Archive for the ‘A War Based on Lies’ Category

More Evidence That the Iraq War Was Unnecessary

July 5, 2009

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]

New Greenwald Documentary: Rethink Afghanistan

June 19, 2009

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:

House Progressives Oppose More War Funding

June 16, 2009

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

Blackwater, Renamed Xe, Still Operating in Iraq

April 28, 2009

PeacePundit has been covering the story of Blackwater Worldwide, the US-based security firm that gained notoriety in 2007 when their security guards protecting U.S. State Department officials shot at cars as the US caravan entered Nisoor Square (Baghdad), killing many civilians, including children.

The Iraqi government, reacting to that incident and several others in which civilians were killed by Blackwater guards, asked the US State Department to stop using Blackwater in Iraq, and eventually pulled Blackwater’s license to operate.

Nonetheless, the security firm continues to operate in Iraq, albeit with a new name: “Xe” (pronounced “zee”).

An Associated Press report, excerpted below, summarizes the situation.

Xe, formerly Blackwater, Still Operates in Iraq

Matthew Lee & Mike Baker, Associated Press
21 April 2009

Armed guards from the security firm once known as Blackwater Worldwide are still protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq, even though the company has no license to operate there …

Private security guards employed by the company, now known as Xe, are slated to continue ground operations in parts of Iraq long into the summer, far longer than had previously been acknowledged, government officials told the Associated Press.

In addition, helicopters working for Xe’s aviation wing, Presidential Airways, will provide air security for U.S. diplomatic convoys into September, almost two years after the Iraqi government first said it wanted the firm out.

The company’s continued presence raises fresh questions about the strength of Iraq’s sovereignty, even as the Obama administration urges the budding government to take more responsibility for the nation’s future.

Iraqis had long complained about incidents caused by Blackwater’s operations. Then a shooting by Blackwater guards in Baghdad in September 2007 left 17 civilians dead …

That deadly incident was the end, Iraqi leaders said. Blackwater had to get out.

But State Department officials acknowledge the company is still there.

The company declined to comment about a timetable for leaving.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said Iraq’s ability to enforce bans on companies like Blackwater may provide an early measurement of the strength of its internal sovereignty. As the Iraqi leaders gain more control, he said, the final exit for Blackwater will be inevitable.

“But let’s face it – they’re not entirely their own masters yet,” he said.

In Baghdad, an Iraqi security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said that while Xe will not be allowed to work in Iraq, the company needs “some time” to fully shut down its operations there. …

The State Department’s continued reliance on Blackwater also underscores the difficulties facing the U.S. government in finding other options to protect its diplomats in dangerous areas.

Department officials said this month that Blackwater guards would stop protecting U.S. diplomats on the ground in Baghdad on May 7, when the company’s contract for that specific job expires and a new security provider, Triple Canopy, takes over.

[Read Entire Article]

Related Peace Pundit Posts

Demos to End Iraq War & Cut Military Budget

March 13, 2009

March 19 is the 6th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.

  • Over 4,250 US combat troop deaths
  • Over 30,000 US military wounded
  • Over 1 million Iraqi & Afgan civilian deaths
  • Over 4 million displaced Iraqi civilians

We have a new President and a Democratic majority in Congress. Come help us put pressure on Obama and Congress to end the war and to cut the military budget by at least 20%.

Demonstrations are planned all over the U.S. A small sample:

  • San Francisco: 11:30 am, Market & Montgomery (near Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office).
  • Berkeley: 2 pm, University & Acton.
  • Oakland: 12 noon, Oakland Federal Bldg., 1301 Clay St.
  • Pasadena: 5 pm, Lake Ave & 210 freeway
  • San Diego: 4:30 pm, Rt. 67 and Dye Roads
  • Miami: 5:30pm, Pine Ridge & US 41
  • Chicago: 7 p.m., New Hope Church, 7115 W. Hood
  • Boston: 5 pm, Copley Square, Mass Ave. & Boylston
  • Find one near you.

More information is available at United for Peace & Justice website.

Iraq War: 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

February 16, 2009

An article published recently in The Nation and on Alternet provides a good overview of the Iraq war’s high human toll. Let us hope that advisors for President Obama, who promised to end this costly war, will see and take heed of this article. One way to encourage that is to send copies of the article to them.

Iraq’s Shocking Human Toll: About 1 Million Killed, 4.5 Million Displaced, 1-2 Million Widows, 5 Million Orphans

By John Tirman
The Nation, Feb 2 2009

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration. …

… [T]he United Nations estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis — more than half of them refugees — or about one in every six citizens. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. … According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

The mortality caused by the war is also high. Several household surveys were conducted between 2004 and 2007. … The higher of those found 650,000 “excess deaths” …; the other yielded 400,000. The war remained ferocious for twelve to fifteen months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside. … So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million “excess deaths” as we approach the six-year anniversary of this war.

… The overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about 1 million dead — in one way or another, affecting nearly one in two Iraqis.

By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the savage wars we are prone to. …

[Read full article]

Related Previous PeacePundit Posts

Memo to McCain: Define “Victory” in Iraq

November 4, 2008

Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for US President, says that Senator Barack Obama’s promise to end the war in Iraq responsibly but quickly would constitute declaring failure. McCain would keep US forces in Iraq until they achieve “victory”.

What is our mission in Iraq? What are our goals? McCain and other war-supporters use “victory” as a stock, pat answer, without explaining what they mean. The troops deserve more, the American people deserve more, and the world deserves more.

What could “victory” mean? Let’s examine several likely meanings to see if they are achievable.

An Unjustified War Has No Winners

Before we consider what Republicans might mean by “victory”, remember that the US invaded Iraq based on two false claims: 1) that Iraq was behind the September 11, 2008 terrorist attacks in the US, and 2) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction hidden away and was developing more, threatening Middle East stability. Bush administration officials knew both claims were false, so the war was based on lies.

Because the Iraq war was started on false premises, one could argue that it cannot be won. Why? Because the invading countries — the US and its allies — suffered human and financial losses that they could have avoided by not invading. Over 4500 Coalition troops have died — gone forever. More die each day the war continues. An unjustified war is a lose-lose proposition: both sides lose.

Furthermore, a huge number of Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invaded in 2003. Civilian casualties in Iraq are not tracked precisely, but credible estimates range from tens of thousands to almost a million. Whatever the number, the war has, over the past five years, killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein ever did. Without the war, most of those civilians would still be alive.

In addition to the dead, hundreds of thousands on both sides have been injured, physically and psychologically. The US, its Coalition partner-countries, and Iraq will pay for these injuries for decades.

The Iraq war has inflicted not only human casualties, but also financial ones. It has cost the Coalition countries, primarily the US, billions — even trillions — of dollars. Most of that has been wasted. The war’s financial cost has raised the US national debt to record levels. The financial cost to Iraq is incalculable.

Based on this reasoning, the Iraq war was lost the moment the US-led Coalition launched its first attacks in March 2003.

Republican Criteria for “Victory”: Acheivable?

Republicans and other supporters of the Iraq war of course do not view war that way. To them, a war is a zero-sum game that always has a winner and a loser. OK, fine: what might count as “winning” the Iraq war in the eyes of such people? I see the following possibilities:

  • All Insurgents Eliminated. This criterion for “victory” ignores the war’s realities. Initially, the US and its coalition partners fought Hussein’s Baathist army and party loyalists. They quickly folded, melting away into the populace. The war became a guerrilla war. Insurgents began coming to Iraq from around the Islamic world to fight the “infidel invaders”, just as they went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight the Soviet “infidels”. They are still coming to Iraq, recruited from Sunni madrassas all over the middle-east, north Africa, and central Asia. The supply is infinite due to strong anti-Americanism and high unemployment in the Sunni Islamic world. A second source of hostile forces is Iraq’s Shiites. Radical Shiite warlords such as Muqtada al-Sadr formed militias to fight the Sunnis and the Americans in an attempt to increase and consolidate Shiite power and control of Iraq’s oil. Some Shiite militias are supported by Iran, Iraq’s mostly-Shiite neighbor and former foe. Finally, many Iraqis who would otherwise be peaceful are radicalized by mistreatment — not to mention killing — of their families and kinsmen, creating another infinite supply of new insurgents. The goal of killing or capturing all insurgents in Iraq is simply impossible.
  • No Need for Combat. In May 2003, three months after attacking Iraq, President George W. Bush stood under a huge “Mission Accomplished” sign and declared that “major combat operations have ended” in Iraq. That claim now seems almost insanely naive and ill-informed. Similarly, the Soviet Union declared victory shortly after it invaded Afghanistan in 1978, but then became mired in a ten-year guerilla war from which it eventually withdrew. The US’s own effort to eliminate Al Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan also seemed like a quick victory, but now, seven years later, is looking more and more like the decade-long quagmire that the Soviets eventually gave up on. Is an actual end to combat operations in Iraq within sight? No, it isn’t.
  • Al Qaeda out of Iraq. This criterion for “victory” is ironic, since Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US launched the war. Al Qaeda leaders such as Osama bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein (a fellow Sunni Moslem) to be a ruthless “secular infidel” who terrorized his own people, which Hussein was. Saddam Hussein considered bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders to be fundamentalist religious fanatics who advocate theocracy, which they are. The US invasion and removal of Hussein created a power vacuum and shifted what little power remained in Iraqi hands from Hussein’s Baathist Sunnis to the Shiite majority. Al Queda, a Sunni organization, didn’t like that and also doesn’t like the US, so they moved into Iraq. Can the US eliminate Al Queda from Iraq? Only by allowing Shiite ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, turning Iraq into an entirely Shiite country. The resulting Iraq would be sympathetic to its neighbor and past enemy Iran, and could become an Iran annex. Most Republicans would not consider a Shiite Iraq to be a victory, even if hostilities ceased.

I welcome comments suggesting other criteria for “victory”.

Since none of the plausible criteria for “victory” are achievable, victory in the Iraq war is not achievable.

Related PeacePundit Posts

Aug 22 US Airstrike in Afghanistan: Follow-Up

October 7, 2008

Recently PeacePundit posted a chronology of the aftermath of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan that allegedly killed a large number of civilians. Afghan locals, Afghan government investigators, and United Nations investigators concluded that 90-95 civilians were killed, including 60 children. The US military claimed that mainly Taliban insurgents were killed, plus some civilians, but later reopened its investigation when presented with video images of many dead civilians.

There have been new developments in that story, so I updated the previous post. For readers’ convenience the new information is also included here:

Sep 15: The Associated Press reported that Afghan government investigators concluded that the August 22 airstrike: a) was based on false information that had been fed to the Americans by a rival tribe, and b) killed no Taliban fighters, only civilians. This conclusion was announced by a spokesman of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The spokesman also said that Afghan police had arrested three men alleged to have given the US military the false intelligence that led to the airstrike, but that their tribal head was not arrested because he was in “protective custody of US forces.” The spokesman said “… personal animosity led to trying to use the international forces for their own political disputes, which led to a disasterous event and caused a strain on the relationship of the Afghan government and international forces. Not a single Talib was killed. So it was a total disaster, and it made it even worse when there were denials, total denials.” The US military has declined to comment. Oddly, the US airstrike targeted Afghan employees of a British security firm and their families. [AP story]

Related Stories:

  • Sep 9: Caught in the Cross-fire (NYT Editorial on Afghan Civilian Casualties). Civilians in Afghanistan are paying a deadly price in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. America is fast losing the battle for hearts and minds, and unless the Pentagon comes up with a better strategy, the US and its allies may well lose the war. [Read editorial]
  • Sep 16: UN says civilian deaths in Afghan war soaring; up 40 per cent so for in 2008. The United Nations says the number of Afghan civilians killed in insurgent attacks and air strikes by foreign troops has risen almost 40 per cent this year. The Taliban have been responsible for 55% of the 1,445 Afghan civilian deaths reported through the end of August, and U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces are responsible for the other 45%. The UN says 395 of the civilian deaths caused by pro-government forces – about 60 per cent – have occurred in U.S. and NATO air strikes. [Read story]
  • Sep 17: Gates: US ‘must cut’ Afghan casualties. The US must do more to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said after meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Gates said he regretted the loss of innocent lives and would discuss it with the US military. [Read story]

Bacevich: Costs of US Consumerism & Imperialism

September 30, 2008

Bill Moyers interviews Andrew Bacevich, author of the recent book: “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism”. This is an interview to watch, even if you never read the book.

Bacevich is a former soldier (Vietnam) turned historian and political science professor. He identifies himself as a conservative, but has written articles for The Nation as well as for the American Conservative.

When the interview first appeared on Moyers PBS show, Bacevich’s book became a best-seller within hours.

The book and the interview concern the reasons for the Iraq war (and all US-waged wars since WWII), the US’s misguided use of its military, the US population’s addiction to profligate consumerism and the problems that causes, the many fallacies of the war on terror, the US presidency’s accrual of power over the past 40 years, and the erosion of democracy.

Bacevich’s main points overlap with ones that Noam Chomsky has made for decades. I admit to being a little perplexed as to why Bacevich has managed to reach a mainstream audience when Chomsky never has. Perhaps it is Bacevich’s gift for presenting ideas clearly, simply, and not condescendingly, or his credentials as a conservative, or his being a Vietnam veteran whose son served (and died) in Iraq, that allows more people to swallow his message. Ultimately however, it is the message that is important, not the messenger.

The interview is about 55 minutes long, broken into two segments. At the end of the first segment (27 minutes), click the “Part II” link at the top right of the image area. [Watch Interview]

U.S. Military Recruits Kids with Games

July 27, 2008

A recent report, excerpted below, documents that the U.S. military is using a video game — “America’s Army” — to recruit school-aged kids. The shoot-em-up game glorifies combat, while hiding the grisly and sad truths of war. The ACLU claims that recruiting minors violates international laws that the U.S. ratified.

Note to Game Developers: Someone should develop a video game that realistically depicts U.S. military service. For example:

  • being thrown into combat in foreign countries with no training in local languages or customs
  • having to scrounge armor panels from wrecked vehicles and duct-taping them to the sides of your humvee
  • invading people’s homes at 2 am, shouting at people who are screaming in their own language that they don’t understand you while pleading with you not to shoot them
  • having to decide in a fraction of a second if that person approaching you is a civilian or an insurgent, and realizing you just shot an unarmed woman and her child
  • losing limbs, suffering brain injuries and hearing losses
  • returning to the U.S. with physical handicaps and PTSD, finding that the military provides poor support for your multiple disabilities
  • losing your job and having your family withdraw from you, then losing your apartment, living out of a shopping cart, sleeping on a steam grate, digging food out of trash cans

US Military Recruits Children: “America’s Army” Video Game Violates International Law

Michael B. Reagan, t r u t h o u t
Wednesday 23 July 2008

In … 2002, the United States Army invaded E3, the annual video game convention held in Los Angeles. At the city’s Convention Center, young game enthusiasts mixed with camouflaged soldiers, Humvees and a small tank parked near the entrance. Thundering helicopter sound effects drew the curious to the Army’s interactive display, where a giant video screen flashed the words “Empower yourself. Defend America … You will be a soldier.”

The Army was unveiling its latest recruitment tool, the “America’s Army” video game, free to download online or pick up at a recruiting station, and now available … on the Xbox, PlayStation, cell phones and Gameboy game consoles. Since its release, the “game” has gone on to attain enormous popularity with over 30,000 players everyday, more than nine million registered users, and version 3.0 set for launch in September. … The game allows players to “see what a soldier sees” in real combat situations – peek around corners, take fine aim, chose weapons that replicate those actually used by the US Army.

… programmers were shipped to military training facilities in Wyoming, where they ran boot camp obstacle courses, fired weapons at the shooting range and got whisked around on helicopters. … Army weapons specialists worked with developers to ensure aim, fire, sound and reload functions for all of the game’s weapons were as close to the real thing as possible. … Several of the game’s missions are based on actual combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. … Ubisoft, the … publisher of the console version of the game, wrote that “America’s Army” is the “deepest and most realistic military game ever to hit consoles,” …

… The Army spent $6 million to develop the game at the Modeling, Virtual Environments and Simulation Institute (MOVES) before handing it over to private companies for adaptation to the console formats in 2004. …

… Far from providing realism, “America’s Army” offers a sanitized version of war to propagandize youth on the benefits of an Army career and prepare them for the battlefield. In the game, soldiers are not massacred in bloody fire typical of most video games, or for that matter, real combat. When hit, bullet wounds resemble puffs of red smoke, and players can take up to four hits before being killed. … Optional controls … sanitize the violence even more – shots produce no blood whatsoever and dead soldiers just sit down. This presentation of war contrasts to the much more grisly reality unfolding every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, like a June suicide attack on the Fallujah City Council in which three Marines, two interpreters and 20 Iraqis, including young children, were killed. Photos by American photojournalist Zoriah depict a horror scene in a small courtyard, … Zoriah writes of the scene, “There are dying people strewn around like limp dolls along with lifeless bodies of all ages. People are screaming and crying and running … people are literally frantic removing the dead, as if their pace may bring some of them back.” It is this violent, realistic quality of combat that has been excised from the game.

… At a minimum, the Army hopes “America’s Army” will act as “strategic communication” to expose “kids who are college bound and technologically savvy” to positive messaging about the Army. Phase one of the propaganda effort is to expose children to “Army values” and make service look as attractive as possible. The next phase is direct recruiting. According to Colonel Wardynski, who originally thought up selling the Army to children through video games, “a well executed game would put the Army within the immediate decision-making environment of young Americans. It would thereby increase the likelihood that these Americans would include Soldiering in their set of career alternatives.” To make the connection between the game and recruitment explicit, the “America’s Army” web site links directly to the Army’s recruitment page. … Local recruiters also use the game to draw in high school children for recruitment opportunities. Recruiters stage area tournaments with free pizza and sodas; winners receive Xbox game consoles, free copies of “America’s Army” and iPods. Game centers are also set up at state fairs and public festivals …

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has found that Army use of the game, and its recruiting practice in general, violate international law. In May, the ACLU published a report that found the armed services “regularly target children under 17 for military recruitment. Department of Defense instruction to recruiters, the US military’s collection of information of hundreds of thousands of 16-year-olds, and military training corps for children as young as 11 reveal that students are targeted for recruitment as early as possible. By exposing children under 17 to military recruitment, the United States military violates the Optional Protocol.” The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, ratified by the Senate in December 2002, protects the rights of children under 16 from military recruitment and deployment to war. The US subsequently entered a binding declaration that raised the minimum age to 17, meaning any recruitment activity targeted at those under 17 years old is not allowed in the United States. …

Four years after the game was introduced at the 2002 Los Angles E3, and half way around the world in Mosul, Iraq, “America’s Army” was having an effect. … Pvt. Doug Stanbro told The Christian Science Monitor in a 2006 interview that he “never really thought about the military at all before I started playing this game.” An informal Army study of the same year showed that 4 out of 100 new recruits in Ft. Benning, Georgia, credit “America’s Army” as the primary factor in convincing them to join the military. Sixty percent of those recruits surveyed said they played the game more than five times a week. …

[Read Entire Article]