More Mosul "Liberation"

A few days ago, I speculated that the Mosul "Liberation" cost the lives of 20-30,000 civilians, not the "hundreds" or even the few thousand that was initially claimed. And then word started appearing in some of the foreign press -- not so far as I know in the domestic media -- that the civilian death toll was more like 40,000 -- and rising, as air strikes  continue to "mop up," revenge killings continue, and searches of the destruction of the city turn up more and more rotting corpses.

In any sane world, this would be considered a catastrophe of major proportions, not a liberation at all.

The ISIS rebels may have been cruel and destructive, but they didn't slaughter tens of thousands of civilians, and they didn't destroy entire cities in their quest for their Caliphate, and this will be remembered in the Middle East for ages to come.

The Imperial Storm Troopers their air wings, and their allies, on the other hand, are all about slaughter, annihilation, and destruction of homes, families and entire cities, leaving abundant smoking ruins in their wake and calling it "liberation".

"Liberty?" For whom? To do what?

Given the figure of 40,000 civilians killed in Mosul now being bruited about, I'd venture to guess the actual figure is more like 100,000, but we shall never know, in part because the count will never be complete, and even if it were, the Imperium would never let it be verified.

Do Americans have any idea how many cities in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia have so far faced destruction in the Imperial "Fight Against Terror?" How many civilians have been randomly and/or deliberately exterminated in this futile quest? I would assume not because Americans seem not to care. They have become immunized to the slaughter of brown people and the destruction of their homes and cities. If they know anything about it, it's all a blur, and besides when Trump is acting up, who cares what's happening to brown people far away? I mean, really.

Priorities.

Media Lens did a compare and contrast exercise, The Siege of Aleppo vs Mosul, to show something of how the stories are twisted to fit a prepared narrative. East Aleppo's valiant struggle against the Soviets (damn near) vs the valiant struggle of the West against the perfidious Islamist threat to civilization in Mosul.

The propaganda was constant and heavy and essentially false. That's what we're dealing with, and the more we're immersed in it, the more likely it is that one day -- sooner rather than later -- blowback and karma will come back to haunt the West. Oh my yes.

When will they ever learn?

The WTF? Department

One of the curiosities lo these many years of the American Imperial Adventure is that there has been essentially no popular interest in or information provided through popular media about the lands and peoples Our Valiant Troops have been trying to conquer.

Meh. Who cares? Destroy their homes, slaughter them, take their oil -- or whatever it is we want -- and go. Leave. Pack up and move on. To the next conquest.

That's basically how this Forever Global War of Imperial Aggression has long been sold to the masses, without the slightest acknowledgement of where and among whom these would-be conquests are being undertaken.

The public had far more information about Vietnam and the Vietnamese -- as well as the rest of Indochina and its peoples -- back in the day that we have now about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the other places around the world where Our Valiant Ones are busy with their... work.

Of course, maybe knowing something about the places and the victims of American aggression makes it easier for Americans to resist the call to Empire, I don't know. But it is shocking to realize just how vacant the knowledge well is when it comes to the basic matters of history and geography and society in our far away satrapies.

So. Here comes this movie, "The Devil's Double," the only one I am aware of that presents a more or less contemporary (well... ) Iraqi story from a more or less Iraqi perspective (again, well... with plenty of caveats...) and look what it is: a violence and blood-soaked melodrama just like any other high-life American crime family melodrama. Oh, please. "Scarface of Arabia" my wrinkled white ass.

Is this the only way we (I say advisedly) can approach those we have tried to conquer? It really is appalling.

Does anyone in or serving our Land of the Free and Home of the Brave have any idea where Iraq is and what it is from a historical standpoint? You know, Garden of Eden, Birthplace of Civilization, Homeland of Abraham, Issac, Ishmael? Babylon? Ur of the Chaldees? Etc? Baghdad?

Nobody cares, at all. So nobody knows. When the Baghdad Museum was looted after the Invasion, all we got were shrugs. "Oh well, bad things happen."

The invasion and occupation of Iraq were extraordinarily brutal and destructive; in the contemporary history of Iraq there has been nothing even remotely like it -- not even Saddam at his worst.

If the story were ever told for an American audience from an Iraqi standpoint, Americans, by and large, would be absolutely horrified and disgusted.

But instead, we get sympathetic stories of Our Brave Ones facing inconceivable hazards and conditions in that ancient and disturbing land -- and... this. "The Devil's Double."

What struck me about the trailer -- the movie hasn't been released yet -- is that as awful as Uday and the whole situation is portrayed, the characters and their excesses seem no different, except perhaps in detail, than any set of the High and the Mighty you might choose to portray anywhere in the world, especially among American Masters of the Universe, The Very Gods Who Walk Among Us.

No different at all.

Which puts a different light on our Imperial Adventures, doesn't it?

How Fares Teh Hero Cult?

More than a year after Bradley Manning was rounded up in Iraq and held under some truly disgusting conditions at Quantico -- inspiring accusations from the "Progressive" Civil Liberties community that he was being tortured in order to extract information from him about WikiLeaks that could be used against Julian Assange -- I'm seeing somewhat more notice in the "progressive" blogosphere of the fact that prisoners by the tens of thousands are being held under appalling conditions in this country as a matter of course. This notice is particularly evident over at FDL where both Jeff Kaye and Kevin Gozstola have recently highlighted the hunger strike by prisoners at Pelican Bay and other facilities in California over their continuing mistreatment -- which some would call torture -- by their captors.

This notice that "it's more than just Manning" in the "progressive" blogosphere is welcome and long overdue. I've written about the gross mistreatment of prisoners in the United States -- whether or not they have been tried and convicted -- before, and I've pointed out, many times, here and in other fora, that Manning's case is emblematic of widespread mistreatment of captives within the prison/industrial complex that keeps growing in this country, and that people need to recognize that how he was being mistreated was not unusual at all.

It was closer to "typical."

In some of the comments I made on the topic, I mentioned a close relative who as a Marine was held for four years at Miramar in California, under conditions startlingly similar to those of Bradley Manning at Quantico, except that my relative had the shit beat out of him a couple of times by guards, which got him out of isolation for a time while his injuries healed. Other than that, there wasn't much difference in treatment. It was brutal, it was cruel, it involved intense isolation and constant indignity. And it went on for four long years, including the time prior to my relative's court martial and conviction on trumped up drug charges. If the stories I've been told about what "really" happened are true (and I have no way of knowing whether they are or not) then the whole thing was a purely political move by commanding officers to protect themselves from... exposure.

Anybody who has had a close brush with the relatively common practice in American brigs (Naval prisons) knows that what happened to Bradley Manning at Quantico followed a long history of abuse of brig prisoners that is in many ways part and parcel of the Traditions of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

In fact, this abuse has been written about for a long time, and it was dramatized by Kenneth H. Brown and staged by The Living Theatre in 1963 (revived off Broadway in 2007) and widely performed -- in full and in excerpt -- throughout the country during the Sixties and later.



My general point about the Manning Thing was that his treatment was not atypical, it was widely practiced in and out of the military system, and that what was being done to him specifically at Quantico was being done because it could be done. Not, as was being claimed, to "torture information" out of him. No, he was being abused because such abuse was part of the system holding him in custody. And if you read the investigative report (pdf) triggered by Manning's own complaints about his treatment and by the many protests over it, you'll see that for the most part, he was being treated "lawfully" and "according to protocol". There are brig manuals online (additionally) which detail pretty much exactly what was done to Manning at Quantico, and while it is indefensible, it is more or less routine. It isn't right, it isn't justice, but it is... procedure.

The Cult of the Hero requires that Bradley Manning -- or Julian Assange or whomever -- be considered apart from the common lot of accused or prisoners, and that's the primary reason why Manning's treatment was singled out for interest and protest -- and the relatively common similar treatment of other prisoners (even children and those who have not been charged or convicted) was typically either ignored or in some cases ("these are the worst of the worst, you know") justified.

The Hero is Special by definition.

Consequently, when profiles of Manning started appearing -- as on Frontline, and in New York Magazine (which I would remind readers is not the same as the New York Times with which it was widely confused in the many online denunciations of it over NYMag's "hit piece" on Manning) -- that detailed some of the "complicated" emotional and sexual identity issues Manning shared with Adrian Lamo (who eventually turned him in to authorities for unauthorized leakage of classified information and documents) and delved into his private as well as his more public life, his defenders and his cult went into turbo-drive denouncing those who would probe where they ought not to go.

(Did I mention that the relative who was held in brig confinement under conditions arguably worse than those of Manning, certainly physically and mentally worse, ultimately decided to change his gender? Well, who'dathunk? Right? He is now a she. And the Government paid for it. :-P)

Supposedly, none of a Hero's backstory matters in the least. The only thing that matters is that the Hero exposed the obscenities of the Government -- and in Manning's case, the military in which he served. How he got to that point is none of your business!!!!® SHUT UP!!!!™ Hit piece!!! SMEAR!!!!!!

Yes. Well.

Of course all of this presumes that Manning did this or that "exposure" he is accused of. Maybe he did; I don't know. But none of the Heroics he's accused of and worshiped as a Hero for has been adjudicated (fairly or not). Given the appalling lack of security on the classified information he is accused of leaking, it wouldn't be at all surprising if he either didn't do it, or if he did, if he wasn't the only one.

Time will tell. In the meantime, his Heroism depends on hearsay. And a rather touching faith and belief.

When Manning was transferred to Ft. Leavenworth some of the hysterics surrounding his incarceration abated. If now some of the attention that was focused on him and his situation alone has been broadened to include at least some of the tens of thousands of other prisoners held under equally horrific conditions, hurrah.

But I'm not going to hold my breath as long as attention can only be paid to Heroes.

September Memories

I was in Seattle on September 11, 2001. I'd arrived the night before, and I was staying at a hotel next to the old public library that was under demolition. In the morning, I'd be conducting a training for new federal employees for the agency I was working for.

I woke up at 6:00am to the persistent sound of sirens outside; it sounded like a major emergency of some sort. I looked out the window and saw the partially demolished remains of the public library. There were some flashing lights somewhere in the distance, but I couldn't see where. Something was going on, but I had no idea what.

I turned on the teevee. I believe it was CBS news (with Dan Rather) was showing the World Trade Center tower on fire. They didn't know just what had happened or how, but it was thought that a small plane had collided with the building. Rescue efforts were under way. I flipped through the channels, and all the news shows were showing the same thing, from slightly different angles, but essentially the same. Much chatter about it, but no real news.

I did my morning routine, then went back to look at the teevee; I saw a plane headed toward the other tower and then a huge explosion out the side of the building. The astonishment I felt was mirrored by the newscaster, another "small plane?"

This couldn't be happening.

At that point, I did not think it was real. Call it basic denial, but what I was seeing struck me as some kind of staged spectacle -- which, if the stories be true, it was.

The report came in that the Pentagon had been hit by a plane or a missile. "We're under attack!"

The South Tower commenced to collapse. It was inconceivable.

I called the office -- located on an upper floor of one of Seattle's tallest buildings -- shortly after 7:00am when employees should be shuffling in to start their day. The person who answered the phone was someone I'd known for a long time, and she was in shock. She said she was almost the only one there, and she was terrified. "What if they hit here?"

"Who?"

"The people who did this."

She said that as far as she knew, everyone was called in to work normally, and she was frightened, terribly, for them and for her, and she asked me if I felt it was OK to go ahead with planned activities today. I asked her if they had heard anything from Washington.

She said not yet, she just got there. But she thought the Assistant Director should be arriving soon, and there would probably be a general message of some sort. She asked whether I was coming in (I was staying only a few blocks from the office.) I said yes, I'd be there about 7:30. She said, "Be safe." I said, "You too."

I continued to watch dumbfounded as the level of reporting deteriorated and hysteria increased. A huge cloud of gray dust covered lower Manhattan and out into the Hudson while the other tower continued to burn. There were reports of car-bomb explosions all over Washington.

I headed to the office.

When I got upstairs and into the secure area, most of the employees were gathered in a small auditorium watching television. The other tower had collapsed while I was on my way to the office. The level of shock was unimaginable.

There had been no word from Washington, but we were told that the Regional Director was on the phone with headquarters and we would receive word shortly. There were sporadic reports on the teevee about Bush and his activities in Florida and then getting on AF-1 and going... where?

Flights were being cancelled, then word came that all planes were grounded indefinitely. The Assistant Director told us that Washington was giving us the option of continuing with our schedule or going home today.

Probably half opted for home. The rest, including me, stayed. I couldn't exactly get home, as it were, since all flights were grounded. So I decided to go ahead with the training that was scheduled. It was a chore. But the trainees (who were also mostly from out of town and could not get home either) said they were grateful to have something to take their minds off... events.

We did a half-day training the first day. I let the trainees go watch teevee or make phone calls or whatever they felt they needed to do. We'd just take it one day at a time.

Meanwhile, I was trying to figure out if I could rent a car and drive home. Sure enough, Alamo had a special deal for Federal employees: one way rental at a reduced price and no drop off fee. I reserved a car for Saturday pick up, and another fellow who needed to be with his family in California and I decided to share driving on the two-day trek.

I was really in a daze most of the rest of the time I was in Seattle, and though I was a real chatterbox on the drive back to CA (unusual for me), I have no recollection of topics and only vague recollections of scenery. When I got home, it was with relief, to be sure, but that's when the shock really settled in.

My strongest impression then and now was that "this is not real."

But of course, it was -- in its own, horrible, way.

What really happened that horrible day is still not entirely known or understood. But the process of transforming our government and nation got underway in earnest almost immediately.

And we aren't going back to the way things used to be.

Neville Bush

Khartoum! Where hearts were entertaining June...

Yeah right.

Pissy Pants has sent his envoys over to the Sudan to treat with the genocidal dictator thereof, one Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Despoiler of Darfur, according to the Washington Post story linked at MSNBC.com, Scourge of All Things Bush and Hillary.

Lucky us.

So, it would seem there are some genocidal dictators it's perfectly acceptable to negotiate with, in Bush World, so long as he or his people are doing the chit-chat; the minute someone else does it or says they will, it's Chamberlainian Appeasement to be denounced at home and in foreign lands.

Got it.

Bashir's government has been accused by Bush of participating in a "genocide" in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson's visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputies, and several special presidential envoys.

Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators. His appointees have also pursued aggressive diplomacy with North Korea and Libya and have even conducted limited business with Cuba, Syria and Iran.

In the case of Sudan, experts are deeply divided about how much the administration's engagement has improved conditions in a country beset for decades by mass violence and famine. It has at least provoked charges of hypocrisy, because Bush recently accused those advocating talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other radical figures of "appeasement."

"The Bush administration has spent years not only talking at very senior levels with one of the world's worst tyrants, who is responsible for genocide, but also reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials," said Susan E. Rice, who handled Africa policy in the Clinton administration and is a top adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Of course the issue isn't "appeasement" at all, it's maintaining power, authority and control over not just the processes of government and diplomacy, but the very act of thinking about them.

Thus, anyone else who does or says something about diplomatic overtures toward foes, real or imagined, is instantly tarred with the "appeasement" brush because that's the means to defend political power over opposition. What the Bush regime does, including appeasing foes (such as by withdrawing bases from Saudi Arabia, overthrowing Saddam, etc, both of which were desired and/or ordered by the Arch Devil Usama) may have nothing at all to do with the rhetoric it uses in pursuit and exerecise of power.

Of course Americans have been witnessing this for years, and they're heartily sick of it. They see Princess McCain trying to pull the same sort of crap.

What's interesting in some ways is that the Washington Post has chosen to call "bullshit" here.

Wonders never cease.

Kenya!

NPR and most of the other "news" outlets have been running with a consistent media spin on the situation in Kenya that follows a narrative of 'tribal rivalries,' 'ancient animosities,' and 'brutal African Natives.'

Very little is said about the bogus election of Mwai Kibaki that has triggered the revolt and the bloodshed. Instead, we're treated to endless beard-tugging over all this ethnic struggle among the Uncivilized Savages. Been going on for hundreds of years. They're just that way. Pity.

No mention of the proxy war going on next door in Somalia (which sometimes spills over into Kenya.) No mention of the United States' interference in Kenyan affairs (GWOT and all that, dontchaknow). It's as if there is only one media narrative that explains all "unrest" in all uncivilized countries, all the time. Ethnic rivalries that have been "just below the surface" for hundreds of years. The idea that something actually happened (a rigged election for example) that caused this outbreak of violence is simply impossible.

And there is an assumption that Kibaki is the legitimate president because he was "elected," and Condi Rice calls him up.

Nothing at all about the opposition and their very legitimate complaints. No, just like the Bloomberg campaign, everyone must come together and go forth in unity.

Beggars belief. 

But Kibaki and Musharraf and who knows how many others are simply following the Bush-Cheney example, aren't they?

They just brazen it out.

(Note: the video was made by some Norwegian [Danish?] kids on safari in Kenya this spring. Cute, innit?)

Collegiate!

Juan Cole says that Barney Rubin's exegesis of the Pakistan situation is like a college course on the matter, and I agree.

Go read it. All of it. And the comments. It's more than you ever wanted to know. And maybe half as much as you're going to need.

While you're over there, be sure to read everything else Rubin has written and linked to.

Give ya cold chills.

Buzz!

Hive Mind? Or...? You decide.

Like many others, I've seen the Benazir Assassination as the critical event of this Astrological Year of Endings. We recognize instinctively that even though we don't know what happened exactly, and probably never will, what happened is huge and it is quite likely to be the precipitating incident for whatever happens in the New Year. We recognize, too, that what could happen in the New Year is appalling.

Like many others, I've been bouncing around between news and analysis sources the last few days, hoping to stumble on to something that can give us some hope. But no. There's nothing. It's yet another fine mess engineered -- at least in part -- by those geniuses who brought us so much catastrophe already.

I found that I seemed to be channelling Spencer Ackerman and Josh Marshall, even though I hadn't been to TPM more than once during the immediate period after the assassination. I highly recommend following their posts on the matter. Like the rest of us, they may be wrong, but they are deeper into the intricacies of the story than most of us would ever want to be.

Juan Cole has been an invaluable resource.

His colleague Barney Rubin is running rings around practically every other analyst out there. Earlier I linked to Rubin's WSJ article on the Musharraf Problem, but I would like to urge everyone to read Scott Horton's interview with Rubin for Harpers.

I'm as ignorant as anybody else about where this is all going to lead. But something tells me that the Busheviks have fucked up so bad in their reliance on Benazir, and their butt boy Musharraf is in so much domestic hot water, that nothing any of them try to do now will save the situation. Literally, it is up to the Pakistani military to keep the lid on (sort of) or... let 'er rip.

The only question remaining is how bad will the blowback be? And how far will it spread?

Oddly enough, here's who might come out the unquestioned winner:



Revenge for Afghanistan and the Fall of the Soviet Union?

¿Quién sabe?