In addition to the news that the CIA’s most recent National Intelligence Estimate says that the possible outcomes in Iraq range from bad to catastrophic, the announcement that we cannot guarantee the security of the Green Zone, the fact that Kurds are streaming into Kirkuk in order to establish residency in time for the elections so that they can secure it and its oil reserves for any possible future Kurdish state (via Juan Cole), there is more bad news:
* From the New York Times: “The chief of the Army Reserve warned on Thursday that at the current pace of operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army faced a serious risk of running out of crucial specialists in the Reserves who can be involuntarily called up for active duty. … As military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq continue with no end in sight, General Helmly said he was increasingly concerned that a growing number of soldiers with critical specialties that are contained mainly in the reservist ranks will exhaust their two-year stints, making it increasingly difficult to fill the yearlong tours of duty that have become standard. The skills include civil affairs and truck driving.”
* From the invaluable Juan Cole: “Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called on Wednesday for general elections to be held at the scheduled time (January 2005). … Sistani’s quite resonable demand for elections is nevertheless among the greatest dangers facing the Allawi government and the Americans. It will be extremely difficult actually to hold the elections on time. But Sistani believes only such elections can produce a legitimate government, and he already accepted a six-month delay. If the elections are not held, and if Sistani begins to fear they won’t be held soon, he may well call the masses into the streets. That could lead to an overthrow of Allawi and an expulsion of the Americans. Keep your eye on February and March of 2005.”
* In Afghanistan, there are new charges of brutality:
“Sgt. James P. Boland, a reserve military police soldier from Cincinnati, watched as a subordinate beat an Afghan prisoner, Mullah Habibullah, 30, the brother of a former Taliban commander, according to a military charge sheet released recently.
The report also said that Sergeant Boland shackled an Afghan named Dilawar, chaining his hands above his shoulders, and denied medical care to the man, a 22-year-old taxi driver, whose family said he had never spent a night away from his mother and father before being taken to the American air base at Bagram, 40 miles north of Kabul. The two detainees died there within a week of each other in December 2002.
Now, 21 months later, the Army has charged Sergeant Boland with assault and other crimes and investigators are recommending that two dozen other American soldiers face criminal charges, including negligent homicide, or other punishments for abuses that occurred more than a year before the scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. (…)
Parkhudin, a 26-year-old farmer and former soldier, said his hands were chained to the ceiling for 8 of his 10 days in isolation and that he was hooded for hours at a time.
“They were putting a mask over our heads, they were beating us in Bagram,” he said. “I think Dilawar died because he couldn’t breathe. For me, it was very difficult to breathe.”
Mr. Parkhudin said he was forced to lie on his stomach and that a soldier then jumped on his back. He said he believed that the Afghan in an adjoining isolation cell was Mr. Dilawar because the prisoner cried out for his mother and father.
The third man, Abdur Rahim, a 26-year-old baker, said that he was hooded and that his hands were chained to the ceiling for “seven or eight days” and turned black.
American interrogators forced him to crouch and hold his hands out in front of him for long periods, causing intense pain in his shoulders. When he tried to sit up, he said, “they were coming and hitting me and saying ‘Don’t move!’ “
Two other men, interviewed in February 2003, Abdul Jabar, a 35-year-old taxi driver, and Hakkim Shah, a 32-year-old farmer, were held at the same time as Mr. Dilawar and described similar treatment.
Mr. Shah said he spent 16 days in upstairs rooms naked, hooded and shackled to the ceiling for 10 days until his legs became so swollen that the shackles cut off the blood flow and he could no longer stand. Doctors eventually removed the shackles and allowed him to sit.”
* But at least the rocket-propelled grenade that someone fired at Hamid Karzai’s helicopter missed.
* Meanwhile, the White House responded to the story about the National Intelligence Estimate: “The White House responded by saying that progress was being made on all fronts of the president’s five-point plan for Iraq’s economic and political reconstruction, and that elections would go ahead as scheduled in January 2005. President George W. Bush had been clear to the American people that challenges lay ahead, a senior official said.
“The Iraqi people continue to defy the predictions of talking heads, pundits, hand-wringers and nay-sayers,” the official said.”
I am so angry about the situation in Iraq, and the sheer incompetence that got us there, that I am speechless. But I will probably find a way to write about it in the days ahead.
We need the will (more dead humans) and we need the hope (not too many dead humans before November) to see this through (more unbudgeted, deficit-creating appropriations to provide proper funerals for all the dead humans).
I’m angry too. There is no place to appeal, given the polls. What has happened throughout history when all avenues of appeal are blocked? What forms to those frustrated appeals take?
Just asking.
I can’t imagine another 4 years of these murderous incompetents at the wheel without going a little crazy myself.
Given that, if Bush gets back in, he’ll see it as a vindication of his policies so far, and a mandate to continue doing exactly what he’s been doing. Powell will be gone, too — and, yeah, he hasn’t done much to rein in the crazies, but we’ll get a chance to see how much crazier they get with no reins at all. Bush and the RW blogosphere are bored with Iraq: it’s not going well; the toy is broken; they want a shiny new war — this one against Iran.
What will happen? There will probably be a complete meltdown of the situation in Iraq; the war in Iran will be even worse — and could trigger another horrific terrorist attack on US soil.
That will be the last straw. Presuming there are free and accurately-tabulated elections in 2006, look for a Democratic sweep… and then impeachment hearings.
That’s a nightmare, but it might be the best we can hope for.
That’s highly unlikely. Even if people wanted to go into Iran, there are no troops to do so. If there were troops to do so, Congress would not authorize it. Thats the difference between a true dictatorial fascist state and the one we currently live in.
The only thing that would take us into Iran, IMHO, is domestic terrorism and lots of it. Who knows how far we’d go if we had a 9/11 type event every year or so.
Bush and the RW blogosphere are bored with Iraq: it’s not going well; the toy is broken; they want a shiny new war — this one against Iran.
I don’t feel certain that a war with Iran is coming – but it’s my understanding that by late November, Iran is going to have to meet some Security Council demands regarding their nuclear program. Consequences will likely be sanctions.
What will happen? There will probably be a complete meltdown of the situation in Iraq; the war in Iran will be even worse — and could trigger another horrific terrorist attack on US soil.
Yes, because as we all know, when the US is involved in no wars at all, we don’t get attacked.
Yes, because as we all know, when the US is involved in no wars at all, we don’t get attacked.
Once more, Jonas applies the defibrillator pads to the lifeless carcass of the flypaper theory.
200 Joules..stat.
Looks like Jadegold is having problems decyphering Jonas’ double negative construction.
Strip out the irony, flip the negatives, fix the resulting grammar problems, and it becomes:
When the US isn’t involved in wars, we get attacked.
That’s a true statement as far as I can tell, and has little to do with flypaper.
That’s a true statement as far as I can tell, and has little to do with flypaper.
That’s exactly how I took it, Neolith.
And its a rephrasing of the discredited Flypaper Theory. Some also refer to it as the “lump of terrorism” theory.
And, no, it’s not a true statement by any measure.
The interim president of Iraq is doing a tour through Europe and states to the press here that elections in Januari will not be likely.
Jadegold,
Neolith has, to his credit, understood precisely what I meant. During every attack of Al Qaeda against the United States so far, the United States was not in a war or occupation in the Middle East.
You’re going to have to build the bridge from what I said to the flypaper theory, as it doesn’t appear to be clear to anyone other than yourself.
Jonas: I concede Neolith understood exactly what you meant. Neolith’s understanding was precisely my own interpretation.
And, yes, you were trying to resurrect the flypaper theory.
And, yes, you were trying to resurrect the flypaper theory.
Where does one get the audacity to ascribe motives to someone over their objection?
I don’t believe that the “flypaper theory” is a good or effective idea, so, again, I’m at a loss here. My only point was the one reiterated by me, and probably understood by nearly everyone else.
I don’t want to get into the argument about who meant what. But one possible reconstruction of what Jonas meant was: CaseyL said that a meltdown in Iraq might trigger a horrific attack here, but since we also get attacked when we’re not at war, the idea that we should not do whatever would trigger this attack in order to avoid being attacked is silly — we will be attacked whatever we do.
Another reconstruction, which favors the flypaper theory, would go: when we are not at war, we are attacked. This might suggest that when we are at war, we are not attacked, or at least attacked less seriously. Why might that be? Hard to think of a reason unless it were: because when we’re at war, the terrorists are otherwise occupied. And why might that be? Because of the flypaper theory.
Presented solely in the spirit of helpful clarification 😉
Presented solely in the spirit of helpful clarification 😉
Hilzoy, you are a genius! I get it now. And to further the spirit of helpful clarification – I do not support the latter interpretation at all.