'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

2m2ba #4: Killings and cover-ups

Jerome Starkey of the London Times published a great piece of reporting yesterday about an incident in Afghanistan's Paktia province on February 12 when U.S. Special forces gunned down two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother in their home-- and then "dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened... "

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent follow-up today in which he gives extensive details of how successful the cover-up was. Well, it was especially successful in that the military concocted a cover-up story--as shown in this NATO press release from the time-- and then most of the US MSM just swallowed that whole story completely and regurgitated it without trying to do any independent reporting.

The NATO cover-up story was particularly odious because it blamed the U.S.'s opponents for the killings and quoted NATO/ISAF's Canadian spokesman as saying,

"ISAF continually works with our Afghan partners to fight criminals and terrorists who do not care about the life of civilians."

Greenwald noted that the only independent reporting that came out at the time was performed by AP and by Pajhwok Afghan News, an independent news agency created in Afghanistan to enable war reporting by Afghans.

Late on Sunday night, the U.S. military command in Kabul finally admitted that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.

This news comes out at the same time that Wikileaks, yesterday, published some extremely disturbing footage, shot from a U.S. attack helicopter in Baghdad in July 2007, that shows the chopper's gunners gunning down a group of around 7-8 people who appear to be relaxedly standing and walking in a street. The group included two TV cameramen for Reuters. It seems the troops on the chopper thought the cameras were weapons-- but no-one shown o the video looks as though they're in any kind of combat stance.

Reuters has been trying since 2007 to get the military to release the video. Wikileaks does not say how it got it.

On the video, the U.S. troops later fire at a van that comes to pick up a wounded survivor from the assault. Then, as U.S. ground troops arrive, one of their voices on the intercom is laughing about having driven over a body.

All these revelations that keep coming out about the strong propensity of U.S. (and Israeli) troops to engage in excessive violence, and the propensity of their respective high commands to cover up that fact, underline a couple of important lessons:

1. Armed conflict is always violent, and extremely damaging to anyone who is in the war zone. No matter how often they tell us about "pinpoint accuracy", "smart weapons", and so on, the vast majority of the violence involved in armed conflict is brutal and anything but "pinpoint".

2. Armed conflict always also brutalizes those sent out to engage in it. And it brutalizes people more and more over time, as acts that earlier are seen as taboo or "exceptional" progressively become more and more routine. Time was, in Israel, the military would rigorously investigate the cause of every death-in-conflict of a Palestinian. Then it stopped doing that. Then it started acting as if extrajudicial executions could be considered as "just routine"...

2m2ba #3: Iraq's governance conundrum

Reidar Visser has a superb post today that tries to skewer an idea apparently now making the rounds re Iraq's coalition-formation challenge: Namely, why not have a wall-to-wall coalition of all the parties rule the country?

He describes such a governance formula as, "particularly unattractive and potentially destructive for Iraq as a state", and says it,

would mean a sorry return to Iraq of 2003 and the “governing council” that was put in place by Paul Bremer back then. Its hallmarks will be indecision, incompetence and corruption – the inevitable characteristics of a government that has no single vision or unity of purpose, and basically has been thrown together with the aim of letting as many people as possible prey on the resources of the state in the hope that this will keep them from fighting with each other instead.

The result is supposed to come out at a press conference tomorrow (Wed) in Najaf. That’s according to Salah al-Ubaydi. We’ll see if they are better than IHEC in sticking to their self-imposed timelines!

Too much to blog about #2: Karzai

Oh, the U.S. has such a pesky "Host Nation" problem in Afghanistan these days, doesn't it?

On Saturday, the U.S.-installed president, Hamid Karzai said he would join the Taliban if the western nations don't stop meddling in his country.

H'mmm.

"Host Nation" is a key concept in the US Army and Marine Corps's 2006 manual on counter-insurgency. U.S. counter-insurgency theory, you see-- or 'COIN' as the cognoscenti call it-- is all based on the idea that the U.S. military will be fighting these vicious, basically anti-guerrilla wars inside somebody else's country. Thus there is from the get-go a deep problem of the legitimacy of the U.S. presence; and the U.S. military can attempt to solve this only by upholding the myth that they are always there "at the invitation" of the local government of what is called the "Host Nation".

Never mind that it may well have been-- as in the case of Karzai government in Afghanistan or the Nuri al-Maliki government in Iraq-- only the power of the U.S. military that brought these men to power in the first place. That fact needs to be airbrushed out of this account of the roots of the U.S. military's legitimacy.

But then, those U.S.-installed "leaders" tend to go majorly off the reservation and start acting on their own account. Both these men, for example, have fairly warm relations with the Iranian government. (But only Karzai could pull off the complicated political trick of being on good terms with both the Iranian mullahs and the fiercely anti-Shiite Taliban!)

Actually, U.S.-installed leaders are going off the reservation in other countries, too. How about that Saad Hariri, all lovey-dovey with Syria these days?

... I just went back and read the lengthy critique I did here in January 2007 of the U.S. military's whole COIN doctrine, and the problem it has with the legitimacy issue and with Host Nation relations. It is really not too bad. Scroll on down to the table there.

Within Afghanistan, Karzai's present truculence toward the Americans poses huge problems for the American military's plan to mount a big anti-Taliban operation in Kandahar over the summer. This operation has, I think, been intended to be the capstone of the big "look-tough" policy Obama and his advisers planned as a prelude to the major drawdown of U.S. forces that he has all along planned. (As I wrote in my Boston Review piece last December.)

But for the U.S. military to get tough in Kandahar, they'll need to be confronting the provincial governor, who is Karzai's reportedly very corrupt brother Ahmed Wali Karzai. I suspect that's what much of the current U.S.-Karzai tension is really about?

At abroader level, though, the endgame for the U.S. military's 8.5-year presence in Afghanistan now looks as though it might well be rather ignominious. As I've argued in numerous places before, it would be much better for Washington to take the "Afghanistan question" back to the U.N Security Council and win the real support of all the other big powers there for a resolution that will allow an orderly shrinkage of U.S. military power in the region, real buy-in from Afghanistan's neighbors and all the other big Asian powers to some broad regional settlement, and a re-balancing of the west-rest balance both in that region and everywhere else in the world.

Maintaining the fiction that Americans of any description-- whether grunts earnestly trying to follow Gen. Petraeus's COIN manual, or the former Marine Corps general who's Obama's national security adviser, or the former junior senator from New York who's now the country's top diplomat-- have any clue at all as to how to resolve Afghanistan's many very thorny problems of internal balance, governance, and relations with its neighbors is a mistake that it's very costly to continue making for very much longer.

Too much to blog about, #1: Anat Kam

The 'Anat Kam' story has been developing a lot over the past week. It's the story of two Haaretz journalists, Anat Kam and the older Uri Blau, who have been hounded and gagged by the Shin Bet for having leaked-- about a year ago!-- some serious stories about how the Israeli security forces developed a protocol for sending troops in on the ground to assassinate wanted Palestinians in cold blood and then cover it up.

The best coverage of this story, without a doubt, has come from West Coast U.S. blogger Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam. read his latest post, up today, and then read back from there. (Or, probably, forward as well, as the story develops.)

The case has so many angles it's hard to know where to start.

One is the whole phenomenon of this 'gagging', which seems to operate very much like 'banning' in the old South Africa. Except in the old S.Africa, the 'banning' orders slapped onto Winnie Mandela and hundreds of other activists were at least public knowledge. Wheras in the case of Anat Kam, the gag order itself is subject to a security blackout and she has been rendered-- far more than Winnie Mandela ever was-- into a complete non-person.

(Blau escaped, with help from his bosses at Haaretz, by being sent to London. But the Shin Bet got ahold of his computer in Israel.)

Another strange aspect of this case is the bit-part played in it by Judith Miller, of all people. Yes, the same woman who played such a role in helping peddle the fabricated evidence that jerked the U.S. political elite into supporting the invasion of Iraq is now playing, in a small way, a bit of a good role in this story.

Richard has been writing about the story for more than a week now on his blog-- and has done so despite much personal agonizing over whether this was the right thing to do, or whether it might jeopardize Ms. Kam's situation even more. But then on Sunday, Judith Miller got a big piece about the Anat Kam affair published in Tina Brown's 'Daily Beast', which is much more of a crossover journalistic operation, straddling the divide between personal blogs and the MSM.

What she wrote was, in general, pretty good. Sh went a bit overboard when she described Israel as "a nation that prides itself on its vibrant discourse and a free press"... I mean, it's a country in which military censorship is omnipresent. (Which means, for example, that journos of all nationalities who're based there aren't allowed to report on any Palestinian projectiles that fall on Israeli military bases, as many do... leaving readers with the impression that they all fall on civilian areas.)

Until yesterday, the Israeli media referred to the whole Anat Kam affair only using elliptical references and by writing 'hypothetical' stories about "what would happen if there were a country that did something like this?" This, though it's a small country and all the journos there (and just about everyone else, too) already knows what's been going on.

Then yesterday, Yediot Aharonot reprinted the J. Miller story and left in the big black slugs imposed by the censorship. (You can see it here.)

But as Richard and others have noted, Israel has a very lively "Web 2.0" crowd; and on Facebook and Twitter etc there's been a lot of commenting on Anat Kam's gag order.

This far, just about all of the commentary in the media has been on the "freedom of the press" aspects of the whole affair. And there's been precious little discussion of the underlying revelations that provoked the state's actions against Blau and Kam. They are deeply shocking-- much more shocking than the question of temporarily 'gagging' someone. Namely that the Israeli security forces-- not sure if this was the IDF/IOF or the Border Police, or which units-- had been systematically sending units into, I believe, the West Bank with orders to kill certain named suspects, and then make up a story that they'd been been shot "in the heat of combat" or shot "trying to escape", or whatever.

Just like poor Steve Biko-- or those hundreds of other South African freedom strugglers who were either targeted for assassination in the streets or were shot while in the custody of the security forces, or were shot shortly after leaving the formal custody of the security forces.

That is a story we cannot lose sight of.

Richard wrote about that a bit here.

Thanks for your great work, Richard.

U.S. facing big problems in Marja

Richard A. Oppel had a fascinating, closely reported piece from Marja, Afghanistan, in the NYT today, telling how that small part of Helmand province, which was supposed to be the showcase for how Obama's very own surge in Afghanistan could "turn the tide" against the Taliban, has in fact done nothing of the sort.

Oppel's lede:

Since their offensive here in February, the Marines have flooded Marja with hundreds of thousands of dollars a week. The tactic aims to win over wary residents by paying them compensation for property damage or putting to work men who would otherwise look to the Taliban for support.

The approach helped turn the tide of insurgency in Iraq. But in Marja, where the Taliban seem to know everything — and most of the time it is impossible to even tell who they are — they have already found ways to thwart the strategy in many places, including killing or beating some who take the Marines’ money, or pocketing it themselves.

Just a few weeks since the start of the operation here, the Taliban have “reseized control and the momentum in a lot of ways” in northern Marja, Maj. James Coffman, civil affairs leader for the Third Battalion, Sixth Marines, said in an interview in late March. “We have to change tactics to get the locals back on our side.”

Col. Ghulam Sakhi, an Afghan National Police commander here, says his informants have told him that at least 30 Taliban have come to one Marine outpost here to take money from the Marines as compensation for property damage or family members killed during the operation in February.

“You shake hands with them, but you don’t know they are Taliban,” Colonel Sakhi said. “They have the same clothes, and the same style. And they are using the money against the Marines. They are buying I.E.D.’s and buying ammunition, everything.”

In Marja, the Taliban are hardly a distinct militant group, and the Marines have collided with a Taliban identity so dominant that the movement appears more akin to the only political organization in a one-party town, with an influence that touches everyone. Even the Marines admit to being somewhat flummoxed.

“We’ve got to re-evaluate our definition of the word ‘enemy,’ ” said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, commander of the Marine expeditionary brigade in Helmand Province. “Most people here identify themselves as Taliban.”

“We have to readjust our thinking so we’re not trying to chase the Taliban out of Marja, we’re trying to chase the enemy out,” he said. “We have to deal with these people.”

These kinds of problems within Afghan politics probably pose an even greater threat to Gen. McChrystal's "COIN" plan for Afghanistan than do the Talibs and the other insurgents. The next big campaign for the "surge" will pose an even greater political challenge. That will be Kandahar, where PM Hamid Karzai's brother is governor and is viewed by the Americans as a huge political problem.

Well, relations between the Americans and the PM are in pretty poor shape right now, too... In fact, the political problems the U.S. forces are facing in Afghanistan these days probably make the ones they faced in Iraq in 2006-07 look simple by comparison. Ditto the logistical challenges. (For the latter, see e.g. here and here. Scroll down for the story in that second one.)

Over at Registan, Joshua Foust has pointed out that in the excellent op-ed he had in the NYT a month ago, he predicted exactly these kinds of problems in Marja.

Having read the Oppel piece this morning, it was strange to get to the WaPo this evening and see the usually sensible David Ignatius writing an incredibly upbeat piece from Marja today. He was indicating that the process of convening tribal shuras and spreading money around was working very well:

This is how conflicts end in Afghanistan: The Afghans talk out their grievances and eventually reach a deal. Money is exchanged and honor restored. Fighting often continues in the background, but most people go home until the next conflict begins.

"By all appearances, the people of Marja just want to get on with their lives," says Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was an enthusiastic observer of the shura here. He assured an audience of Afghan journalists later in Kabul: "All of us want to see this [war] end as soon as possible."

Back in December, I argued in this Boston Review article that most of the thinking behind Obama's decision to "surge" in Afghanistan was actually U.S. domestic politics. I still think that's the case. But for Obama's original plan to work, he has to find a way to subsequently get out of Afghanistan that's not a rout. Not easy.

Back from a break

I got back home to Charlottesville this afternoon after a great family reunion in Philadelphia, to celebrate my youngest child's 25th birthday. Wow, how time flies!

My other two kids were there, too, along with Matilda the best grandbaby in the world, Emmy the sister-in-law, and Bill the spouse. So we had a fine old time. The weather was beautiful, and Philadelphia's a fabulous walking city. (Matilda, aged 17 months, wanted to do a LOT of walking on her own. It was adorable to watch her striding determinedly along the broad sidewalks, to the bemusement of many passers-by... )

Prior to the Philly trip I was working really hard on a quick consulting project for the American Friends Service Committee, and I've also been pushing my Big New Project ahead pretty well. It should be ready for unveiling (along with the new design for the blog) by mid-April or so.

Sorry I've been a bit absent from the blog-- and not paying enough attention to all the sock puppets etc in the comments section.

There's certainly a lot to blog about. Watch this space.

Chicago Hearing, April 18: Be a part of this happening!

It's now just 17 days and 18 hours till the start of the Chicago Hearing, a breakthrough gathering in the heart of our country where a number of singularly well-informed speakers will be addressing the question of "Does U.S. Policy on Israel and Palestine Uphold Our Values?"

The witnesses who'll be giving their testimony at this citizen hearing include Jeff Halper, founder and director of the Israeli Campaign Against House Demolitions, Cindy Corrie, veteran Palestinian social activist Jad Isaac, and Amer Shurrab, a Palestinian activist from Khan Younis whose father and brother were killed during Israel's "Cast Lead" assault.

You can be a part of this event, wherever you are! Organize a listening party in your home, congregation, or community center. The whole hearing will be live-streamed from the website, starting at 2:15 p.m. EST on April 18. So all you need is a computer and a web connection. (If you can hook it up to a big screen, so much the better. But not necessary.)

The "Listeners" at the hearing will include Prof. John Mearsheimer, and the "Introducers" will include Josh Ruebner of the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation. I can't wait to be there.

Oh, did I tell you? I'm going to be the moderator. What a fabulous and timely initiative this is. Americans need to hear these people's voices.

Tom Perriello-- one of the Valiant 108!

Our local Congressman, Tom Perriello (VA-5) is ramping up for a tough re-election race this fall. He was just elected by a hair's-breadth in November '08, beating out the long-serving, party-switching, business-beholden, war-loving Republican, Virgil Goode.

Perriello has already been targeted by a rightwing "Tea Party" blogger who posted what he thought was the Congressman's home address, inviting fellow rightwingers to "visit him and express their thanks" for the vote he cast in favor of the healthcare reform bill. But they got the address wrong, so it ended up being the house of the Congressman's brother, who has several small children, that got targeted instead...

Perriello and his people are eager to get the fund-raising ball rolling well. I guess tonight is one of the quarterly deadlines.

One of the things that most impresses me about our great congressman right now is that he was one of the Valiant 108-- the members of Congress who resisted AIPAC's blandishments to sign off on the AIPAC-circulated letter recently delivered by all the other 327 members to Secretary Clinton (PDF here.)

The letter reaffirms the signers' "commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists
between our country and the State of Israel", etc etc. It also in effect slaps the administration's hand for having dared to express public disquiet-- oh yes, actually "condemnation"-- over PM Netanyahu's recent arrogance and law-breaking regarding East Jerusalem:

We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and
Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small. Our view is that such
differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding
strategic allies.

But I guess for that to happen, we need to make sure that a person of principle like Tom Perriello doesn't get picked off at the polls this November. Dig deep.

A Strange Alliance at the Supreme Court...

I am pleased to be able to publish this contribution by Sam Singer, a 2009 graduate of Emory Law School who's a Staff Law Clerk for the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Copyright in this text remains with Singer. ~ HC

by Sam Singer©

Mohammed Ali Samantar is the only living vestige of the Barre regime, the last government in two decades to exercise central control over Somalia and, not coincidentally, the last that was impudent enough to try. When Siad Barre was finally overthrown in 1991, Samantar, who had served as defense minister and prime minister, fled, in a storm of bullets, to Italy. He eventually made his way to Fairfax, Virginia, where he lived in suburban obscurity until a group of Somali nationals discovered him, hired a lawyer, and sued for damages. According to his accusers, the Barre regime committed unforgivable acts of violence against them and their families, offenses spanning a range of brutality from arbitrary detention, to torture, rape and extrajudicial killing. Samantar was allegedly aware of the crimes being perpetrated against civilians and yet failed to stop them. The suit was dismissed by a federal district court and then reinstated by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It is now pending before the Supreme Court, where a peculiar coalition of defenders is urging reversal.

Among them, to the confusion of some observers, are five prominent pro-Israel organizations, each with a professed interest in keeping Samantar out of court. In joint amicus briefs, the groups insist that as a former government official, Samantar should be immune from suit. To hold otherwise, they warn, would violate international law and set an inviting precedent for Israel’s enemies and their supporters in the human rights community.

The arrival of the Israel lobby adds geopolitical intrigue to a case that already read like a Ludlum thriller. And because it speaks to real and immediate consequences, it lends concreteness to a discussion that would have otherwise carried on in the abstract. It is one thing for a lawyer to appeal to legal authority for the proposition that the courts of one nation ought not sit in judgment of the acts of another; it is quite another for five groups purporting to represent the interests of the Israeli government to advise that doing so in this case would be to declare open season on Israeli officials in US courts.

Testimonies from Gaza children

... aired recently by 'Dispatches' on Britain's Channel 4. 48 minutes of very straightforward testimonies from some of Gaza's child survivors themselves.

Appreciation to Channel 4 for airing this. And it'll get shown on U.S. t.v. when??