Bush's Death Squads

[Chris Alger]

The White House web site web site thusly describes the fruits of Iraq's U.S.-installed government under the heading "Remarkable Progress Has Been Made in Iraq in the Last Three Years":

"The reign of a dictator has been replaced by a democratically elected government operating under one of the most progressive constitutions in the Arab world. Millions of Iraqis have joined the political process over the past year alone. . . . Three years ago, Iraqis had no voice in their government or their nation's future. Simple acts like voicing concerns about bad policies or organizing a meeting were denied. Citizens feared arbitrary arrest, torture, and imprisonment. Thousands of innocent Iraqis ended up in mass graves. Today, millions of Iraqis are shaping their own destinies by participating in Iraq's political process."

So how much responsibility will Bush's supporters assign to him for the following, taken from today's NY Times. (Bear in mind the way the level of connection they prefer to use when "linking" Iraq to terrorists).
<ul type="square"> Mohannad al-Azawi had just finished sprinkling food in his bird cages at his pet shop in south Baghdad, when three carloads of gunmen pulled up. In front of a crowd, he was grabbed by his shirt and driven off. Mr. Azawi was among the few Sunni Arabs on the block, and, according to witnesses, when a Shiite friend tried to intervene, a gunman stuck a pistol to his head and said, "You want us to blow your brains out, too?"

Mr. Azawi's body was found the next morning at a sewage treatment plant. A slight man who raised nightingales, he had been hogtied, drilled with power tools and shot.

In the last month, hundreds of men have been kidnapped, tortured and executed in Baghdad. As Iraqi and American leaders struggle to avert a civil war, the bodies keep piling up. The city's homicide rate has tripled from 11 to 33 a day, military officials said. The period from March 7 to March 21 was typically brutal: at least 191 corpses, many mutilated, surfaced in garbage bins, drainage ditches, minibuses and pickup trucks.

What frightens Iraqis most about these gangland-style killings is the impunity. According to reports filed by family members and more than a dozen interviews, many men were taken in daylight, in public, with witnesses all around. Few cases, if any, have been investigated.

Part of the reason may be that most victims are Sunnis, and there is growing suspicion that they were killed by Shiite death squads backed by government forces in a cycle of sectarian revenge. This allegation has been circulating in Baghdad for months, and as more Sunnis turn up dead, more people are inclined to believe it.

"This is sectarian cleansing," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament, who has maintained a degree of neutrality between Shiites and Sunnis.

Mr. Othman said there were atrocities on each side. "But what is different is when Shiites get killed by suicide bombs, everyone comes together to fight the Sunni terrorists," he said. " When Shiites kill Sunnis, there is no response, because much of this killing is done by militias connected to the government."

. . . The human rights office of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a mostly Sunni group, has cataloged more than 540 cases of Sunni men and a few of Sunni women who were kidnapped and killed since Feb. 22, when a Shiite shrine in Samarra was destroyed, unleashing a wave of sectarian fury.
. . .
While countless Sunni insurgents have been arrested and tried on murder charges, very few Shiite militiamen have been apprehended.

Thamir al-Janabi, who is in charge of the Interior Ministry's criminal investigation department, declined to comment. So did several other Interior Ministry officials.[/list]

It sounds like this is a recent phenomenon (at least with regard to the high frequency of occurrence described).

No doubt this will be more in the news soon, so let's see what steps will be taken to address the problem in the near future (hopefully).

I think you are little too quick to pan the U.S. over this, and more so, Bush--your post title "Bush's Death Squads" is a bit misleading, at least: when I opened the post I expected to find something about American soldier actions, but instead found a report of what is apparently organized Shiite on Sunni violence...I hope more about this comes out in the news, and that the U.S. does something to try to put an end to such atrocities. I do think your post title could have been better chosen.

Also, let's note that suicide bombings attract more attention by their very nature, than do abductions. The reports and reported activity are recent and I don't think it would be fair to expect that the U.S. know everything that goes on in Iraq as soon as it starts to take place. By this report, it appears some faction of Shiites, in collaboration with some government forces, are probably abducting and killing Sunnis. That doesn't immediately impute the U.S. (or Bush), especially given the enormous amount of violence within the country already...such things take a while to be noticed as more than just "more violence." By the report it looks like this is a an organized campaign so let's wait and see what develops. You don't think that U.S. forces are involved in or sanctioning these kidnapping/abductions, do you?

Also, we don;t have a clue as to whether those being targeted are just "regular" Sunnis, or if they are actually those who are part ofg the insurgency (not saying that would completely justify it, but on the other hand, if those getting killed are those who have been directly involved in assisting insurgent attacks, it would put a little different light on the picture. Sunni insurgents have long not "played by the rules", but now that it appears the Shiites are playing dirty too, is that altogether surprising? Of course there may be a cleansing element involved too, but notice that the Sunnis are not being slaughtered wholesale but rather apparently selectively).

Given that more of the insurgency and the anti-government violence has come from Sunni Saddam-sympatizers, than from Shiites, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect some lag time before a clear pattern seemed to emerge, and probably more lag time before figuring out just what is going on and who is doing what, and then more lag time to figure out what to do about it. As the report says, there is a "growing suspicion" that these kidnappings/executions are being done by Shiite government connected militia groups. Well, that's not too surprising, if so. You seem to be awfully ready to heap great blame on the U.S. and Bush, and calling the abductors "Bush's Death Squads" without any evidence of linkage to U.S. forces, strikes me as somewhat irresponsible at least. Maybe you were just reacting overquickly, but I thought this should pointed out.

[BluffTHIS!]

MMMMMM,

His post has everything to do with psychology and nothing to do with facts. If you are convinced there is a monster under the bed who is plotting your destruction, then you are going to ascribe anything bad that happens to that monster even when to others it is clearly seen to be the actions of different perpetrators.

[andyfox]

I think you miss the point here. The President is justifying the continued American presence in Iraq as necessary support for the new Iranian democracy. Yet there is evidence that the government is sponsoring death squads. If the United States is taking credit for getting rid of Hussein and being responsible for the installation of the present government, it cannot simply take credit for the "democracy" and deny responsibility for government subversion of democracy.

Those on this forum and elsewhere who compared this, at the beginning, to Vietnam were ridiculed. The comparison becomes more apt every day.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you miss the point here. The President is justifying the continued American presence in Iraq as necessary support for the new Iranian democracy. Yet there is evidence that the government is sponsoring death squads. If the United States is taking credit for getting rid of Hussein and being responsible for the installation of the present government, it cannot simply take credit for the "democracy" and deny responsibility for government subversion of democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so cut-and-dried as that. If this were a major and long-standing phenomenon (the Shiite vs Sunni death squads), then I would probably agree to some extent. But apparently, this has been going on for about a month in substantial fashion. How exactly is the U.S. presence supposed to prevent such things from ever occurring? The country is stil a mess, though arguably improving. It is false logic to lay for blame everything bad that happens, or everything bad the new government does, at the feet of the U.S. and Bush. There are many causes for such things; you can't rightly lay the blame for any and all subversions of democracy by the new government at the feet of Bush. This is even more true while the country is still engaged in a serious insurgency/counter-insurgency struggle. Nor is it reasonable to expect that Bush and the U.S. presencve should be able to prevent all such ocurrences from happening.

That's why I said let's wait and see what happens. The USA and Bush don't have a magic wand to wave instantly; the stabilization of Iraq will taker some time. Hopefully this matter will come more to light and be addressed correctively; I don't think it can be expected that it should have been foreseen and addressed "pre-emptively", though (heh).

Here's a minor off-the-wall example, exagerrated to illustrate a point. Let's say you and John Cole are walking through Central Park; no police in sight, very few people around for some reason (well it's pretty cold out). You've just seen a terrific theater production and are discussing it. You round a bend and see 3 motorcycle gang guys (only 3) setting upon 2 young women very violently. No cell phones; no police; nobody else around. However, your sharp eyes spot a couple of big sticks lying on the ground nearby. You and John pick them up, and like true heroes, flail away on the bikers' backs until they stop assaulting the young women. The tide has turned; the girls appear OK if roughed up a bit; and one biker has a bloody ear. The bikers halt their assault and say, "OK, enough, enough. Let's go." Hostilities have ceased; the girls don't look hurt much; and you and John feel like true heroes for a moment. The bikers turn and start moving off. Before you have time to bask in the warmth of relief or ask the girls if they are OK, though, one of the girls springs forward, drawing a wicked-looking dagger from her boot, and stabs the nearest departing biker right in the back.

You and John are somehow responsible for that???

Obviously it's a far-fetched example, with very few similarities, but it does illustrate the one point: you can't be held responsible for everything bad that follows in the wake of your actions. Some things are simply unpredictable, and the world is a messy and chaotic place. Additionally, might not some more horrible occurrence have taken place had you done nothing to stop stop the assault in progress?

So, the the USA cannot take full blame for everything bad that happens in the wake of the invasion. That just wouldn't be logical.

Anyway, do you agree with my take that Chris Alger's post title is misleading and inaccurate?

[ QUOTE ]
Those on this forum and elsewhere who compared this, at the beginning, to Vietnam were ridiculed. The comparison becomes more apt every day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps; or perhaps Iraq is stabilizing albeit slowly and we just hear mainly the bad news.

[andyfox]

"How exactly is the U.S. presence supposed to prevent such things from ever occurring? . . . It is false logic to lay for blame everything bad that happens, or everything bad the new government does, at the feet of the U.S. and Bush."

Nobody is blaming everything bad that happens on Bush. Bush is the one that is taking credit for the Iraqi democracy. He is the one saying how much better off the Iraqi people are now that Hussein is out. It is a false claim of credit when the bad things that are being done or at least tolerated by the government are simply ignored by the rose-colored assessments of the administration. If Bush wants to take credit for the good things engendered new regime in Iraq, he should also be responsible for the bad things. He cannot have it both ways. He is the one that claims he has waved a magic wand. Read that statement again that Chris quoted in his original post.

As for your example, while I appreciate the faith you have placed in John and me (probably misguided, certainly as it applies to me), it not an apt one. Neither John nor I had anything to do with the situation we stumbled upon, nor were we taking credit for creating it. (Note that we stumbled into it; we did not fight the same people in a previous campaign; we did not suspect that the attacker had tried to assassinate our father; we did not call for getting rid of the attackers in a public advertisement during the previous administration; and we did not say that the attackers posed a threat on citizens in other parts of the country). In Iraq, the President is taking credit without taking responsibility.

The President and his men keep referring to their Democratic critics as the "cut and run crowd." Cut and run from what? By saying they want to cut and run they are saying things will have no chance to work out under the Democrats' "plan." This implies that things will have a chance to work out under Bush's "plan." But why would that be the case? There must be something that points to the possibility of success. And that something is the progress that the President sees.

But that "progress" cannot be accurately assessed unless the problems are also seen. Otherwise one is getting a flawed and incomplete picture. If it's the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and nation-building that is responsible for the new democratic government of Iraq, it is also the Bush Doctrine that is responsible for the death squads in the new Iraq.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If this were a major and long-standing phenomenon (the Shiite vs Sunni death squads), then I would probably agree to some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are using extreme myopia to exclude what's relevant about U.S. complicity with Iraqi atrocities. The real event -- the "this" you mention -- amounts to the usual pattern: with flimsy pretext (often citing its concern for human rights), the U.S. uses mass violence or subversion to replace a government it doesn't like with one it does. The new regime commits grotesque human rights violations. The U.S. then ignores or downplays the crimes of the new regime while trying to whitewash the record with propaganda bespeaking the new regime's supposed commitment to democracy, human rights and other worthy goals. "This" is something we've seen time and again for the last 60 years. Who can seriously doubt that if Iraq was able to use death squads to crush the insurgency by murdering all conceivable opponents, that the U.S. would claim victory and continue to support all manner of atoricites, no matter how much worse they were than Saddam's?

[ QUOTE ]
It is false logic to lay for blame everything bad that happens, or everything bad the new government does, at the feet of the U.S. and Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (my title was obviously sardonic), but this is your technique. After all, you (and Bush and the right generally) tried to justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Iraq's pension for all Palestinian families killed in conflict for Israel turned Palestinian suicide bombing into (your phrase) a "cottage industry." In other words, Iraq was so responsible for Palestinian suicide bombing that thousands of Iraqi civilians must die in order to replace the government. Although Iraq's Palestinian policy was little different from those of other U.S.-supported Arab regimes (who also provide pensions to suicide bomber families), it is exhibit A of the claim that the U.S. "saw a threat in Iraq . . . because [Saddam] was a state sponsor of terror." (Bush, last week).

Another parallel is Palestine. The U.S. demands that the Palestinians must remain unfree as long as their minscule government fails to completely disarm all Palestinian terrorists, even though no U.S. official claims that the PA is directly to blame for any acts of terror. The standard that the pro-Israel camp universally accepted was that no serious negotiations can take place until the PA stops horrors which are beyond even the control of Israel, something obviously bordering on the impossible. Yet in Iraq the standard is this: the U.S. didn't organize and order the death squads and therefore can't be fairly blamed for anything they do.

The U.S. is responsible for putting and keeping the current Iraqi government in power. It "advises" all its offices, trains its troops and police, helped draft its constitution. Without the U.S., that government would not exist. Even if one doubted that, U.S. responsibility for the crimes of the Iraqi government (which include many months of human rights abuses -- according to the State Department -- in addition to the current spate of death squad killings) has to be at least equal to its responsibility for anything good that government has done. If the U.S. is indeed only observing helplessly from a distance, it would make no sense for Bush to brag last week that his policy has created a "free Iraq" that "serves as an amazing example . . . for people who are desparate for freedom."

My point is that supporters of the war tend to be hypocrites. Saddam's human rights abuses and "links" to terror purportedly justified mass violence and deprivation not just against Saddam but against Iraqi civilians generally. Yet more direct U.S. links to a regime that condones death squad violence are something that cannot possibly justify violence against the U.S. or its citizens or troops, and indeed are something for which the U.S. cannot even be fairly blamed, any more than bystanders can be blamed for failing to intervene in violence that has nothing to do with them at all.

So all your talk about human rights and democracy amounts to so much hot air that you can't take seriously yourself.

[Exsubmariner]

Yes Andy,
You've got it. It's all a plot by the Illuminati who are controling Bush via secret mindcontrol technology. They are in league with big oil men from Texas and racist European elites. They want another Vietnam because it is a great way to kill off the men in a generation who would become a threat to their power later in life. I know because I'm in on it. If only there were a way to silence smart men like you and Chomsky and Oliver Stone. How did you figure it all out?

You remind me of



Everything is not about Vietnam, for crying out loud.

[andyfox]

I didn't say everything was about Vietnam. The government death squads reminded me of threads we've had here, one in particular which I believe Chuck started just after the "mission" was "accomplished" and he was roundly criticized for making the comparison.

Deny it if you like, but we've seen this show before.

[BluffTHIS!]

andy,

If factions in the Iraqi government are sponsoring "death squads", we are only morally responsbile if we both know about and fail to try to discourage such actions. Just because we helped set up a democratic government in Iraq doesn't automatically make us responsbile for either all its open actions, or those covert actions of various governmental factions.

And the OP is all about distortion. He constantly distorts not only the actions and views of political leaders he disagrees with, but also the views of other posters here, in an effort to make them look ultra-extreme when they are not. This is either intentional lying and manipulation for rhetorical purposes, or it's a form of delusion/paranoia. And the misleading title of this thread proves this.