| Home ArticlesLettersArchives
Empire Notes Needs Your Help
How to Help
"We don't seek empires. We're not imperialistic. We never have been. I
can't imagine why you'd even ask the question." Donald Rumsfeld,
questioned by an al-Jazeera correspondent, April 29, 2003.
"No one can now doubt the word of America," George W. Bush, State of
the Union, January 20, 2004.
August 25, 4:14 pm.
I've been trying to get a feel for the body count in this latest
assault on Najaf, now about three weeks old. English-language media
outlets are not keeping a running tally. The only firsthand source of
information on cumulative numbers is the Iraqi Ministry of Health, but
transcripts of their press conferences are not on their website and
they get only sporadic coverage by the American and British media.
So anyway it's not possible to come up with an even moderately hard
number, but you can do better than nothing. In the media reports that
follow, the primary source of numbers is the Ministry of Health, but
also, bizarrely, the U.S. military has on occasion revived the old
"body count" reporting from the Vietnam era. It has several times put
out numbers of "Mahdi Army members" killed in the operation. Just like
old numbers of "Vietcong killed," of course, it's likely that many of
the people included are noncombatants.
It's also worth noting that the numbers they give out are done solely
for the purpose of bragging; a military that claims to do humanitarian
interventions according to the laws of war should focus particularly on
reporting civilian deaths, since one cannot possibly evaluate the
proportionality of methods or whether humanitarian bombing saves more
than it kills if one isn't even keeping track of how many innocents are
But I digress. Early on, there were some cumulative numbers. According
to this August
from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "The fighting,
which began last week, has so far killed at least 623 Iraqis and
injured more than 1,200, according to figures from the U.S. military
and the Ministry of Health." I'm not sure how they combined the
military and Ministry of Health figures while avoiding double counting,
so this aggregation may be wrong. There are also numerous claims that
the United States is inflating numbers of militiamen killed, although
it's also quite likely that the Mehdi Army is covering up the number
An August 10 article from the Arizona Daily Star, just reporting Health
Ministry numbers, says 465 Iraqis were killed and 535 wounded -- this
includes the concomitant fighting in Sadr City, Nasiriyah, Amara, and
Basra (when there's an assault on Najaf, this ancillary fighting is
absolutely to be expected).
reports that purely on the night of August 19-20, 77 Iraqis
were killed and 70 wounded in Najaf fighting, including six Iraqi
reports another 49 killed in Najaf(56 in the country) in the 24 hours
starting 9:00 am August 21.
Obviously, some days had little fighting and few killed. But still,
this is fragmentary and doesn't even report all of the aggregate
numbers from the Health Ministry -- to say nothing of the fact that any
military engagement like this will involve deaths that never get
But, anyway, I think it reasonable to put the death toll for this
the neighborhood of 600 to 1000 Iraqis. As of yesterday, according
, eight U.S. soldiers had been killed in Najaf fighting --
which means that, in the U.S. domestic political calculus the Mehdi
Army loses where the mujaheddin of Fallujah won, even as in every other
forum, Iraqi and international, the United States loses.
This is of the same scale as the killing in Fallujah -- the numbers
I've seen that make sense to me range from 800 to 1200. In Fallujah,
about 3/4 of those were civilians.
The ratio seems lower here, but the civilian toll is high
Hussein Hadi, deputy director of Najaf's main
Al Hakim Hospital, says
that the recent fighting has been even worse for civilians than the
last time Sadr and his militia rebelled. Then, fighting lasted for more
than two months, and the hospital received about 180 dead, Hadi said
Sunday in an interview. In the past three weeks, the daily death toll
has been about the same, but it includes more women and children than
"This time, it's the average people that are dying," Hadi said.
the Americans are using heavier weapons. We see many children with more
severe injuries." In Judaada, many such casualties have occurred. Majid
Mousa, 11, whose leg was blown off below the knee in a U.S. assault on
Saturday, was one. Majid's face was peppered with shrapnel, which
blinded him, doctors said. He had been on his way to the market with
his brother, 15, who was killed in the explosion. His father, a truck
driver away on a run, does not know what happened.
As I wrote in an earlier commentary, that civilians are being killed by
intense military operations, involving among other things, the
fearsomely indiscriminate AC-130 Spectre gunship, unleashed right in
the heart of a densely populated city is hardly a surprise.
Deaths are not the only cost to civilians caught up in a city under
siege. During the siege on Fallujah, the United States bombed the
electrical power plant, and the city was blacked out the entire time.
In many places, there was no running water (and, as I can attest
personally, the water that was available was contaminated). The entire
city was cut up into a series of disconnected areas, divided by the
no-man's-lands of Marine snipers' firing paths. As a result, numerous
civilians lay wounded on the street or in their houses, unable to get
to medical care, and with medical personnel unable to pass the snipers
to get to them. Oh, yeah, and the United States at the beginning of the
assault deliberately closed the main
hospital in Fallujah
causing the additional deaths of perhaps hundreds of civilians who
might have been saved had doctors had full access to facilities.
It may not be quite as bad in Najaf -- the al-Hakim hospital at least
is open -- but civilians have been cut off and trapped. Medics in the
Imam Ali shrine sent
a desperate plea
to the Iraqi government for medical relief, mentioning not only wounded
in the shrine itself but also at least dozens of wounded civilians
trapped in nearby neighborhoods, unable to get to the shrine to make
use of the makeshift and incredibly overstretched medical facilities
In Fallujah, the story got out widely and got any attention at all only
because our group of independent Western journalists (including my
colleagues Jo Wilding
) got into the city to report --
and, after the siege, there was some good followup by others. In Najaf,
as yet, with rare exceptions like the above article by Sabrina
Tavernise, there is very little such reporting, for the simple reason
that there really aren't any teams of independent Western journalists
in there. As always, if only Arabs have reported it, to the United
States it hasn't happened.
August 25, 2:42 pm.
I did a radio interview on KGNU in Boulder last night along with Abbas
Kadhim, an Iraqi doctoral student in Near East Affairs. It's an hour
long, focusing on the background to events in Najaf -- Shi'ism,
Sadrism, etc., as well as evaluating larger consequences of the
offensive. It's available as streaming
or a downloadable
August 25, 2:35 pm.
I have mentioned several times that the Iraq coverage of the Washington
Post is far superior to that of the New York Times. It's also true that
the LA Times often beats the Post -- Alissa Rubin's reporting being
among the best at capturing the mood of the Iraqi public.
But this article, Everyone
Wants a Piece of the $18-Billion Man in Iraq
, by T. Christian
Miller a few days ago, is the epitome of mindlessly positive
glass-is-half-full-when-no-one-has-even-seen-the-glass Iraq reporting.
Here's the beginning:
The man with $18 billion to spend is taking a
Where's the money to rebuild Iraq? The jobs for broke
Iraqis? The promised health clinics and schools, bridges and dams,
electricity and clean water?
Retired Rear Adm. David Nash gives the same answer to the
skeptics who quiz him on America's long-delayed effort to rebuild Iraq:
Better times are coming.
"This country is going to take off," said Nash, 61, the head
of the U.S. effort to rebuild a nation devastated by a dozen years of
sanctions, three wars and a simmering insurgency.
After long delays and broken deadlines, there are signs that
the largest reconstruction effort since World War II's Marshall Plan is
poised to get rolling.
New and refurbished power stations are starting up weekly.
Private contractors are finishing plans for building thousands of
schools, clinics and infrastructure projects. Iraqi jobs in the program
have soared from 5,300 daily employees to more than 88,000.
But at least for now, there is little to show on the ground.
Less than $900 million has been spent of $18.4 billion that Congress
approved in November. Of 2,800 projects designed to make life better
for Iraqis — and in the process, safer for U.S. soldiers — only 214 are
Did you catch that last part? Less than 5% of the money allocated
almost a year ago has been spent. Fewer than 8% of projects "designed
to make life better" have even been started
. And, after 17
months of occupation, the "largest reconstruction effort since World
War II's Marshall Plan" is merely "poised to get rolling." In other
words, the main point of the article is that virtually nothing has been
done for 17 months. Yet that's not quite the feeling one gets when
reading the article.
The right wing always talks about how the media doesn't report the
"good things" happening in Iraq. In fact, the media reports them even
when they don't exist.
August 23, 10:25 am.
My latest commentary
for Uprising Radio
in Los Angeles) is about Moqtada al-Sadr and the U.S. assault on Najaf.
August 19, 1:45 am.
John Kerry has now added his voice to Wesley Clark's and Richard
Holbrooke's, in criticizing the proposed troop realignment because it
increases the difficulty of U.S. interventionism. In particular, he
claimed that reducing the garrison in South Korea increases the
"threat" from North Korea.
Indeed, things have gone so far that the mainstream media is starting
to pick up on this, as a recent article
in the Christian Science Monitor notes, "when Kerry challenges Bush,
it's often from the right."
The article follows up with this assessment:
that the thrust of Kerry's criticism often centers on the
administration's alienation of allies - a point Kerry hit on again
Wednesday, saying: "With Al Qaeda operating in 60 countries, we need
closer alliances in every part of the world to fight and win the war on
terrorism." Yet when it comes to many of the policies that have caused
friction with those allies - from the Kyoto treaty to the International
Criminal Court to Iraq - Kerry's positions are not all that different
from the president's.
The same is the case on "missile defense":
This week, for example, the president brought
up the issue of missile defense at a Boeing plant in Pennsylvania, as a
way of arguing that he understands the threats of the 21st century,
while Kerry is stuck in a dangerously outmoded way of thinking.
Opponents of missile defense are "living in the past," Bush said.
"We're living in the future. We're going to do what's necessary to
protect this country."
In response, Kerry's national security adviser Rand Beers shot back
that in the run-up to 9/11, Bush and his advisers were "preoccupied
with missile defense," adding that "their misunderstanding about the
threats we face continues to this day."
Yet he also stressed that Kerry doesn't oppose missile defense - but
believes it is "crucial to our national security strategy" - making the
difference with Bush a matter of emphasis rather than substance.
The differnece, apparently, is that Kerry will call for roughly the
same thing on missilde defense as Bush, but would have thought less
about it before 9/11.
August 17, 11:56 pm.
I took a much-needed vacation last week, but now I'm back. As always,
there are too many things to comment on.
Let's start with the story, broken
by the Financial Times on the weekend
, about Bush's recent
(at a speech in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
in Cincinnati) of a major troop realignment.
Something like 70,000 troops are to be removed from Europe and Asia
(most reports say about 45,000 from Europe), primarily from Germany and
South Korea. Most reports say they are to be brought back to the United
States, but it's clear from some, like the one today in
the Christian Science Monitor
, that it would simply be "most" of
the troops returning home, with redeployments to other countries still
to be worked out (or perhaps merely still to be announced).
There seem to be two favored locations for those other redeployments:
some would be sent to the "forward operating locations" (which Rumsfeld
took pains to distinguish
from "real" military bases) established
over the past few years in the former Soviet Central Asian republics
and some, as mentioned in a Times
editorial condemning the reshuffle
, to Eastern Europe. The move is
also anticipated to affect 100,000 family members and civilian
employees and contractors abroad.
Much of the commentary is focused on the question of whether this move
is designed to "punish" Germany for its opposition to the war on Iraq
(and perhaps even to punish South Korea for trying to break free of
U.S. policy on North Korea and elsewise). The CSM, in a roundup
, quotes the Kölnische Rundschau (a daily in
Cologne) as saying,
No matter how
Washington explains it as a necessary adjustment to changing
conditions, [it will be seen as] the result of Germany's not backing
the US on Iraq...
Wesley Clark and Richard Holbrooke criticized
for the same reasons, adding also concerns that pulling back
troops from Europe to the United States would make future wars more
"As we face a global war on terror
active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our
forces, and I question why President Bush would want to do this now,"
Mr. Clark said. "This ill-conceived move and its timing seem
Mr. Clark said an evaluation in the 1990s led to the decision that
troops would be needed in Europe and Asia.
makes sense to have those forces in Europe because they can deploy more
rapidly from Europe, and this administration wants to say those forces
should come home," he said.
Richard Holbrooke, a former
assistant secretary of state and ambassador to the United Nations under
President Bill Clinton, accused Mr. Bush of trying to deflect attention
from the strain on the military by prolonged deployments in Iraq. He
criticized Mr. Bush for slipping a "historic announcement" into a
"It’s not good diplomacy," said Mr. Holbrooke,
who argued that the plan will undermine relations with allies. "It
sends the message that this administration continues to operate in a
unilateral manner without adequately consulting its closest allies.
It’s a mistake, driven by the fact that we’re stretched too thin in
Iraq and the presidential election."
The administration was also at pains to deny that it had any connection
to the Iraq debacle and putative needs to free up more troops for Iraq
in the near future, with Donald Rumsfeld pointing
that these redeployments will take many years. And, of course,
many critics of the administration have seized on these denials to
claim that this is all a result of flailing to deal with the problems
Oddly enough, little of the commentary from any side has much at all to
do with what
are likely the real reasons. Although the Bush administration
frequently acts like a bunch of Mafiosi and likes to kneecap anyone who
has crossed them personally, we're talking here about a major strategic
shift; furthermore, one of the fighter wings that will be removed from
Germany is going to be based at Incirlik in Turkey, a country whose
opposition to the war gave the administration a much bigger black eye,
rhetorically and actually, than Germany's mild opposition.
Furthermore, Eastern Europe and Central Asia don't make better staging
areas for pouring troops into Iraq than Germany, which combines
proximity with longstanding stable setups and highly developed
infrastructure; and, of course, the United States would make a much
worse staging area, as Clark and Holbrooke pointed out.
Although the talk about pulling troops back to the United States
complicates things (and we should keep in mind the Bush
administration's love for the bait-and-switch policy), the basic agenda
is simply one of moving troops from countries like Germany and
increasingly South Korea where little extra political benefit is gained
from keeping such large garrisons, to Eastern Europe and Central Asia,
two of the three areas that form the core of the new policy of
post-Cold-War military expansionism (the third area is the Middle East,
but expansion beyond Iraq is looking highly unlikely at the moment).
The small numbers of troops involved would make little or no
difference, even if they were all thrown into Iraq instantly, rather
than gradually redeployed throughout the heart of Eurasia over a period
of years, but they will make a great deal of difference in exerting
increasing political influence, even hegemony, over the narrow-based
easily manipulable governments of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
It is worth noting that the classic Rebuilding
, the main strategy paper of the neoconservative
Project for a
New American Century, calls rather stridently for decreasing the
garrison in Germany. At the time it was drafted, the primary new
beachhead of the U.S. military was in Kosovo, so it emphasizes
repositioning forces in southeastern Europe. Since then, however, the
utility of NATO expansion and the increasing integration of other parts
of Eastern Europe, like Poland, into an expanding military-imperial
network (i.e., the creation of "new Europe"), has become very clear.
Similarly for the invasion into Central Asia, something that hardly
possible at the time RAD was written.
With regard to East Asia, RAD is against decreasing the South Korea
but points strongly to a "need" for a much greater presence in
Southeast Asia -- Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia (at one point,
Wolfowitz even mentioned
as a possibility). Since the time RAD was written, however,
its key architects, people like Wolfowitz, have figured out that the
larger the American garrison in South Korea the greater the deterrent
to aggressive U.S. action against North Korea.
So, in a nutshell, for the part of the foreign policy establishment
that still envisions a highly aggressive strategy of military
expansion, this realignment is exactly what would be expected.
August 16, 11:55 am.
Here's my weekly
, broadcast by KPFK in Los Angeles. This one's about Chavez
and the recall referendum -- more comments later.
August 10, 3:17 pm.
John Kerry, hiking in the Grand Canyon to show his dedication to the
environment, has just completed the evisceration of his position on
reporters that he would vote the same way today
as he did on
October 10, 2002, when Congress authorized Bush's war on Iraq.
Kerry justified this statement by saying, "I believe it's the right
authority for a president to have." This can only mean that he believes
the president should have the authority to go to war on his own say-so,
without needing Congressional approval. Of course, it's equally likely
that Kerry is simply continuing the stunning illogic that marks his
Kerry's criticism, according to the Times article linked above, is that
Bush didn't use that Congressional authority very effectively --
whatever that means. He posed several questions for Bush --
"My question to President Bush is, Why did
he rush to war
plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding
to Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would
vote today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work
necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead
America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other
countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way
that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?"
Given that Kerry seems to be saying that going to war was the right
thing to do, I'm at a loss to understand what he means by "the hard
work necessary to give America the truth."
So far, Kerry has been campaigning on the idea that he will do the
occupation better -- more allies, more allies, possibly more allies.
Now, he seems only a step away from claiming that had he been present
when the US went to war on Iraq, Iraq would have had WMD.
August 10, 11:30 am.
Brazil recently won yet another
on a WTO complaint against the EU's practice of dumping
heavily subsidized sugar on the world market.
Oxfam hailed the decision as a "triumph for developing countries;" it
calculates that ''EU dumping depresses world
prices and led to foreign
exchange losses in the region of 494 million dollars for Brazil, 151
million dollars for Thailand, and 60 million dollars each for South
Africa and India in 2002.''
All four of these are countries that have been at one time or another
under the gun of IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment programs. All
said programs have among their primary aims pushing Third World
countries over to primarily export-driven production, with earning of
foreign exchange (to be used for debt servicing) as the primary goal.
Unfortunately, what happens all too often is that once farmers are
pushed to start growing crops for export they run up against heavy
protectionist barriers and subsidies from First World countries, both
of which have the effect of lowering prices on the world market
(protectionist barriers increase prices in the "protected" economy and
lower them elsewhere).
Since it's the same countries of the rich world that exert pressure
through the IMF and World Bank, this is roughly like luring Third World
countries into an alleyway and mugging them.
The WTO created for the first time a nominally egalitarian
international body (like the U.N. would be if the General Assembly were
in charge) in which redress for such unfair practices could be sought.
In the beginning, since creation of the WTO was so completely a process
driven from the First World and primarily from the United States, Third
World countries were largely unequipped to use that process. In the
last year, that reality has dramatically changed, and Brazil alone has
won three WTO battles.
The rules of the WTO are designed to favor the prerogatives of capital
over any others. Brazil won these rulings on the basis of the
principles of free trade and equitable treatment for Brazilian
capitalists vis-a-vis those of the First World, not on the basis of
labor rights, the environment, or anything of the sort. Still, if used
effectively, the WTO is right now capable of providing significant
checks on the ability of the stronger countries to oppress the weaker
The WTO should be scrapped, because it is built on the basis of
principles that effectively preclude considerations other than profit
maximization; it is clear, however, that it has to be replaced with an
international body in which the strong can be held to account.
The EU has already started reducing its sugar subsidies and will
presumably end up complying most of the way, perhaps entirely. The
United States, on the other hand, has fought most of these WTO rulings
and is currently trying to avoid compliance with one on cotton
August 9, 10:40 am.
Here's my latest Uprising
, on the 59th anniversary of the bombing of
Nagasaki. It's about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the 9/11 commission, and more.
August 6, 9:35 pm
Have you ever heard this one before: Why aren't the media
reporting all the good news from Iraq? Well, here's an item in the
"good news" category -- In
Baghdad, Cleaning Up The Spoils of Freedom:
U.S. Funds Massive Garbage Collection Effort
Apparently, a new grant from USAID has enabled Baghdad to start a
garbage-collection program. It began in early July, and now involves
21,000 laborers and 5100 students (as "supervisors"). So far, the
program has cost $12 million.
The program is a lovely way to kill two birds with one stone -- to
start paring down the mountain of garbage that has been one of the most
visible and representative symbols of the occupation and to make a tiny
dent in the massive unemployment problem faced by Iraqis after the
Since last April, in Baghdad there had been essentially no garbage
collection. The pools of bright-green stagnant water that you may often
have read about don't just afflict poor areas like Sadr City (which is
with typhoid and hepatitis E
as a result of poor sanitation) -- you
can see them in the middle of relatively prosperous commercial
districts like Karrada as well -- and for that matter in the pools and
fountains at Firdaus Square, where the much-televised toppling of
Saddam Hussein's statue occurred.
Of course, one obvious question is why the United States couldn't have
instituted this last year. Instead of letting the people of Baghdad
associate garbage with the occupation and clean streets with Saddam,
being confronted with hundreds of thousands of young men in Baghdad
alone who had no prospects for employment, they could very easily have
instituted this program near the beginning. At $12 million a month,
it's ridiculously cheap -- and, of course, making sure that garbage is
collected is one of the statutory duties of an occupying power (said
power must assure access to necessities of life, health-care, a
disease-free environment, etc.).
Another obvious question is why this is a USAID program administered by
the Zozik Group, a Maryland-based corporation, rather than a program
run by the much-touted Baghdad municipal government.
The institution of a handful of such far too little far too late
programs does little more than underscore the negligence of the
occupation to date.
August 3, 11:55 pm
The Post has a very long, comphrehensive, and important
article in the evolving story
of U.S. robbery of Iraqi money, with a good headline into the bargain
Billion of Iraq's Money Goes to U.S. Contractors
The CPA awarded about 2000 contracts with Iraqi money. The total amound
involved was $2.26 billion, "at least 85 percent" of which was
obligated to U.S. companies.
Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a subsidiary of
Halliburton, was paid
$1.66 billion from the Iraqi money, primarily to cover the cost of
importing fuel from Kuwait. The job was tacked on to a no-bid contract
that was the subject of several investigations after allegations
surfaced that a subcontractor for Houston-based KBR overcharged by as
much as $61 million for the fuel.
Remember Tom Daschle's powerful
about South Dakotans who are supposedly upset that
we're supposedly building schools in Iraq but not in America,
And it doesn’t make sense to them that we’re
paying over $2 for gasoline at home, while American taxpayers are
funding nickel-a-gallon gas in Iraq.
Well, in the finest tradition of the Bush administration, he was lying.
The Iraqis, sitting on the second-largest oil reserves in the world,
were paying $1.66 billion of their money in order to import oil at far
higher than the market price, with built-in guaranteed profits for
Halliburton and its Kuwaiti subcontractors through a cost-plus
contract. American taxpayers weren't paying a nickel for it.
Unlike the way it would have been with a Democratic administration,
this robbery was conducted with a cavalier disregard of even the legal
forms set up by the United States:
That analysis and several audit reports
released in recent weeks shed new light on how the occupation authority
handled the Iraqi money it controlled. They show that the CPA at times
violated its own rules, authorizing Iraqi money when it didn't have a
quorum or proper Iraqi representation at meetings, and kept such sloppy
records that the paperwork for several major contracts could not be
found. During the first half of the occupation, the CPA depended
heavily on no-bid contracts that were questioned by auditors. And the
occupation's shifting of projects that were publicly announced to be
financed by U.S. money to Iraqi money prompted the Iraqi finance
minister to complain that the "ad hoc" process put the CPA in danger of
losing the trust of the people.
In fact, "Iraqi representation" consisted of a single member of the
11-member "Program Review Board" that made all the decisions -- a
member who was present for 2 out of 43 meetings. Under the sanctions
and the Oil for Food Program, the Iraqi government wasn't allowed into
the meetings of the 661 Sanctions Committee at all, but at least it had
authority for preparing the requests. Trust the United States acting on
its own to come up with a mechanism even less representative of the
interests of the Iraqi people.
To make it worse, "The United Nations, in a report dated July 15, noted
that metering of
oil extracted from Iraq was not functioning so it was impossible to
tell whether all of it had been accounted for," and thus we will have
no way of knowing the true amount of theft from the Iraqi people.
A consistent theme was the greater ease of spending Iraqi money than
congressionally appropriated U.S. money:
In most cases, to spend congressionally
officials had to coordinate with officials in Washington, keep detailed
records, advertise contracts widely and conform to waiting periods for
bids to come in. Some of the money was held up by a turf war between
the Pentagon and the State Department over who controlled the
It was simpler to use the Iraqi money.
all the Iraqi assets were held in what was known as the Development
Fund for Iraq. It was used primarily to support Iraqi government
ministries by paying salaries and expenses, according to budget
documents. But some of the fund was used to pay private contractors for
reconstruction projects. The main restriction on spending the money was
that it be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
access to the funds, all that was usually needed was the recommendation
of an entity called the Program Review Board, made up of 10 members and
a chairman, according to former CPA officials. The final authorization
required a single signature -- that of L. Paul Bremer, the occupation's
top civil administrator.
CPA officials have acknowledged
that contracts were sometimes shown to a just a few bidders and that
winners were picked within days. Several of the large contracts that
went to U.S. companies, for example, were awarded with no competition,
including a $16.8 million contract awarded to Custer Battles LLC of
McLean to provide security for the main U.S. military base in Baghdad,
and a $15.6 million contract for police radios awarded to Motorola Inc.
of Schaumburg, Ill., the CPA inspector general's compilation shows.
Of course, actual functioning governments are at least an occasional
impediment to massive graft. It just so happens, however, that this
strategy, which has ended up obligating over 95% of Iraqi oil revenues
last year while leaving 2% of the congressional appropriation spent and
under 30% obligated, also preserves maximal political leverage by the
United States over any potential Iraqi government. Having spent so much
of their money on profits for Halliburton, naturally, the need for
reconstruction funds from the United States becomes all the greater.
One of the key demands of the anti-occupation movement must be to turn
over all the undisbursed funds from the congressional appropriation to
any elected Iraqi government.
August 2, 10:55 pm
An unfortunate new development in the pattern of terrorist
bombings in Iraq. The country's Christian minority, presumably spared
previous violence because it is so numerically insignificant (usually
estimated at 2-3%) has been targeted -- yesterday, there were attacks
on five churches
in Baghdad and Mosul, killing 12.
The Iraqi government has already blamed
for the attacks. And my own gut reaction tells me that this
is, in fact, not a matter of a reverse crusade, but rather an aspect of
the kind of religious intolerance that Zarqawi ("Zarqawi") introduced
with the Ashura
attacks on Shi'a
earlier this year.
Al-Tawhid wal Jihad, Zarqawi's organization, is a group of militant takfiris
people who are ready at the drop of a hat to
who disagree with them as being un-Muslim. How much easier to forget
the protected status of Christians in traditional Islamic law.
The only thing that makes me unsure about this conclusion is that the
attacks were, by the standards of this group, not very bloody.
There is also a dynamic among indigenous non-terrorist political forces
towards greater religious intolerance. We've seen already in places
that Christian women are forced to cover their hair and that even
Christian alcohol-sellers have been forced to go out of business.
Add to this electricity
riots in Najaf
(and possible dissolution of the provincial council)
and, according to the U.N. Secretary-General's office, an impending
humanitarian crisis in Basra
, where only 40-60% of people get
access to clean water and it is projected that supply will not reach
prewar levels before the end of the year, and you have a very volatile
from Baghdad -- Hospital Closings and U.S. War Crimes "Report
from Baghdad -- Winning Hearts and Minds"Report
from Fallujah -- Destroying a Town in Order to "Save" it"Report
from Baghdad -- Opening the Gates of Hell"War
on Terrorism" Makes Us All Less Safe Bush
-- Is the Tide Turning?Perle and
vs. Dean SOU
2004: Myth and