebates to consumers who trade in old cars for vehicles with higher fuel efficiency.

…

Rep. Jackie Speier, a San Mateo Democrat, said Monday that she would vote against the funding. … Speier said she has “serious problems with the current wars” and does not believe “escalating the conflicts make America or the world safer.”

…

There is also widespread dismay over Obama’s “surge” of troops into Afghanistan without a clear exit strategy. Modeled on the Bush administration’s Iraq surge, which quelled violence there, the Afghanistan effort will double the number of U.S. troops in the country, to 68,000 by the end of the year.

Today’s vote is expected to be close. Democratic leaders need as many as 18 of the 51 Democrats who opposed the war funding in May to reverse themselves. The legislation has twice been pulled from consideration for lack of votes.

Democrats must carry the load themselves, with Republicans who supported similar bills during the Bush administration expected to vote against the bill on grounds that it includes $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund. …

Rep. George Miller, a Martinez Democrat and top Pelosi ally who has opposed war funding, reluctantly switched sides Monday.

“I understand the deep frustrations regarding this bill; I’ve voiced them myself and have consistently voted against the war,” Miller said. “I don’t support the war in Iraq, and I want to bring it to a close. I registered my concern, but now it is time to give President Obama what he believes he needs to make progress. …”

…

Pelosi is telling recalcitrant members “that we need to do this, this is President Obama’s plan for both Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s got a plan to end the war in Iraq,” Daly said. “He’s got a plan to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need to support the president in that, and this is the right way to go.”

How House members polled Monday broke down on the $106 billion bill:

  • On the fence: Sam Farr, Monterey; Mike Thompson, Napa; Mike Honda, San Jose; Jerry McNerney, Pleasanton; Doris Matsui, Sacramento
  • Likely/definite yes: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, San Francisco; George Miller, Martinez
  • Likely/definite no: Lynn Woolsey, Petaluma; Barbara Lee, Oakland; Pete Stark, Fremont; Jackie Speier, San Mateo
  • Not returning calls: Anna Eshoo, Palo Alto; Zoe Lofgren, San Jose

[Read entire story]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Posted in A War Based on Lies, Cost of War, Peace Action | Leave a Comment »

Afghan Civilian Deaths: Good News (maybe) and Bad News

June 5, 2009 by peacepundit

There is both possibly good news and bad news from Afghanistan on the issue of civilian deaths.

First, possibly good news: The new commander of US forces there, Lt. Gen. Stanley McCrystal, who is undergoing Senate approval hearings, pledged to change the rules of engagement to decrease the number of Afghan civilians killed by US/Coalition military operations. At this point this is only possibly good news; it won’t really good news until the rate of Afghan civilian deaths actually drops. The news report is excerpted below.

More possibly good news is that the new general of US troops along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, made a similar pledge. Again, time will tell if this is actually good news. That report is also excerpted below.

The bad news is that the rate of Afghan civilian deaths — not to mention US military deaths there — is way up from last year, according to an Associated Press report, excerpted below.

Commander Vows to Avoid Afghan Deaths

by Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, President Obama’s choice to lead the war in Afghanistan, said Tuesday that violence and combat deaths will intensify as more U.S. troops surge into Taliban-held areas, but he pledged to execute a “holistic” strategy in which killing insurgents would be subordinate to safeguarding Afghan civilians.

McChrystal, a former Special Operations commander, promised that if confirmed to take extreme measures to avoid Afghan civilian casualties — a problem that has long tarnished the US-led military campaign — putting civilians at risk only when necessary to save the lives of coalition troops.

“I expect stiff fighting ahead,” McChrystal told the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing Tuesday. But, he added, “the measure of effectiveness will not be the number of enemy killed, it will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”

To reduce civilian casualties, McChrystal said he would review all rules of engagement, limit air strikes, and use more small ground units in search and detention operations.

In his first public testimony before a congressional committee, McChrystal, a longtime Army Ranger who has spent most of the last six years commanding secretive manhunting units in Iraq and Afghanistan, took pains to emphasize the broader counterinsurgency goals of improving security and governance for Afghans.

Still, when asked to describe “success” in Afghanistan, McChrystal said the first component would be “a complete elimination of al Qaeda” from Pakistan and Afghanistan. That, in turn, would prevent al Qaeda from operating in either country with the Taliban, which he said would not be “destroyed” but rather made “irrelevant.”

…

[Read Entire Article]

New US General Vows ‘Careful’ Use of Airstrikes

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press, Wednesday, June 3, 2009

The incoming general in charge of U.S. troops along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border vowed Wednesday to be careful in the use of airstrikes, a contentious issue here because of the civilian casualties they can cause.

Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, took over command of all troops in 14 provinces in eastern Afghanistan from outgoing Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, commander of the 101st Airborne Division…

Scaparrotti took only two questions at a media conference, and was immediately asked about civilian casualties.

“We look very closely at the use of close air support in terms of being deliberate and very precise,” Scaparrotti said. “We are here to protect the people of Afghanistan and we intend to pursue our operations with that first in mind, and use CAS (close air support) only where we need to protect our force and complete the mission. But we will be careful in its use,” he said.

A U.S. defense official said Wednesday that the U.S. military’s failure to follow tightened rules for aerial strikes likely caused civilian deaths in a May 4 American bombing in western Afghanistan. The finding comes from an internal review of the incident, said the official, …

The Afghan government says 140 civilians died in the May 4 battle in Farah province, while American commanders say video evidence recorded by fighter jets and the account of the ground commander suggest no more than 30 civilians were killed, as well as 60-65 Taliban. In Geneva, UN human rights investigator Philip Alston said about two-thirds of those killed May 4 appeared to be civilians, citing studies by the United Nations, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and others. “There’s no disagreement that a very significant number of civilians were killed,” Alston told journalists.

The new U.S. ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, a former three-star general who has served in Afghanistan, said Wednesday that “it will prove difficult to avoid all civilian casualties” in upcoming battles. …

…

Violence in Afghanistan has ratcheted up the last several weeks, a precursor of the battles likely to take place this summer as 21,000 additional U.S. troops join the fight.

…

[Read Entire Article]

US Deaths Rise in Afghanistan

By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press, Wednesday, June 3, 2009

US deaths in Afghanistan have risen to 65 so far this year, up from 36 over the first five months of 2008 — though US and coalition troops have also killed hundreds more militants, an Associated Press tally shows.

As newly arriving Marines enter the violent Afghan south — the spiritual home of the Taliban and the country’s major drug-producing region — the military said Tuesday that US deaths will likely increase even further this summer.

…

Civilian deaths, long a contentious issue in Afghanistan, are also higher this year because of militant attacks and US and NATO operations.

…

U.S. counter-IED experts say they expect IED attacks — roadside bombs and suicide attacks — to rise 50 percent this year, contributing to the increase in casualties.

…

The AP count shows that US, NATO and Afghan forces have killed 173 civilians this year, compared with 26 the same period last year. The tally also shows that militants have killed 242 civilians this year, down from 343 the first five months last year.

…

[Read Entire Article]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Posted in Civilian Casualties, Cost of War | Leave a Comment »

Update on May 4-5 Afghan Airstrike Incident

May 29, 2009 by peacepundit

Two recent news reports update the story about a May 4-5 battle and airstrike in the village of Garani in the Bala Baluk district of Afghan. Afghan and Red Cross estimates were that at 140 civilians died, including women and children. The U.S. military disputed those numbers and conducted its own investigation.

PeacePundit commented previously on that incident and on the US military’s general approach to subduing the Taliban, and provided a timeline of events, each supported by a news report. The two new reports have been added to the previous post’s timeline. [See previous post]

For readers’ convenience, here are excerpts from the two new reports.

US Ambassador to Afghanistan makes pledge

by Fisnik Abrashi, Rahim Faiez, Associated Press, Wednesday, May 20, 2009

America’s new ambassador sat cross-legged inside a mosque in western Afghanistan during a memorial service and told relatives of the victims of a recent clash between American troops and Taliban that the United States would work to avoid civilian casualties.

The Afghan government, which contends such killings undermine support for the campaign against the militants, says 140 civilians died in the battle. The United States disputes that toll.

Karl Eikenberry’s first public appearance as America’s top man in Afghanistan alongside President Hamid Karzai seemed to be an attempt to soothe tension over the May 4-5 battle in the western Farah province’s Bala Buluk district.

Addressing victims families and others at the main mosque in Farah city, Eikenberry, a former U.S. general who served twice in Afghanistan, invoked his military honor to assure them that he meant what he said.

“I assure the people of Afghanistan that the United States will work tirelessly with your government, army, and police, to find ways to reduce the price paid by civilians and avoid tragedies like what occurred in Bala Buluk,” Eikenberry said, … “As U.S. Ambassador, and with my previous experience as a soldier, I make this a solemn pledge,” he told the gathering.

Karzai … says civilian deaths at the hands of foreign troops erode support for the fight against the Taliban, …

On Tuesday, Karzai urged America to distinguish between villagers and militants.

“All those people who wear a turban and have local clothes are not Taliban,” Karzai told the gathering. U.S. troops “should cut down bombardment on them,” he said.

The U.S. military disputes the government’s toll of civilians killed in the bombing raids, saying the Taliban held villagers hostage and fought from private homes. However, they have not given their own estimate of people killed.

…

[Read Entire Article]

Dispute over Afghan civilian deaths intensifies

by Laura King, Los Angeles Times, Thursday, May 21, 2009

Kabul, Afghanistan — Disagreement over the civilian death toll in a battle earlier this month in western Afghanistan sharpened Wednesday when the U.S. military estimated that 20 to 30 noncombatants were killed in the fighting. Afghan officials say 140 civilians were killed.

Civilian deaths have for months been a major source of friction between Western forces and their Afghan allies, and the incident in the village of Garani, in Farah province – the deadliest of its kind since the U.S.-led invasion of 2001, if the Afghan figures are borne out – has triggered a huge outcry in the country.

…

Besides differing over the number of civilians killed in Garani, Afghan and U.S. authorities have offered widely varying estimates of the number of insurgents slain in fighting on May 4. The preliminary American probe suggested that as many as 65 Taliban militants were killed. The Afghan number was considerably lower: about 25.

Wednesday’s statement … represented the first official U.S. estimate of the civilian toll in the fighting in Garani. …

[Read Entire Article]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Posted in Civilian Casualties, Cost of War, War on Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

In Memory: War-Death Totals in Iraq and Afghanistan

May 24, 2009 by peacepundit

On Memorial Day 2009, over eight years since the U.S. launched a war in Afghanistan and over six years since it launched one in Iraq, let us stop and take note of the number of war deaths:

Iraq

* Conservative estimate: includes only verified deaths. Other credible estimates go as high as 1 million.

Afghanistan

Posted in Civilian Casualties, Cost of War | Leave a Comment »

Changing Obama’s Mindset Toward Peace

May 20, 2009 by peacepundit

Howard Zinn wrote an excellent article for the May 2009 issue of The Progressive. It is about the need to push Obama toward progressive policies. It covers a broad range of topics from the history of politicians in America to the current recession, but one part is highly relevant to issues of peace and war. Following the excerpt is a link to the entire article.

Excerpt from: “Changing Obama’s Mindset” by Howard Zinn

Obama … said, “It’s not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq.”

What is the mindset that got us into Iraq?

It’s the mindset that says force will do the trick. Violence, war, bombers—that they will bring democracy and liberty to the people.

It’s the mindset that says America has some God-given right to invade other countries for their own benefit. We will bring civilization to the Mexicans in 1846. We will bring freedom to the Cubans in 1898. We will bring democracy to the Filipinos in 1900. You know how successful we’ve been at bringing democracy all over the world.

Obama has not gotten out of this militaristic missionary mindset. He talks about sending tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.

Obama is a very smart guy, and surely he must know some of the history. You don’t have to know a lot to know the history of Afghanistan has been decades and decades and decades and decades of Western powers trying to impose their will on Afghanistan by force: the English, the Russians, and now the Americans. What has been the result? The result has been a ruined country.

This is the mindset that sends 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and that says, as Obama has, that we’ve got to have a bigger military. My heart sank when Obama said that. Why do we need a bigger military? We have an enormous military budget. Has Obama talked about cutting the military budget in half or some fraction? No.

We have military bases in more than a hundred countries. We have fourteen military bases on Okinawa alone. Who wants us there? The governments. They get benefits. But the people don’t really want us there. There have been huge demonstrations in Italy against the establishment of a U.S. military base. There have been big demonstrations in South Korea and on Okinawa.

One of the first acts of the Obama Administration was to send Predator missiles to bomb Pakistan. People died. The claim is, “Oh, we’re very precise with our weapons. We have the latest equipment. We can target anywhere and hit just what we want.”

This is the mindset of technological infatuation. Yes, they can actually decide that they’re going to bomb this one house. But there’s one problem: They don’t know who’s in the house. They can hit one car with a rocket from a great distance. Do they know who’s in the car? No.

And later—after the bodies have been taken out of the car, after the bodies have been taken out of the house—they tell you, “Well, there were three suspected terrorists in that house, and yes, there’s seven other people killed, including two children, but we got the suspected terrorists.” But notice that the word is “suspected.” The truth is they don’t know who the terrorists are.

So, yes, we have to get out of the mindset that got us into Iraq, but we’ve got to identify that mindset. And Obama has to be pulled by the people who elected him, by the people who are enthusiastic about him, to renounce that mindset. We’re the ones who have to tell him, “No, you’re on the wrong course with this militaristic idea of using force to accomplish things in the world. We won’t accomplish anything that way, and we’ll remain a hated country in the world.”

[Read entire article]

Posted in Civilian Casualties, Cost of War, Lessons from History, Peace Action, Peace Plans | Leave a Comment »

Congress Funds More War… Again

May 15, 2009 by peacepundit

The US House of Representatives voted Thursday 368-60 to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through the remainder of the current fiscal year. The House bill approved $96.7 billion. 51 members of the (Democratic) Progressive caucus and nine Republicans voted against the bill.

The Senate is preparing to pass its own version of the same bill. Its Appropriations Committee approved the bill for voting by the full Senate next week.

News Reports of the Vote

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Posted in Cost of War, Lessons from History, Mission Accomplished?, War on Terrorism | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries