Interesting article

[Supreme_Warlord]

Dead Reckoning - Bush Warriors Sign Off on War Crimes
By CHRIS FLOYD

The armchair warriors who directed the American-led conquest of Iraq would like us to believe that the estimated 10,000 innocent civilians who died in the invasion were simply unfortunate, inadvertant, unavoidable, accidental victims of a just and noble action. No one wanted these innocent people to die. Surely no American leader ever knowingly ordered a mission with the certain knowledge that innocent people were going to be killed by it. These deaths just happened; no one is to blame for them.

That's what the armchair warriors tell the world -- and themselves too, no doubt, when they look into the mirror every morning. But like almost every other statement issued by the Bush Regime on the subject of Iraq, this comforting fairytale is a cynical, blood-soaked lie. To take just one example: American military commanders revealed last week that up to 1,500 civilian deaths were personally approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.

In a debriefing for American and "Coalition" brass, U.S. Lieutenant General Michael Mosley confirmed that all air war commanders were required to get Rumsfeld's direct approval for any airstrike that would likely kill more than 30 innocent people, the New York Times reports. That certainly sounds like admirably strict oversight for such a momentous battlefield decision. In practice, however, Rumsfeld's management of the process was based on the same philosophy that his boss George W. Bush applied to death-penalty cases when he was governor of Texas: "What the hell, let 'em fry!"

More than 50 times, Rumsfeld was approached with mission plans likely to leave at least 30 innocent people vaporized and mutilated by unstoppable high-tech weaponry crashing down on them without warning, without the slightest chance of escape. More than 50 times, Rumsfeld signed his name to these multiple death-warrants: every such mission was approved, said Mosley.

Of course, an accurate count of the civilians killed at Rumsfeld's direct order is impossible to obtain. In the fiery chaos of the invasion, hundreds, perhaps thousands of dead civilians were buried in makeshift graves, unmarked graves, even mass graves, often by strangers. These corpses may never be fully accounted for. So we must make do with estimates. We could lowball it--an average of, say, "only" six civilian deaths per mission instead of the likely 30--and come up with a figure of 300 innocent men, women and children eviscerated at Rumsfeld's personal command. A more contentious high-balling--an average of 50 civilian deaths per mission--would give us at least 2,500 innocent men, women and children burned to death and blown to bits on Rumsfeld's order: a number approaching the death toll of the September 11 attacks.

Bushist minions would doubtless say that this "collateral damage" is the unintentional by-product of actions designed to achieve strictly military objectives. What's more, American forces placed unprecedented restraints on their rules of engagement precisely to avoid civilian casulties.

True enough. But when the overall military action itself is unjust--based on the calculated perversion of public trust by lies invoking an "imminent threat" which was patently non-existent, and on the constantly insinuated blood libel that Iraq was somehow complicit in the September 11 massacres; when, furthermore, the military action is illegal--an act of unilateral aggression unsanctioned by international law, the UN Charter or the Constitution of the United States (which does not give Congress the authority to delegate its warmarking powers to the personal whim of the president)--then the innocent deaths that result from such an action cannot be "justified" as the result of "normal" wartime operations.

In this context of illegality, the Bushists are left with nothing but the logic of gangsterism--an "Al Capone" Defense: "I tried real hard not to kill too many innocent bystanders when I robbed that bank." No court would accept such "restraint" as mitigation for murders committed in the course of criminal activity.

It's clear that the civilian deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq cannot be ascribed to some bloodless abstraction--"the fortunes of war," etc.,--but are instead the direct personal responsibility of all those in the national leadership of America and Britain who concocted and promulgated this illicit enterprise. And the greatest share of guilt must go to those who wield the greatest authority. The blood of hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent people is thus smeared across the snarling visage of Donald Rumsfeld.

But the ultimate responsibility must be laid at the ultimate authority, the man who indeed insists that it was his imperial will alone that launched the invasion: George W. Bush. True, it's painfully obvious that he is the witless mouthpiece of ideological extremists like Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney--those Bolsheviki of the boardroom. In fact, Bush is apparently ignorant of the actual events that led up to the war: in one of his very rare unscripted remarks, he panicked and told reporters last week that he invaded Iraq only after Saddam Hussein "wouldn't allow UN inspectors into the country"--a breathtaking display of disassociation from reality.

Nonetheless, this fatuous delusionary willingly placed himself at the head of the extremist junta that is now bankrupting his own country and killing thousands of innocent people as it runs roughshod over the world. His carefully-cultivated ignorance doesn't excuse his guilt. He may hope, as his accomplice Tony Blair pathetically declared last week, that "history will forgive us" for waging war under false pretenses; but in their unmarked graves, the murdered dead will forever call him to account

Chris Floyd is a columnist for the Moscow

[Vympel]

Chris Floyd of the Moscow Times is especially angry today. Articles of this kind ("Bushist minions" and so forth) really don't sit well with me, despite my views on the whole Iraq ... situation. Frankly, I don't find it interesting, no offense, suffice to say that people of all persuasions can find reason to be against the war:

- US credibility shot to hell
- US post 9/11 & Afghansitan good will shot to hell
- US troops still getting shot/blown to hell
- Civilians still getting shot/blown to hell
- Constructed on false pretenses (well, to most people)
- High cost of the war
- US military obviously stretched thin
- this makes us safer from terrorists ... how?
- What about Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda?
- the rise of Islamic fundamentalism among the Shi'ite population
- the attraction of foreign terrorists to come kill Amercian soldiers (if those claims are to be believed)
- another terrorist breeding ground created

Against this you have the only legitimate, good conscience argument any reasonable person could make for the war- that the Iraqi people will be better off when it's over. Which I do not believe. It's fucking geeky, but I'm reminded of something Lennier once said in Babylon 5- the Comes the Inquisitor episode actually. Tainted purpose= tainted execution. I'd be more inclined to support the war if they had made any serious argument for 'humanitarian' (ugh) reasons to go to war, rather than so obviously, cynically using it as a backstop.

[Peregrin Toker]

I think he goes over the top when he calls the US government a "junta" - after all, their power is more or less limited.

[Knife]

The author makes the mistake of impling that Rumsfield casually ordered the deaths of civilians in air raids as if there was no actual target there except the civilians.

I have no doubt that a rish/benifit analasis for each target was discussed and discussed again to make sure that the target was worth the chance that X amout of civilians could be killed.

The war was fought with as much deference to the local populace as could be expected. Really, is there any other military offensive that took humanitarian need into account more than the Iraqi War MkII?

[Vympel]

The war was fought with as much deference to the local populace as could be expected. Really, is there any other military offensive that took humanitarian need into account more than the Iraqi War MkII?

I honestly wouldn't know if it was any more or any less humanitarian than previous wars. How would we know how much deference is being made to civilian lives, really? Take their word for it? Why?

[Knife]

The war was fought with as much deference to the local populace as could be expected. Really, is there any other military offensive that took humanitarian need into account more than the Iraqi War MkII?

I honestly wouldn't know if it was any more or any less humanitarian than previous wars. How would we know how much deference is being made to civilian lives, really? Take their word for it? Why?

Well, there was no whole sell bombing of major population centers. Yes Bagdad and other cities got bombed but what got bombed? Goverment structures and C3 facilities. We did not have to level the city to destroy these targets. Yes, some accidnets happened and that is regrettable but Joe Smoes or Abdul Mohads house didn't get bombed on the average.

The coalition bent over backwards to LIMIT civilian deaths. I remember watching, CNN I think though it could have been Fox, the news and they had camera's on the local populace of Bagdad coming out of their houses and standing in the street, driveways, sidewalks, and even climbing on their roofs to watch the goverment facilities get JDAMed. They were not acting like they thought they were in physical danger, more like morbid curiosity or even honest interest in watching shit go boom.

[Durandal]

Tainted purpose= tainted execution. I'd be more inclined to support the war if they had made any serious argument for 'humanitarian' (ugh) reasons to go to war, rather than so obviously, cynically using it as a backstop.

I made a post based on that premise a while back. Basically, since Bush's only concern was oil and getting those dern sand niggers for shootin' at his daddy, he didn't bother developing a coherent plan for restructuring Iraq. Think about it. Our successes aren't restoring order to Iraq; they're killing Saddam Hussein's sons. Granted, Saddam and his kids were evil, but what's a higher priority here? Catching them or restoring order and peace to the society they oppressed? With the whole, "We're doing this for the Iraqi people" mantra going, you'd think that it'd be the latter. Instead, it's the former.

[Peregrin Toker]

I made a post based on that premise a while back. Basically, since Bush's only concern was oil and getting those dern sand niggers for shootin' at his daddy, he didn't bother developing a coherent plan for restructuring Iraq.

While the whole oil thing probably also is a factor, I don't think it's that simple.

It's just as much about securing U.S. foothold in the region.

(I think the only Middle Eastern nations which sympathize with the USA are Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia.)

[Joe]

I would like to hear where he got his 10,000 dead civilians figure.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

10,000 innocent civilians who died

Where'd this figure come from? North Korean Times?

[Stravo]

Of course no mention at all is made of the fact that there were many military targets intentioanlly placed within civilian areas, like placing anti air defenses in civilian neighborhoods, hiding armored vehicles in mosques, etc. Sadaam's plan of hiding his assets among his civilian population is what brought the war to the civilians not the US looking to kill folks.

This article is so blatantly biased particualrly with his pull out of my ass figures that he has absolutely no basis for that I had to force myself to finish. One thing is to say that it was unfortunate that civilians were killed in such high numbers (Without citing a single source) but what we get is Rumsfeld cackling with glee as he signed off on orders.

NOT the truth such as, there was a Command and control radar system placed next to a tenemnet building that ran the air defense on a part of Baghadad that our planes would be overflying and thus needed to be destroyed, liklihood of civilian casualties high, likelihood of American pilots getting shot down high. That is a valid military target and as such should be attacked. No one told him to go parking these things in neighborhoods.

But this author would have us believe that Rumy was rubbing his hands together as he joyfully signed off on these missions.

There's alot more valid ways of attacking and criticising this action. This is a pathetic way of doing so.

[Sea Skimmer]

10,000 estimated deaths? Try 1/5th of that. Hell entire Gulf War I only killed about 45,000 Iraqi's, military and civilian combind.

[Rubberanvil]

(I think the only Middle Eastern nations which sympathize with the USA are Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia.)

Qatar, Bahrain(sp?), U.A.E., Oman iirc, and the Yemen(sp?) government are also US allies.

[Howedar]

The author makes the mistake of impling that Rumsfield casually ordered the deaths of civilians in air raids as if there was no actual target there except the civilians.

That is by far my favorite part.

[Joe]

Calling Saudi Arabia an ally of the U.S. is like calling Brutus an ally of Julius Caesar.

[Darth Wong]

Of course no mention at all is made of the fact that there were many military targets intentioanlly placed within civilian areas, like placing anti air defenses in civilian neighborhoods, hiding armored vehicles in mosques, etc. Sadaam's plan of hiding his assets among his civilian population is what brought the war to the civilians not the US looking to kill folks.

Actually, the US invasion was what brought war to the civilians. No one put a gun to the country's head and forced them to do this, and the guy who directly attacked the US two years ago (thus supposedly starting all of this) is a Saudi Arabian who was last sighted in Afghanistan, not an Iraqi.

The point of that article, missed by many here in their haste to attack and denigrate, was simply that the leaders of the American military consciously decided to sacrifice civilian safety in order to accomplish their objectives, thus casting doubt on the widespread claim that civilian welfare was their objective.

[Andrew J.]

Surely no American leader ever knowingly ordered a mission with the certain knowledge that innocent people were going to be killed by it.

The hell we didn't! Just about any strategic bombing mission ever carried out during WWII-much less the really big ones, like Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki-had a 100 percent chance of killing a significant number of civilians.

[Coyote]

Well, it was a war, of course people died. It is conveniently forgotten that strategic bombing of pretty much everything in Germany was part and parcel of the concept of war. Modern war is so much more selective and careful about civilian casualties that this guy's Pollyannish expectation of absolutely 100% zero ciilian casualties is laughable.

It is just another piece of "J0orJ B|_|s|-| SuXX0rz /\nD A/\/\3rikkkuh iz 3\/il!" tripe.

[Darth Wong]

Well, it was a war, of course people died. It is conveniently forgotten that strategic bombing of pretty much everything in Germany was part and parcel of the concept of war. Modern war is so much more selective and careful about civilian casualties that this guy's Pollyannish expectation of absolutely 100% zero ciilian casualties is laughable.

This was the most carefully conducted invasion I've ever heard of. However, comparing it to other wars is not the point. Comparing it to not starting the war at all was the point, and for that, we must look at the country as the "reconstruction" develops and see if the balance sheet is in the black on this one.

[Howedar]

The point of that article, missed by many here in their haste to attack and denigrate, was simply that the leaders of the American military consciously decided to sacrifice civilian safety in order to accomplish their objectives, thus casting doubt on the widespread claim that civilian welfare was their objective.

Not necessarily. The improvement of civilian welfare could and probably will be far greater than the loss of lives in the conflict itself.

[Rubberanvil]

was simply that the leaders of the American military consciously decided to sacrifice civilian safety in order to accomplish their objectives, thus casting doubt on the widespread claim that civilian welfare was their objective.

You would have a point if the US military had just nuked or carpet-bombed every single population center instead of using precision weapons to attack selected targets.

[Vympel]

Where'd this figure come from? North Korean Times?

Western researchers apparently The US hasn't even bothered to count the civilian or Iraqi casualties IIRC, so I don't see what evidence there is to the contrary- Associated Press says 3,000+, reports incomplete at this time, but number 'is sure to be higher'.

[Joe]

The Guardian? Ooooh, I'm sold.

It takes months to get a really accurate estimate on civilian death. If you recall, the body counts for Afghanistan also started off high, then plummetted.

[Vympel]

The Guardian? Ooooh, I'm sold.

There's a differnece between reporting the news and making the news.

It takes months to get a really accurate estimate on civilian death. If you recall, the body counts for Afghanistan also started off high, then plummetted.

I honestly don't recall.

[Darth Wong]

was simply that the leaders of the American military consciously decided to sacrifice civilian safety in order to accomplish their objectives, thus casting doubt on the widespread claim that civilian welfare was their objective.

You would have a point if the US military had just nuked or carpet-bombed every single population center instead of using precision weapons to attack selected targets.

You really don't understand what's wrong with the "black/white fallacy", do you? Please research it and then get back to me.