What Are They Fighting For?

The ever wonderful Chris Floyd points out the decrepitude of "rules of engagement" during war.
Shoot, Kill, Lie, Repeat: America's New Moral Universe
Written by Chris Floyd Friday, 09 May 2008
Tell me that this doesn't sound like something out of a history of Nazi tactics in World War II:

The rules [of engagement]t explicitly allowed the killing of unarmed Iraqis under certain circumstances...Specifically, the snipers were allowed to shoot unarmed people running away from explosions or firefights....Of course, it's not unusual for innocent people to run from explosions.
Didier, who has since been promoted to captain, said that "if that individual makes contact with you and then breaks contact of their own accord and disarms themselves while they are breaking contact, they are still an engageable target because they are not wounded, nor did they surrender." He explained, "They are only breaking contact so that they can engage coalition forces at a later time." In court, Sgt. Anthony Murphy, one of the snipers who was responsible for a questionable kill, testified that he interpreted this order about breaking contact so they can engage at a later time as: "Engage fleeing local nationals without weapons."

In other words, if an innocent, unarmed Iraqi runs away to seek safety from a suicide bombing, a missile attack or a gunfight — which any human being would instinctively do — then he is fair game to be killed by an American sniper.
The excerpt above comes from a story in Salon.com, "Killing by the Numbers," about an "elite" U.S. sniper squad that murdered a captured, unarmed civilian in cold blood. A more detailed excerpt follows below, but I'd like to deal briefly with one ancillary aspect first.
The story expands to talk more generally about the sniper program in Iraq, and is careful — overly careful — to emphasize that the snipers responsible for so many "questionable kills" are operating in very stressful conditions: sleep-deprived, sweltering in deadly heat, surrounded by potential "hostiles," at constant risk of attack. All true, of course, but it prompts this simple question: What the hell are they doing there in the first place? Why are they squatting and sweltering in "hides" in a foreign land, looking to kill people who never attacked the United States?
Yes, it is entirely understandable that a soldier subjected to nerve-wracking, physically tormenting conditions might fail to act with reason, patience, judgement and prudence. But is this supposed to be some kind of excuse for crimes committed within the context of a larger crime: a war of aggression, the military invasion and occupation of a foreign country without any provocation? Surely many of the Nazi atrocities were committed by men under unbearable mental and physical strain as well. So what? Were they absolved of their crimes? And more importantly — were their leaders absolved for instigating the larger crime that engendered these atrocities?
For as the story also shows, the "questionable kills" by American snipers derive largely from the murderous "rules of engagement" they are given by their superiors — and by the anxiety of their officers to produce big "kill numbers" to appease the bloodlust — and PR needs — of the thugs in the White House and their "counterinsurgency genius," David Petraeus. [...]
A detailed recount of another two other incidences follow, but I'd rather return to the theme that people suffer in war, all people, soldiers and citizens alike.
[...] It goes without saying that the officers who put these men in this situation — not to mention the civilian "leaders" in Washington who instigated the mass murder in Iraq — suffered not the slightest adverse consequence of this crime, for which they bear the primary responsibility.
[...] When even the scapegoats escape justice, what possible hope can there be that the perpetrators and abettors of the Nazi-like war crime in Iraq will ever pay the price — or even suffer the slightest trouble — for their monstrous outrage?
http://atlanticfreepress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3898&Itemid=81
Bravo, Chris, and write on, please!

Did DC Authorize Syrian Bombing?

Great Al Jazeera interview with Seymour Hersh. The "DC" referred to above is Richard [Dick] Cheney, who appears to have authorized the bombing of Syria last September, without a whiff of notice in the press, Congress, anywhere. 10 minutes reading this should put things into a much clearer perspective. Now, gydieyap, Bushie!
Interview: Seymour Hersh, By Sarah Brown
[...] Al Jazeera spoke to [Seymour Hersh] about the [Syria] bombing, why he feels the media failed on the story, and what it means for the Middle East.
Q: Why did Israel bomb a target in Syria? A: Well I don't have the answers to that direct question - one thing that is terribly significant is that the Israel and its chief ally the US have chosen to say nothing officially about this incident and that's what got me interested - whoever heard of a country bombing another one and not talking about it and thinking they had the right somehow not to talk about it?
[...] Syria of course compounded the problem by being hapless and feckless in response. It took them, I think, until October 1, almost four weeks after the incident before the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, acknowledged it had actually been bombed.
[...] A raid takes place, they announced rather quickly there was an intrusion by the Israelis, they initially say after a couple of days that munitions were bombed, then the foreign minister says in Turkey four or five days after the incident that nothing was bombed however, bombs fell but nothing was hit.
Then, three weeks later, the president says: "Oh, well actually a building was destroyed". You can't programme something that inept and that's a reality. They just weren't very good.
[...] Q: Didn't some of your sources tell you there was evidence to support the theory that the US wanted Israel to test Syria's air defences because they are similar to those of Iran?
A: In the beginning. This plan was staffed – by that I mean it was staffed by the US joint chiefs of staff, it was staffed by people in the vice president’s office.[...] It seems clear from what I've learned from my American friends and the Syrians that the Israelis came right in and the only target they had was the one they bombed.
They weren't looking at any radar site, they just went in and whacked it.
So, then you really get to the next level of questions that I didn't really deal with in the article because it's so hypothetical – who authorised it?
Who did they talk to? I mean Israel does not do a raid like this without talking to the White House and I can't find anybody that knew they were going to hit the facility beforehand.
That could be that just I can't find it, and if not that doesn't mean it's not there, and it could also be that somebody like Dick Cheney, who has done this before, overrode the chain of command.
So in other words, normally all this information about an Israeli attack would soak through to the joint chiefs, but he undercut that process perhaps - he's done it before in other incidents - but I just can't tell you for sure what happened here.
Q: Was the raid's purpose to act as a potential deterrent to Iran?
A: Of course that was the idea for the US, to let the Iranians know that despite the national intelligence estimate "We're ready to ... we have a proxy and the Israelis will go bang for us if we need."
[...] And the [result] was terrific for them, because it gave Olmert a big jump, a big boost of support.[...] For me the US press - I don't think they've come face to face with what happened here.... the newspapers missed without question the biggest moral story of the last decade, which is the illegal road to war in Iraq and we missed it.
And that's not our job, it's not our job to miss that, our job is not to listen to the president. There were elements of the same pattern of "kiss-up" going on and that's very disturbing.
[...] Somebody I know wrote a wonderful essay making the point that Iraq is a dead body, and David Petraeus, the general, and our ambassador Ryan Crocker they're the undertakers, and their job is to keep up with the rouge and the makeup on the body for the next six months until we get past the election - that's their goal.
[...]I just wish many American Jews would read the Israeli papers - particularly Haaretz - more carefully and they would see there's really a vibrant criticism of the Israeli government ... and you just don't see that today.[...]
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ED0FEEAA-BA97-47ED-99B2-06A653CBB82B.htm

Support Our Troops, For REAL

Jumping into the elevator to get back to my desk after lunch I read on the elevator news that Petraeus wants more troops in Afghanistan. Where will the bodies come from to fill these boots? The added incentives of bonuses for recruiters will create more lies, which will disenfranchise more young people from “politics” and on and on. At least the Vets for America is on the case:

Dear Friend:
Today, Veterans for America will deliver two new critical reports to every Member of Congress in anticipation of General Petraeus testifying next week in Washington.
As a supporter of Veterans for America, and we very much appreciate your help, I wanted to make sure you had a copy of these reports today, just as they are being released.
These two new reports--"The Consequences Of Churning" and "Weekend Warriors To Frontline Soldiers" -- make one thing absolutely clear: we must say no if General Petraeus suggests we stop the withdrawals of troops from Iraq. The consequences of our deployment policies are simply catastrophic and stopping withdrawals will only make it worse
Deployments now last 15 months instead of 12, and where once the Army provided two days at home for every one away, that ratio is now less than one day at home for every day served overseas. Four of the Army's Brigade Combat Teams (BCT's) have been deployed four times, 10 have been deployed three times, and almost all at least twice. Defense Department reports prove that a Soldier's likelihood of developing severe post-combat mental health problems leap 60% with each deployment.
The burden on our National Guard is also great - as it was designed primarily for domestic missions, not as an operational reserve for the most-heavily deployed elements of the active-duty Army. Nearly 200,000 members of the Army National Guard have been deployed to Iraq and/or Afghanistan - about half of whom already have post-combat mental health problems, a rate 29% higher than their active-duty counterparts.
These new reports are part of our Wounded Warrior Outreach Program - a program we have launched to give our troops a voice. We have visited bases around the country and we will continue to do so - but for those efforts, we need your help.
PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WOUNDED WARRIOR OUTREACH PROGRAM - PLEASE GIVE WHAT YOU CAN.
http://www.veteransforamerica.org/woundedwarrior/

Meet the Egg Man

Is there a legitimate reason why the head of the CIA wears his military uniform on tv? Don't we have enough trouble with our national image without Mr. Intelligence showing off his power? Koo ko, ka choo!
Hayden: Pakistan border poses danger
CIA Director Calls Afghanistan, Pakistan Border Region 'Clear and Present Danger' to US
HOPE YEN, AP News
Mar 30, 2008 12:39 EST
The situation in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan where al-Qaida has established a safe haven presents a "clear and present danger" to the West, the CIA director said Sunday.
[...] On Sunday, [Michael] Hayden declined to comment on reports that the U.S. might be escalating unilateral strikes against al-Qaida members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas out of concern that the pro-Western Musharraf's influence might be waning. Hayden only would say that Pakistan's cooperation in the past has been crucial to U.S. efforts to stem terrorism there.
"The situation on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border presents clear and present danger to Afghanistan, Pakistan, the West in general and United States in particular," he said. "Operationally, we are turning every effort to capture or kill that leadership from the top to the bottom."
On Iraq, Hayden said it could be "years" before the central government might be able to function on its own without the aid of U.S. combat forces. Hayden said he would defer to the specific assessments of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, who return to Washington next month to report to Congress.
Hayden spoke on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=107569