What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
How to Spot a Police
Spy
Is it the
guy who asks you after the meeting about how the antiwar movement
needs to get "serious" and asks you lots of questions
about terrorism and "fighting back"? Jennifer Van Bergen
reports, first-hand. Part
2 of our series on what really happened on 9/11/2001: the physics
of collapse, and how not to make a "pancake" by Manuel
Garcia, PLUS Engineer Pierre Sprey on why "controlled demolition"
theories are off target.What
you just missed, but can still get, in our last newsletter: Paul
Craig Roberts on the Collapse of America. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
The White House and the Congress are Equally
Guilty
What
Are They Dying For?
By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
I was a soldier for 36 years. And when
soldiers of NATO (including the US) and Commonwealth countries
are killed, nowadays, I feel that "there but for the Grace
of God go I" because during my military service I was preparing
to fight (or was actually fighting) against people who were enemies
of my country.
But when I examine the wars going on at the moment I wonder whether
NATO and Commonwealth soldiers (and others, too) who are suffering
so many casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan should feel morally
comfortable with fighting against the people who are resisting
their presence and attacking them. What are they fighting for?
In September, 74 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. In the first
19 days of October, 70 US troops died. Of the 370 US soldiers
wounded in September, 295 are seriously incapacitated. In Afghanistan
the picture is equally grim. Day by day the number of dead soldiers
increases--British, American, Canadian and French, mainly. And
of course there are hundreds of Afghan and Iraqi soldiers and
police who have been killed, in addition to countless thousands
of civilians in both countries whose deaths matter not one jot
to the Washington warfighters.
Why have they died?
Why are so many people being killed? What vital Cause have these
soldiers died for? What message do their gravestones have for
us? And why have hundreds of thousands of civilians been killed
in countries since they were invaded by foreigners in order,
we are told by the Bush people, to "bring democracy"
to them. What's going on in Washington?
Forget the sexual peccadilloes of a hypocritical little Congressman
and the lies of Republican leaders who protected him until the
game was up and their contemptible conduct was exposed. These
people are but tiny morsels of stinking dross in the stove of
history. They are slimy maggots who are as worthless as they
are self-important, and their posturing and pompousness deserve
nothing but scorn. They have forgotten they have a higher duty
to the American people than simply being re-elected, which, to
the whole lot of them (and to all politicians, everywhere in
the world) is the most important thing in their squalid little
lives. There isn't a politician alive (or dead , or yet to come)
who wouldn't sacrifice his or her dearest principle if they realized
that by sticking to it they would fail to be elected.
Members of both Houses in Washington forget or ignore the fact
that they are just as responsible as Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and
Rice for the deaths of American (and other) soldiers in Iraq
and Afghanistan. These legislators are just as guilty as the
White House barbarians, too, for the deaths of all the women
and children who have been killed by berserk militias that didn't
exist in Iraq until after the US invaded. And they are equally
responsible for the deaths of all the ordinary citizens who have
died in screaming agony after being subjected to "precision"
bombing by US aircraft or the midnight guns, grenades and fists
of door-smashing soldiery.
***
On October 17, Cheney, on
a brief trip to Planet Earth, announced that "If you look
at the general overall situation, they [the Iraqi government]
are doing remarkably well", which is absolute nonsense,
as over 100 people had been slaughtered in Baghdad the previous
day.
And here's Bush on October 11 : "We're on the move. We're
taking action. We're helping this young democracy succeed . .
. Our troops have increased their presence on the streets of
Baghdad. Together with Iraqi forces, they're working to ensure
that terrorists and death squads cannot intimidate the local
population and operate murder rings . . ." Is the man
insane? Can this really be the President of the United States
of America speaking? Bush must know that since the his forces'
attempts to control Baghdad began in August there has been an
amazing and terrible increase in deaths in the city, and that
over 400 Iraqi civilians have died horribly since he made his
absurd pronouncement.
Why did they die? And what are his soldiers are dying for?
Bush must know that in September there were at least (according
to verifiable morgue figures) 2,660 civilians killed in Baghdad
; 400 more than in the previous month. They were killed by "death
squads" and "murder rings", but the armed forces
of the occupying power, the United States of America, were unable
to do anything to bring to an end or even reduce the slaughter
of thousands of Iraqis whose only crime was to belong to a different
faction to the people who killed them.
In response to a question about a report that over 300,000 Iraqis
had been killed since he went to war on Iraq Bush could only
stumblebum that "I do -- I do know that a lot of innocent
people have died, and that troubles me. And it grieves me. And
I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence.
I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants
to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's
a level of violence that they tolerate."
George W Bush has the temerity, the grotesque insolence, to state
that Iraqis are actually willing to "tolerate" , to
accept willingly, the hideous violence that has been caused
by his invasion and occupation of a country that presented no
threat whatever to the United States.
And after his disastrous war developed into the bloody quagmire
that is killing scores of American soldiers every week, Bush
had the impudence to declare that " . . . it's now time
for the Iraqi government to work hard to bring security in neighborhoods
so people can feel -- can feel, you know, at peace."
When did you last hear such rubbish from a president? Cheney
and Bush have brought war, devastation and death to Iraq. It
is entirely the fault of the Washington warfighters that hundreds
of thousands of people have died since their invasion only a
few years ago. The "Iraqi government" is a sham.
It governs the green lawns outside its premises in the US-owned
Green Area which is full of swimming pools, electricity generators
and coffee bars. It is ridiculous for Bush to demand that the
"Iraqi government" should "bring security"
to anywhere in the country. 140,000 US troops can't do it.
How can a raggle-taggle Iraqi army possibly do any better?
On October 17 McClatchy News reported that "U.S. Ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad [. . .] also sounded that alarm, saying the
government must tackle such broad issues as de-Baathification,
needed changes to the constitution, distribution of oil and strengthening
the security forces. But when pressed on how he expects the government
to respond, he couldn't offer an answer."
Of course he couldn't offer an answer. The man is out of his
depth and incompetent. And the day after he made his idiot pronouncement
the bombs and bullets of the Iraqi resistance killed ten American
soldiers. Why?
What did these soldiers die for?
Bush said on October 11 that "We can't tolerate a new terrorist
state in the heart of the Middle East with large oil reserves
that could be used to fund its radical ambitions or used to inflict
economic damage on the West".
Have 2,800 American soldiers (and thousands of Iraqis) been killed
for the sake of LARGE OIL RESERVES? How many more will have
to die in the Cheney-Bush war for oil? When you look at the
casualty lists on such sites as http://icasualties.org/oif/ you can't help being emotional after
reading descriptions of how young soldiers met their unnecessary
deaths. And we all know that these lists will become longer
for so long as the War Party is supreme in Washington.
It is probable that American soldiers are dying at least in part
for the sake of US oil companies, but the main reason for their
slaughter is that Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld do not want to change
course because that would entail admitting they are wrong. For
so long as they wield power in Washington there will be chaos
and death in Iraq. US soldiers, and others, are dying because
of mighty egos in Washington.
It's as simple as that.
Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs.
He can be reached through his website www.briancloughley.com
Now
Available
from CounterPunch Books!
The Case
Against Israel
By Michael Neumann
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
