to David Honish, Veterans For Peace]
Pentagon Scumbags At It
Another Cover-Up In Progress;
Another Stupid Lie About Why:
Shit Brained Rat J. Cavazos Says Scientists And
Health Officials Are Traitors For Reporting On Brain Injured Troops
[Thanks to Phil G, who sent this in.]
6/7/2006 By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY [Excerpts
The Pentagon is refusing to
release data on how many soldiers have suffered brain injuries in Iraq and
It says disclosing the results would put the
lives of those fighting at risk.
The data come from screenings of 1,587
soldiers at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and 9,000 at Fort Carson in Colorado.
Army Medical Command spokesman Jaime Cavazos
said Wednesday that the results of the tests represent "information the
enemy could use to potentially make soldiers more vulnerable to harm." He declined to elaborate.
Pentagon scientists and other health
officials have already made public similar data from other installations.
[So, if Cavazos is right, these
people who have “already” made the information public are traitors
giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and helping kill U.S. troops. Therefore, they merit immediate arrest,
trail, and, if guilty, the death penalty.
[And if Cavazos is lying, and
trying to hide how many U.S. troops have traumatic brain injury, which costs
the government a lot of money to treat, then Cavazos is betraying the injured
troops. People who betray are called
traitors. In that case, shouldn’t
Cavazos experience the appropriate punishment for treason?
[And what is the appropriate
punishment for those responsible for the many reported failures to diagnose and
treat Iraq combat veterans with traumatic brain injuries? Some were accused by review board officers of
“faking” their injuries. Failure
to treat can kill. Repeat: What is the appropriate punishment for
Those results show that about 10% of combat
troops, and 20% in front-line infantry units, suffered concussions during their
The injuries frequently go
undiagnosed; multiple concussions can lead to permanent brain damage.
The screening is done with a questionnaire
prepared by the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, a research arm of the
Defense and Veterans Affairs departments.
The questionnaire is used at
four military bases, and center director Deborah Warden has urged that it be
used throughout the military.
So far, the Pentagon has
declined to do so because it questions whether troops can accurately answer the
questions in the screening. [This is
about as weak an excuse as the Pentagon traitors have come up with yet for
refusing to help injured troops.
It’s so lame it’s beneath contempt.]
Naval Medical Center San Diego, which has
been screening Marines from nearby Camp Pendleton for two years, and, more
recently, soldiers from the Army's Fort Irwin, released data this week.
Those data show that 10% of
7,909 Marines with the 1st Marine Division suffered brain injuries. Researchers tried to follow up with 500
Marines who suffered concussions. They
reached 161 of them and found that 83% were still suffering symptoms on average
10 months after the injury.
At Fort Irwin, 1,490 soldiers were screened,
and almost 12% suffered concussions during their combat tours.
IRAQ WAR REPORTS
Indiana Soldier Killed
Staff Sgt. Richard A. Blakley, 34, was killed
June 6, 2006, near Al Khalidiyah, Iraq. Blakley was from Company E, 38th Main
Support Battalion, Indianapolis, but was deployed with the 738th Area Support
Medical Company out of Monticello. (AP Photo/Indiana National Guard)
Fort Wainwright Soldier Dies In Iraq
June 8, 2006 (AP)
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska
An Alaska-based soldier has been killed in
Iraq, Army officials said Thursday.
The soldier, assigned to the 172nd Stryker
Brigade combat team based at Fort Wainwright, was killed Wednesday by
small-arms fire while conducting a dismounted patrol in Mosul, Iraq, spokesman
Maj. Kirk Gohlke said in a prepared statement.
First Iowan Female
Service Member Killed In Iraq
(AP Photo/U.S. Navy)
06/08/06 Des Moins Register & AP
Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime S. Jaenke
was killed June 5, 2006. Jaenke, 30, of
Bay City, Wis., a native of Iowa Falls, Iowa, was killed when her Humvee was
hit by the roadside bomb in the Al Anbar province, according to the Department
Seabee Reservist Jaenke is
among 41 other Iowans who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003.
Lexington Marine Injured
Jun 8 Bennett Haeberle, Action News 36
A Lexington marine has been injured in Iraq
after a roadside bomb exploded near the humvee he was driving.
His mother tells Action News 36 that 20-year
old Corporal Kris Freeman suffered a broken leg and dislocated elbow in the
blast that occurred Tuesday.
Another marine was killed in that same
Local Sailor Wounded in Iraq
Jun 7, 2006 wow
A sailor from Rock Falls is about to be
reunited with his family after being injured by a roadside bomb in Iraq on
Dean Berlin has four cracked vertebrate and a
broken shoulder blade. Two other sailors
were killed by the bomb.
When he first tried to call his family,
Berlin had to leave a message. His wife
was at the bus stop meeting their daughters.
"I did not have a lot of details. I knew that he had been injured and had
broken some bones, but I didn't know the extent of the injuries," says Amy
Berlin. Since then, she has spoken with
her husband twice and says he seems to be doing well.
BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW!
U.S. Army Spc. John Alden, center, with
Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, as a UH-60 Black Hawk
helicopter from 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment lands to extract them
from a field outside Upper Dugmat, Iraq, May 23, 2006. (AP Photo/Department of
Defense, Journalist 1st Class Jeremy L. Wood, U.S. Navy)
Australian Killed In
09jun06 Herald and Weekly Times
AN Australian has been killed in a roadside
bombing in Iraq.
The civilian from Queensland was killed by a
roadside blast 300km north of the capital Baghdad yesterday.
"We can confirm a 34-year-old Australian
civilian from Queensland was tragically killed in a roadside bomb blast in Iraq
on June 8," a DFAT spokeswoman said.
AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS
“We Don't Want These Foreigners, They Should
May 30 By EDWARD HARRIS Associated Press
Western aid workers drive past Afghan beggars
cradling naked, dirty children. U.S. military vehicles race through
trash-strewn streets with their guns pointed into traffic.
To many Afghans, foreigners are
a privileged elite, earning hefty salaries and given to drinking alcohol while
this shattered Islamic nation remains mired in violence and poverty.
"We don't want these
foreigners, they should go home. They're
damaging our society, the economy is terrible and we're so poor. And they're looting Afghanistan. Why aren't they building factories?" asked
Faisal Agha, who was injured in the riots that left at least 11 dead and scores
Foreign intervention has been a thread
running through the past quarter-century of strife in Afghanistan.
Soviet forces invaded in 1979, and Arab
fighters helped drive them out a decade later.
Unemployment for Afghans is
about 40 percent, while foreigners live in spacious compounds and maneuver
expensive four-wheel-drive vehicles past blue-shrouded women holding unclothed
children and begging for money.
Rents in some areas have risen
by 1,000 percent since the Taliban's ouster as international organizations have
moved in, pricing most Afghans out of the market.
Prices of mutton quadrupled as
comparatively expensive restaurants with largely foreign clientele blossomed
While the economy grew by 8 percent last year,
spurred by the influx of aid and illicit revenues from the drug industry, many
Afghans now feel worse off because inflation reached 16 percent.
During the past four years, at least 180 civilians
have died as a result of coalition action, according to a count based on
Associated Press reports.
Anatomy Of A Lost War Of Imperial
“They (Afghans) Have Realized That They Can
Take On The Police And Take On The Americans, They Could Easily Do It Again”
“The Regime That Rules Our Country Stands
Against The Wishes Of The Entire Nation”
riots in Kabul are a reminder that Afghanistan is a country that is deceptively
easy to invade but almost impossible to occupy.
The unseemly haste with which all fair-skinned Westerners had to run for
cover on Monday showed that discretion would be the better part of valor.
Jun 3, 2006 By M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times
M K Bhadrakumar served as a
career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with
postings including ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey
The eruption of anti-government,
anti-American rioting on Monday in Kabul has inevitably led to post-mortems
about what happened. This in turn has led
to the drawing up of checklists of failures on the part of the
"international community" (read the United States and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO) and the Afghan government in their
inability to provide troops, security and funds for reconstruction and
nation-building to the Pashtun tribes in southern Afghanistan.
A few additional details have
also been thrown in as regards Afghanistan's drug economy, the nexus between
drug traffickers, "warlords" and corrupt bureaucrats, the pompous lifestyle
of the expatriate community singularly unmindful of the extreme poverty
surrounding their sequestered life, and of course the venality that comes in
the wake of any invading army.
The story is complete. It is utterly familiar. This was how Saigon used to be in the 1960s.
But these accounts meticulously count the
trees - leaving one to wonder how dark and deep the woods might be.
Therefore, when Tim Albone,
correspondent for The Times of London in Kabul, wrote that he believed the
riots could mark a turning point in the Afghan situation, it caught attention
as a unique description.
“I've been in Kabul for
nine months and there has never been anything like this before.
“There is a real feeling
in the air that today Kabul changed.
“There has been a lot of fighting in
the south but this has been mainly between the militias and the American forces
“I've spoken to friends
who work in Iraq and they say that there was one day when it all changed. That could be the case here ...
“They (Afghans) have
realized that they can take on the police and take on the Americans, they could
easily do it again.”
What distinguishes Monday's
rioting is that Kabul is a largely Tajik city.
It seems the agitators carried posters of
Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary "Lion of Panjshir" who led the
Northern Alliance during the anti-Taliban resistance and was assassinated by
al-Qaeda on the eve of the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US and eliminated
from the political equations with clinical precision, just as Afghanistan's
need of his leadership would have become most pressing.
The agitators in Kabul burned
banners of President Hamid Karzai.
The violent incidents had heavy
anti-Karzai and anti-American overtones.
It is a very bad sign indeed
that the Tajiks, who constitute about 30% of Afghanistan's population, are
openly turning against Karzai, caricaturing him as an American puppet.
Yet the groundswell of Tajik alienation
should not have come as a surprise.
Anger was building up at the systematic neglect that the Afghan
government meted out to Panjshir (Massoud's power base) over the recent period.
Any serious observer of the Afghan scene
would have noted as far back as March that something fundamental was changing
in Afghan political alignments. Former
president Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, the politically astute Tajik leader
who founded Jamiat-i-Islami as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in the
late 1960s, and played a key role in the Afghan jihad, refused point-blank to
put blame on Pakistan for the growing instability in Afghanistan.
Instead, he went on to exonerate Pakistani
officials - this at the end of March, when Karzai was mounting a virulent
campaign that Pakistan was supportive of the Taliban's resurgence.
More important, Rabbani did this in the
course of an interview with the Pakistani media. He was evidently carrying his
message across to the Pakistani audience - conveying in subtle terms his
antipathy toward the dispensation in Kabul and at the same time renewing his
old links with Peshawar and Islamabad.
The twin pillars of
Jamiat-i-Islami ideology, Islam and Afghan nationalism, are also, curiously,
the driving force behind today's Afghan resistance spearheaded by the
Taliban. Herein lies the "terrible
beauty" (to borrow the words of W B Yeats) of what happened in Kabul on
Rabbani recently spelled out his political
platform in some detail during an interview with a publication from Dushanbe,
the capital of Tajikistan. Some extracts from the interview hold the key to the
shape of things to come in the Afghan political landscape. Rabbani said:
“Westerners, because of their corrupted
culture, want to prevent things that are beneficial to the Muslims. Besides, they entice us toward things that are
harmful to our society. For example, why shouldn't an Islamic country
such as Iran use nuclear technology? It
does not want to make any nuclear bomb, but wants to use nuclear technology.
“The goal of Westerners
is that an Islamic country should not develop. Thus, all these cries of conspiracy and uproar
are because Islamic countries should be denied the fruits of development, they
should rather serve as markets for those countries so that they get raw
materials, produce goods and sell them back to Islamic countries.
“Now, Americans have shown their
attitude to human rights in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It is surprising that they disallow girls from
going to schools wearing a headscarf. But
they will not get away with this in Afghanistan ...
“We consider this a conspiracy against
our religion, our freedom and security. They
talk about women's issues, while thousands of women die, and nobody cares for
them. But that does not stop them from
talking about "moral corruption". They haven't come here for the
reconstruction of Afghanistan, but they have come here to corrupt us ...
“The regime that rules
our country stands against the wishes of the entire nation ...
“In Afghanistan, our
policies should be defined by our nation, not by any foreign country. The
current Afghan government's policies are not acceptable to the Afghan people.
“We must protect our freedom. If a foreign country gives aid, that should be
without any strings attached. If the
donors put conditions, we should not accept such aid.
It does not require much ingenuity to see
that Rabbani's platform can easily converge with that of the Taliban-led Afghan
resistance, or of Hekmatyar.
In fact, the Canadian daily
Toronto Star reported recently that clerics in Kabul mosques had been urging
worshippers to join the resistance against Karzai's government and the
The report said, "Some
imams here (Kabul) believe the time is ripe to call for holy war." There
have been reports of weapons from the northern regions in the possession of
erstwhile Northern Alliance elements finding their way to the Taliban in the
south. Political divides are getting blurred.
Much of the Tajik alienation has arisen out
of the easing out of two important Tajik leaders, Mohammed Fahim and Yunus
Qanooni, from Karzai's government. These
leaders enjoy grassroots support among Tajiks.
The summary fashion in which Karzai removed them from office humiliated
the "Panjshiris" as a whole.
In fact, it was in the most bizarre way
conceivable that Karzai chose to sack the charismatic former foreign minister,
Abdullah (another close aide of Massoud), from his post in March. According to Abdullah, he was intimated about
his removal by telephone while he was on an official visit to Washington. Abdullah said he had met with Karzai just
before leaving Kabul for Washington but the latter assured him that his
portfolio wouldn't be affected in any cabinet changes.
"It did come out of the blue because no
one had talked to me or consulted me about it beforehand," Abdullah
Yet another factor of disaffection among the
Tajiks is the deliberate attempt by the Karzai government to limit the Tajik
presence in the Afghan National Army. To
add to Tajik resentment, Karzai has subjected Panjshir to "benign neglect"
by not allocating any substantial development funds for the region's
Karzai's political intention would have been
to bring the cradle of Tajik nationalism to its knees, while at the same time
pandering to Pashtun chauvinism with a view to consolidating a power base in
the Pashtun regions in the south and southwest.
But the tactic has not worked, as the
Taliban's resurgence shows. Meanwhile,
Karzai's ties with the Tajiks (who were his erstwhile allies and supporters in
the 2002-05 period) soured.
Karzai may be unwittingly preparing the
ground for a consolidation of pan-Afghan nationalism.
The indications are that Karzai has also
alienated other Northern Alliance groups.
It is intriguing as to where exactly Rashid Dostum, the Uzbek leader
from the northern Amu Darya region, currently stands in political equations.
Karzai appointed Dostum as chief of staff in
March in a smart move aimed at removing him from his power base in the north
and bringing him to live and work in Kabul.
It soon began to dawn on Dostum that his job carried more rank than
Feeling belittled, he stormed out of Kabul
and returned to his native Shibirghan.
The relatively placid northern provinces have since become volatile.
The paradox is that Karzai is winning all the
petty political skirmishes. He
choreographed the entire spectacle in April leading to the resounding
endorsement of his cabinet appointees by parliament. He deftly manipulated the internal divisions
in the newly elected parliament and capitalized on its inexperience. The Brussels-based think-tank International
Crisis Group, which was supportive of Karzai, criticized him for preventing the
Afghan parliament from becoming a viable working body.
No matter the post-mortem reports
regarding the eruption of violence in Kabul on Monday, the shift in political
templates is the central issue.
It seems a critical mass is
developing around which an Afghan resistance transcending ethnic divides may
take shape. Against this background,
NATO is not helping matters by posing as a lone ranger.
Almost all Afghan ethnic groups enjoy kinship
with neighboring countries. Therefore,
in any enduring Afghan settlement, Afghanistan's neighbors must be made
stakeholders. NATO, on the other hand, is wasting precious time, lost in the
thought of making 2006 a "pivotal year" in its history.
True, NATO has come into physical possession
of a country far away from Europe, where it is at liberty to act without the
prying eyes of international law. NATO
is understandably keen to prove its grit in safeguarding Western interests in
tough conditions - and indeed to claim a raison d'etre for itself.
But the riots in Kabul are a
reminder that Afghanistan is a country that is deceptively easy to invade but
almost impossible to occupy.
The unseemly haste with which
all fair-skinned Westerners had to run for cover on Monday showed that
discretion would be the better part of valor.
Numbers Of Americans Who Say Iraq War A Mistake At
Support For Bush War Policies Drops To New Low
[Thanks to PB, who sent this in.]
6.8.06 The Associated Press
More Americans than ever thought the war in
Iraq was a mistake, according to AP-Ipsos polling.
59 percent of adults say the
United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq: the highest level yet in
Approval of President Bush's
handling of Iraq dipped to 33 percent, a new low.
Those most likely to disapprove are Democrats
(89 percent), women (70 percent), minorities (84 percent), city dwellers (72
percent), those with household incomes under $25,000 (71 percent), and
unmarried men (70 percent).
Do you have a friend or relative in the
service? Forward this E-MAIL along, or
send us the address if you wish and we’ll send it regularly. Whether in Iraq or stuck on a base in the
USA, this is extra important for your service friend, too often cut off from
access to encouraging news of growing resistance to the war, at home and inside
the armed services. Send requests to address up
“I Want To Say That I Am Fighting For My Men
“But The Conscionable Way To Support Them Is
To Oppose This War And Help End It So All Soldiers Can Come Home”
Watada: My commander asked me, if everybody like you
refused to go to Iraq, what would that leave us with? And I guess he was trying to say we wouldn't
have an army anymore, and that would be bad.
wanted to tell him if that happened the war would stop, because nobody would be
there to fight it.
07 June 2006 By Sarah Olson, Truthout
Ehren Watada is a 27-year-old
first lieutenant in the United States Army.
He joined the Army in 2003, during the run-up to the Iraq war, and
turned in his resignation to protest that same war in January of 2006. He expects to receive orders in late June.
He is poised to become the
first lieutenant to refuse to deploy to Iraq, setting the stage for what could
be the biggest movement of GI resistance since the Vietnam War.
He faces a court-martial, up to two years in prison
for missing movement by design, a dishonorable discharge, and other possible
He says speaking against an illegal and
immoral war is worth all of this and more. Journalist Sarah Olson spoke with
Watada in late May about his reasons for joining the military, and why he wants
Sarah Olson: When you joined
the Army in 2003, what were your goals?
Ehren Watada: 2003 was a couple of years after the terrorist
attacks of 9/11. I had the idea that my country needed me and that I needed to
serve my country. I still strongly
believe that. I strongly believe in
service and duty. That's one of the
reasons I joined: because of patriotism.
I took an oath to the US Constitution, and to
the values and the principles it represents. It makes us strongly unique. We don't allow tyranny; we believe in
accountability and checks and balances, and a government that's by and for the
The military must safeguard
those freedoms and those principles and the democracy that makes us unique.
A lot of people, like myself, join the
military because they love their country, and they love what it stands for.
SO: You joined the Army during the run-up to the
Iraq war, but you had misgivings about the war. How did that happen?
Watada: Like everybody in America and around
the world, I heard what they were saying on television about the stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction, and the ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11. I also saw the millions of people around the
world protesting, and listened to the people resigning from the government in
protest. I realized that the war
probably wasn't justified until we found proof of these accusations the
president and his deputies were making against Iraq.
But I also believed we should
give the president the benefit of the doubt. At that time, I never believed ... I could
never conceive of our leader betraying the trust we had in him.
I realized that to go to war, I needed to
educate myself in every way possible. Why
were we going to this particular war? What
were the effects of war? What were the
consequences for soldiers coming home? I
began reading everything I could.
One of many books I read was James Bamford's
Pretext for War. As I read about the
level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this
war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of
wearing the uniform.
How can we wear something with
such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a
misrepresentation and lies? It was a
betrayal of the trust of the American people. And these lies were a betrayal of the trust of
the military and the soldiers.
My mind was in turmoil. Do I follow orders
and participate in something that I believed to be wrong? When you join the Army you learn to follow
orders without question. Soldiers are
apolitical, and you don't voice your opinion out loud.
I started asking, why are we dying? Why are we losing limbs? For what? I listened to the president and his deputies
say we were fighting for democracy; we were fighting for a better Iraq. I just started to think about those things. Are those things the real reasons why we are
there, the real reasons we were dying? But
I felt there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just
continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to
The deciding moment for me was
in January of 2006. I had watched clips
of military funerals. I saw the photos
of these families. The children. The mothers and the fathers as they sat by the
grave, or as they came out of the funerals.
One really hard picture for me
was a little boy leaving his father's funeral. He couldn't face the camera so
he is covering his eyes. I felt like I
couldn't watch that anymore. I couldn't be silent any more and condone
something that I felt was deeply wrong.
SO: You made decision to refuse
orders to deploy to Iraq. What happened
Watada: I alerted my commander this January,
and told him I would refuse the order to go to Iraq. He asked me to think it over. After about a week, I said OK, I've made my
decision. I've come to believe this is
an illegal and an immoral war, and the order to have us deploy to Iraq is
unlawful. I won't follow this order and
I won't participate in something I believe is wrong.
My commanders told me that I could go to Iraq
in a different capacity. I wouldn't have
to fire a weapon and I wouldn't be in harm's way. But that's not what this is about. Even in my resignation letter I said that I would
rather go to prison than do something that I felt was deeply wrong. I believe the whole war is illegal.
I'm not just against bearing
arms or fighting people. I am against an
SO: You've had about six months
to think about this. It's a pretty heavy revelation that you're quite possibly
facing prison time. How are you feeling now?
Watada: A lot of people including my parents
tried to talk me out of it. And I had to
tell them, and I had to convince myself first, that it's not about just trying
to survive. It's not about just trying
to make sure you're safe. When you are
looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of
your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important
moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even
knowing there were negative consequences.
SO: What is your intellectual
and moral opposition to the Iraq war? What is that based on?
Watada: First, the war was based on false pretenses.
If the president tells us we are there to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction, and there are none, why are we there? Then the president said Saddam had ties to
al-Qaeda and 9/11. That allegation has been proven to be false too. So why are we going there? The president says we're there to promote
democracy, and to liberate the Iraqi people. That isn't happening either.
Second, the Iraq war is not legal according
to domestic and international law. It
violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act, which limits the president in
his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees
fit. The UN Charter, the Geneva
Convention, and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression.
Finally, the occupation itself
is illegal. If you look at the Army Field Manual, 27-10, which governs the laws
of land warfare, it states certain responsibilities for the occupying power. As the occupying power, we have failed to
follow a lot of those regulations. There
is no justification for why we are there or what we are doing.
SO: One of the common
criticisms of military resisters is that you have abandoned your colleagues,
and that you are letting others fight a war in your place. What's you're response to this?
Watada: My commander asked me, if everybody like you
refused to go to Iraq, what would that leave us with? And I guess he was trying to say we wouldn't
have an army anymore, and that would be bad.
But I wanted to tell him if
that happened the war would stop, because nobody would be there to fight it.
When people say, you're not
being a team player or you are letting your buddies down, I want to say that I
am fighting for my men still, and I am supporting them.
But the conscionable way to
support them is not to drop artillery and cause more destruction.
It is to oppose this war and
help end it so all soldiers can come home. It is my duty not to follow unlawful
orders and not participate in things I find morally reprehensible.
SO: Are your feelings common among people in the military?
The general sentiment of people within the military is that they're getting a
little sick and tired of this war. You
can tell with the recent Zogby poll that said more than 70% of people in the
military want to withdraw the end of this year. That's a powerful statement from people within
the military who aren't really given the chance to speak out publicly.
SO: What do you think the US
should do in Iraq now?
Watada: I think the US should
pull out all troops immediately. The outbreak
of the civil war is something that we caused with our invasion and our war. I don't think it's at a point right now where
we can fix it.
SO: You've mentioned your sense
of betrayal. Can you explain this?
Watada: The president is the commander in chief, and
although he is our leader, there must be a strong relationship of trust. Anybody who's been in the military knows that
in order to have a cohesive and effective fighting force, you need to have a
certain level of trust between leaders and soldiers. And when you don't, things start to break
I signed a contract saying I
will follow orders, and do what I'm told to do. There are times when I won't be able to
question it and evaluate the legality of these orders, so I have to have the ultimate
trust in my leader. I have to trust the
president's word, and trust him to do what's right. I have to trust him to sacrifice our lives
only for justified and moral reasons.
Realizing the president is
taking us into a war that he misled us about has broken that bond of trust that
If the president can betray my
trust, it's time for me to evaluate what he's telling me to do.
I've realized that going to
this war is the wrong thing to do.
SO: Now that you've submitted
your resignation, what's next for you?
Watada: I submitted a resignation packet,
which was disapproved. My commander has asked me again if I am still
going to go along with this. And I said yes of course. I still believe the same things that I did six
months ago. And he said he couldn't charge me until I
violate an order.
So I've been given an order to
deploy in late June. When I refuse, the
chain of command will charge me and court-martial me.
“A Struggle Practically Forgotten Today,
Eerily Relevant Though It Still May Be”
Sir! No Sir!
2006 by Rachel Gordon, Filmcritic.com
The war in Vietnam is perhaps the least
popular involvement overseas the United States has ever had. It’s also the most widely publicized in
terms of societal grief, some three-decades later. The pictures of innocents dying so brutally
never quite escapes you, even if you’ve only glanced them in a history
class, much less as an actual soldier on the frontlines.
While there are plenty of
films, and literature, that profile domestic civilian resistance to the war in
Vietnam, there is little material that exhibits the actual military fighting to
leave that campaign.
Several fiction films depict how deeply
disturbed returning veterans were, and place the blame on the nature of combat
itself alone. Some go so far as to
suggest that the homes they came back to slandered them for their work,
suggesting that all Americans unpatriotically offended those that fought for
democracy, pointing responsibility for veteran discontent at loved ones instead
of the actions that led to them becoming veterans.
What David Zeiger’s film, Sir! No Sir!
seeks to rectify is an abyss of information as to how involved and widespread
military insurrection was, and its impact on the conclusion of fighting in that
Through eloquent interviews
from a variety of angles comes the true story of a G.I. movement that built
itself up from a few to literally thousands, as more became convinced that they
were killing for the wrong reasons.
From marches to underground
papers, to outright refusal that resulted in lengthy prison terms, Sir!
combines impressive archival footage with individual narratives to capture a
struggle practically forgotten today, eerily relevant though it still may be.
The material and subjects are important and
engaging, though Sir! unfortunately falls into the repetitive pasting together
of narration, and the historical footage that backs it up, as any film made
about a previous era is forced to do. This type of editing will probably help
with a television broadcast containing commercials for easy breaks, but it also
engenders possibly losing attention because you feel you got the point well
before he’s moved on to the next idea. It can be quite difficult to maintain a
creative, dynamic structure when everything you are outlining has passed some
time ago. Zeiger makes up for some of
this lag in a well-written narration that strings along his various discoveries
Though there has certainly been
plenty of civilian commentary to mentally link our current war tactics in Iraq
to that we promoted in Vietnam a generation ago, watching Sir! does make one
wonder if we’re possibly not hearing an entirely honest story from the
troops and government officials placed in front of the cameras with prepared
statements to discuss our progress.
It’s a film well worth seeing for the
new view it provides on militaristic organization and its concentration on
single, personal efforts making enormous contributions.
Sir! No Sir!:
At A Theatre Near You!
To find it: http://www.sirnosir.com/
Concern Growing Over U.S. Troops’
“The Lack Of The Lethality Of That Bullet
Has Caused United States Soldiers To Die”
Jun 7, 2006 CBS News [Excerpts]
As American troop casualties in Iraq continue
to mount, concern is growing they may be outgunned. That includes new questions about the
stopping power of the ammunition that is used by the standard-issue M-16 rifle.
Shortly after the U.N. headquarters was
bombed in Baghdad in August 2003, a Special Forces unit went to Ramadi to
capture those responsible.
In a fierce exchange of gunfire, one
insurgent was hit seven times by 5.56 mm bullets, reports CBS News chief
investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian. It took a shot to the head with a
pistol to finally bring him down. But
before he died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven more.
"The lack of the lethality of that
bullet has caused United States soldiers to die," says Maj. Anthony
Milavic is a retired Marine major who saw
three tours of duty in Vietnam. He says the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a
.22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than
the enemy, and contends that urban warfare in Iraq demands a bigger
bullet. "A bullet that knocks the
man down with one shot," he says. "And keeps him down."
Milavic is not alone. In a confidential
report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that:
"5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five
times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal."
In last week's Marine Corps
Times, a squad leader said his Marines carried and used "found" enemy
AK-47s because that weapon's 7.62 mm bullets packed "more stopping power."
Bruce Jones is a mechanical engineer who
helped design artillery, rifles and pistols for the Marines.
"I saw the tests that clearly showed how
miserable the bullets really were in performance," he says. "But that's what we're arming our troops
with. It's horrible, you know, it's
To demonstrate to CBS News, Jones fired the
larger-caliber 7.62 bullet fired by AK-47s used by insurgents in Iraq into a
block of glycerin. The hole cavity is 50
percent or more larger than that of the 5.56.
Here at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey,
the government's own engineers have done the most extensive testing on the 5.56
since 1990 and issued two draft reports.
In the first, dated 2004, the 5.56 ranked
last in lethality out of three bullets tested.
A second draft, dated last month, confirmed
that rating, ranking the 5.56 dead last in close-quarter combat.
[T]here's no questions that if
the Pentagon did have any questions about this bullet, it would face some very
expensive modifications to the M-16.
IRAQ RESISTANCE ROUNDUP
Assorted Resistance Action
6.8.06 Gulf Daily News & The Associated
A police major and a colonel were killed in
the capital when a roadside bomb went off against their vehicle. Two other
policemen were also wounded.
In Mosul, a policeman was shot dead in front
of his house.
In the centre of Tikrit city, two policemen
were shot dead when guerrillas opened fire on their car.
A police captain was killed and eight others,
including five civilians, were wounded in a roadside bombing targeting a police
patrol south of the oil hub of Kirkuk.
In a similar bombing an Iraqi soldier was
killed and two others wounded in Bohruz
An explosion targeted a police patrol in the
New Baghdad area in eastern Baghdad, killing two policemen and four civilians
and wounding 11 people, police Lt. Ali Abbas said.
DON’T LIKE THE RESISTANCE
“Supporting The Troops” Bullshit A
Subterfuge To Shut Up Bush Critics
Jun 7, 2006 By Brian Settles, vvawnet
Brian Settles flew F4Cs in
Vietnam, has piloted passenger planes for Continental Airlines and is currently
a university professor. He was moved to
pen these words by Memorial Day, 2006.
Those citizens who feel it is
unpatriotic to question, or worse yet not support, the President of the United
States in his world view, even if it degenerates into contrived military
engagements, would use the subterfuge of Supporting The Troops to silence the
challenge to U. S. government leadership.
Naturally, as a veteran currently embroiled
in a daily struggle for survival, the routine challenge of living through
combat is further burdened by the awareness that the military objectives are
ill-conceived or worse, ill-advised.
Our combat infantrymen (a lot of them
reservists or National Guard) endure the hourly horror of suicide bombers, RPGs
and sniper bullets, suffering through back-to-back tours in the stink, the sand
and the sweat. Those of us who are veterans
of previous wars feel their pain, feel their desperation and pray that they
return home to their families safe and sane.
But those of us who have been
there, in combat, and survived the madness of war have an obligation to our
combat brothers and sisters beyond blind obeisance.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS FORCED
OUT OF IRAQ?
“The Space For Struggle From Below Is
Opening Up Month By Month”
10 June 2006 By Jonathan Neale, Socialist
Worker (Britain) 2004 [Excerpts]
We are reaching a turning point in
history. The US is caught in a military
stalemate in Iraq and most Americans have turned against the war.
The prospect is now opening up that the US
may be forced to leave Iraq. And such a
political humiliation would have enormous consequences across the world.
But most Europeans, even those
on the left, can’t see what is happening.
They believe the US empire is
too strong to be broken. They also think
Americans are naturally right wing and unable to change their
All these beliefs are mistaken.
This article tries to explain what is really
happening and what it will probably mean.
Politics in the US is changing rapidly. For some years the country has been deeply
polarised between right and left. The
attacks of 11 September 2001 made the right stronger, but that advantage has
now been frittered away on the sands of Iraq.
In Britain, the main lie to justify the
invasion was weapons of mass destruction. In the US it was that its troops would be
welcomed by Iraqis with open arms.
Americans are kept ignorant,
but they are not stupid. They now know
they were lied to.
In the 2004 presidential
election, aides to the Democratic candidate John Kerry kept telling him their
polls said he would win, providing he came out against the Iraq war. Kerry
refused, loyal to his class, the rich, and lost.
Now a large majority of people in the US
think the war was a mistake. They do not all support immediate withdrawal, but
they want it and expect it in the next two years.
In response, George
Bush’s administration says it will reduce the number of troops in Iraq
this year. But such a move would send a
signal to every Iraqi politician that the US was weakening and the resistance
Remaining US troops would be
reluctant to risk their lives for a lost cause. And the danger of a real defeat would
increase. So Bush has talked of reductions, but not delivered them.
This political climate has made the military
crisis worse for the US in Iraq. Half
the US troops there come from the National Guard and National Reserves. These men and women did not expect to go to
war. They are older, and have families,
and when they return to the US they leave the army.
Recruitment to the Guard and the Reserves has
largely dried up. Regular recruitment is
falling too, partly because parents are dead set against it. The Pentagon is relaxing the entrance
requirements to include people with mild learning difficulties. But with a
deeply unpopular war, they cannot bring back conscription.
The generals can see all this. It is clear from their private briefings to
the press that senior US and British officers want out. So do the soldiers and their families.
Now the discontent in the US is spilling out
more broadly. In April I marched against
the war with 350,000 people in New York. One carried a home-made placard that
read, “Name one single government policy that benefits most
Americans”. Of course, there isn’t one.
People are fed up with government by and for
the rich. The disaster in New Orleans
following Hurricane Katrina last year was the moment when most people
understood Bush’s attitude to his people.
Then there is the movement for immigrant
rights. The same weekend I marched in
New York, a million marched in Los Angeles, and many more across the country. Two weeks before that, half a million people
marched in Dallas – the most right wing city in Texas.
This movement began with Hispanics, but now
includes immigrants of all nationalities. Hispanics are now a larger proportion
of the population than African-Americans were in the heyday of the 1960s civil
Their movement talks of strikes, unions and
class. They are the first group of
immigrants to speak their own language in the second generation, and the first
to bring a hatred of the US empire from home.
This does not mean everything
But the ruling elites can feel
the ground moving beneath them.
last 100 years, US mass movements; the unions, civil rights, the anti-Vietnam
protests and women’s liberation; have won major victories. They have not done this by winning elections,
but by forcing politicians to give them what they want.
happens when movements reach the point where the elites are afraid they will
lose control of the minds and behaviour of ordinary people. At that point, they concede.
The same could well happen over Iraq. The US ruling class is deeply split about what
to do. They can’t win in Iraq, but
the consequences of a public defeat will be terrible for them.
If the US leaves Iraq, it will lose control
of Iraqi oil. The dictatorships in Saudi
Arabia and Egypt are widely hated by their own people, who are seen as
creatures of the US. With a US defeat,
Saudis and Egyptians could well rise up and bring Islamist opposition movements
to power. The US would then lose control
of all Middle East oil.
It would be many years before the US
government could make ordinary Americans tolerate another serious invasion in
the Middle East or anywhere else. All
this would mean a serious weakening of US power. That, in turn, would threaten US dominance of
the world economy.
But the effects of humiliation in Iraq would
go beyond the US economy. Israel is
dependent on US military backing and financial support. New governments in Arab
lands would threaten Israel and the US military could not come to the rescue.
That is why the Israeli government is
desperate to break the Palestinians right now, building new borders and pushing
for the US to bomb Iran. They are desperate and willing to risk all.
That’s just Israel. More importantly,
the economics of neo-liberalism has come to dominate the world.
Neo-liberalism has meant privatisation all
over the world, the contract culture, fees for public services, pension cuts,
unions broken and working lives made harder.
Neo-liberalism is not a frill for the
corporations and governments. During the
late 1960s and 1970s profit rates for the global elite declined. Neo-liberalism is the strategy of the
world’s rich to get those profits back up.
This is a matter of corporate survival. The fact that most ordinary people cannot
envisage an alternative to the market is a key weapon in the hands of the rich.
But defeat in Iraq will raise that
possibility. In most people’s
minds, the power of the market and the power of the US have become closely
related. If the empire cracks, the
domination of the market inside our minds will crack too.
Moreover these effects will be
amplified precisely because most people don’t believe it can happen. If the Iraqis can win, people will say, then
we can take on our government – or our supervisor, or the head teacher. Every manager in the world will lose some
A defeat in Iraq will open the
floodgates, and the US ruling class knows this.
But they cannot talk that way
Many of them cannot imagine
intellectually what defeat would be like, or even allow themselves to think
about it. But they can sense it. Inside themselves, they know.
The rich and powerful in other countries are
also worried. They don’t like US
power and would like to compete with it. But a global weakening of neo-liberalism would
be an attack on them too. In Italy,
Greece, India and many other places you can see them beginning to rally to the
I am not saying that the US is sure to be defeated
and then the global social movements will triumph. Our side is strong in passion, but weak in
understanding. Their side may well react
with terrifying savagery. We can easily
But I am sure that the US
empire is facing crisis, and that neo-liberalism is therefore under threat.
The rich and powerful know
this, and are having an agonised debate about how to react.
And the space for struggle from
below is opening up month by month.
What do you
think? Comments from service men and
women, and veterans, are especially welcome.
Send to email@example.com.
Name, I.D., address withheld unless publication requested. Replies confidential.
to Phil G, who sent this in.]
Artist Says Painting Captures U.S. Arrogance:
Iraq Exhibit To Show Work Depicting Rumsfeld;
Boots Deliver Message ‘America Rules The
[Thanks to Phil G, who sent this in.]
June 8, 2006 by Hamza Hendawi, Toronto Star
BAGHDAD: The photo both enraged
and inspired Muayad Muhsin: U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sitting back
in an airplane seat, his feet, in heavy army boots, stretched out in front of
"It symbolized America's
soulless might and arrogance," said Muhsin, whose painting of Rumsfeld in
a similar pose is to be unveiled in an exhibition opening in Baghdad on Monday.
That painting and the rest of
the exhibit illustrate the simmering anger of Iraqis with the United States as
the country continues to endure violence, sectarian tensions and crime three years
after Saddam Hussein's ouster.
After President George W. Bush, most Iraqis
see Rumsfeld as the man behind the invasion of their oil-rich country and the
chief architect of U.S. military actions in Iraq.
Those who closely follow Rumsfeld remember
his infamous comment, "Stuff happens," when asked why U.S. troops did not actively
seek to stop the lawlessness in the Iraqi capital in the weeks that followed
the city's capture in April 2003.
Another memorable Rumsfeld comment, also made
in 2003, was his suggestion that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction
were deeply hidden in Iraq. "It's a big country," he said.
The oil-on-canvas work shows Rumsfeld in a
blue jacket, tie, khaki pants and army boots reading from briefing papers. His boots are resting on what appears to be
an ancient stone.
He sits next to a partially damaged statue of
a lion standing over a human, a traditional image of strength in ancient
Babylon. The statue's stone base is
ripped open, revealing shelves from which white pieces of papers are flying
away, later turning into birds.
Muhsin said the symbolism has to do with
Washington's repeated assertions before the U.S.-led invasion that Saddam's
regime had weapons of mass destruction, the cornerstone of the Bush's argument
for going to war.
No such weapons turned up, but the Bush
administration maintained that removing Saddam's regime alone justified the
decision to invade Iraq.
"Rumsfeld's boots deliver
a message from America: ‘We rule the world,'" Muhsin, 41, said in an
interview. "It speaks of America's total indifference to what the rest of
the world thinks."
Muhsin's opposition to the U.S. military
presence in Iraq is matched by his resentment of Saddam's regime. A veteran of Iraq's ruinous 1980-1988 war
against neighboring Iran, he was discharged for just a day in 1990 before he
was called back for duty when Iraq occupied Kuwait.
"Saddam took the best years of my
life," he lamented, speaking outside a storeroom where he keeps four of
the 15 paintings scheduled for display.
The departure of Saddam's regime did not
improve things, he said.
Muhsin said he signed the painting in the
middle, instead of the customary bottom corner, to avoid having it under
"The Americans brought us
rosy dreams but left us with nightmares.
They came with a broad smile but gave us beheaded bodies and
OCCUPATION ISN’T LIBERATION
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
NEED SOME TRUTH? CHECK OUT
Telling the truth - about the occupation or
the criminals running the government in Washington - is the first reason for
Traveling Soldier. But we want to do
more than tell the truth; we want to report on the resistance - whether it's in
the streets of Baghdad, New York, or inside the armed forces. Our goal is for Traveling Soldier to become
the thread that ties working-class people inside the armed services together.
We want this newsletter to be a weapon to help you organize resistance within
the armed forces. If you like what
you've read, we hope that you'll join with us in building a network of active
duty organizers. http://www.traveling-soldier.org/ And join with
Iraq War vets in the call to end the occupation and bring our troops home now!
DANGER: POLITICIANS AT WORK
The Traitor Cheney Says Fuck The Government
He Will Do What He Wants
07 June 2006 By Michelle Chen, The New
Thickening the haze of secrecy
surrounding the executive branch, the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney has
declared itself exempt from a yearly requirement to report how it uses its
power to classify secret information.
In its 2005 report to the president released
last month, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a branch of the
National Archives, provides a quantitative overview of hundreds of thousands of
pages of classified and declassified documents. But the vice president’s
input consists of a single footnote explaining that his office failed to meet
its reporting requirements for the third year in a row.
“It’s part of a larger
assertiveness by the Office of the Vice President and a resistance to
oversight,” said Steve Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy, a
division of the public-interest association American Federation of
Scientists. “It’s as if
they’re saying, ‘What we do is nobody’s
Though not the only government entity to
shrug off the reporting duties, Cheney’s office is unique in that it has
actually issued a public justification for its non-compliance.
Cheney’s office argued on
Monday that its dual role in the federal government places it above the
Special distributes and posts to our website copyrighted material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an
effort to advance understanding of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We believe this constitutes a “fair
use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the US Copyright Law since it is being distributed without
charge or profit for educational purposes to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
educational purposes, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. GI Special has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor is GI Special
endorsed or sponsored by the originators.
This attributed work is provided a non-profit basis to facilitate
understanding, research, education, and the advancement of human rights and
social justice Go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml for
more information. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
If printed out, this
newsletter is your personal property and cannot legally be confiscated from
you. “Possession of unauthorized
material may not be prohibited.” DoD
Directive 1325.6 Section 184.108.40.206.