Why they hate us

Death squad tactics

US raid slaughters family, including five children--one just six months old

For any reader skeptical that this is intentional US policy, recall discussion of the ``Salvador Option'' that goes back to a Newsweek story by Michael Hirsh and John Barry from January 2005:

the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal...

He [Maj. Gen.Muhammad Abdallah al-Shahwani, director of Iraq’s National Intelligence Service] said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

Iraqis understand exactly what is happening as the bodies pile up. US media can't bring itself to take a good hard look at who is responsible.

Now this...

Operation Swarmer

The U.S. military and Iraqi forces launched the largest air assault in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion in a bid to root out insurgents hiding around Samarra.

Operation Swarmer began early today with more than 1,500 U.S. and Iraqi troops, about 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft, the U.S. military said in a statement e-mailed from Baghdad. Samarra is about 80 miles (125 kilometers) north of Baghdad on the Tigris River. ...

There may also be civilian casualties resulting from the operation, [Ted Galen Carpenter, a defense analyst at the Cato Institute] said, adding: ``That's not going to win hearts and minds.''

The attack oughta really improve the Iraqi view of American intentions. But does that matter any more? It almost seems like the US military has taken a decision to just smash the place up.

Update (3/17): Allbritton says this operation is ``overblown'' -- ``There is so far no evidence of bombardment of any kind.'' I say good to that. I'll be happy if I'm totally, completely wrong that the US military is using these kinds of operations to slowly smash up the country. But there is a ``Long War'', and Iraq is a strategic base in that war...

Also today...

Endless war under Bush Doctrine of anticipatory self-defense
This'll keep agitating people all of the world against America--a re-declaration of the Bush Doctrine where the US will

anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.

I can't do a better job tackling the huge faults in this policy than Helen Thomas did today at the White House press briefing:

Q [Thomas] Does the President know that he's in violation of international law when he advocates preemptive war? The U.N. Charter, Geneva, Nuremberg. We violate international law when we advocate attacking a country that did not attack us.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I would just disagree with your assessment. First of all, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign --

Q It's not a long-standing principle with us. It's your principle.

MR. McCLELLAN: Have you asked your question?

Q It's a violation of international law.

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, let me back up, preemption is a longstanding principle of American foreign policy. It is also part --

Q It's never been.

MR. McCLELLAN: It is also part of an inherent right to self-defense. But what we seek to do is to address issues diplomatically by working with our friends and allies, and working with regional partners. That's what we're doing when it comes to the threat posed by Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. That's what we're doing when it comes to resolving the nuclear issue with North Korea. So we seek diplomatic solutions to confront threats.

And it's important what September 11th taught us --

Q The heavy emphasis of your paper today is war and preemptive war.

MR. McCLELLAN: Can I finish responding to your question, because I think it's important to answer your question. It's a good question and it's a fair question. But first of all, are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes and then respond? September 11th --

Q Under international law you have to be attacked first.

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, you're not letting me respond to your question. You have the opportunity to ask your question, and I would like to be able to provide a response so that the American people can hear what our view is. This is not new in terms of our foreign policy. This has been a longstanding principle, the question that you bring up. But again, I'll put the question back to you. Are we supposed to wait until a threat fully materializes before we respond --

Q You had no threat from Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: September 11th taught us --

Q That was not a threat from Iraq.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- some important lessons. One important lesson it taught us was that we must confront threats before they fully materialize. That's why we are working to address the threats when it comes to nuclear issues involving Iran and North Korea. That's why we're pursuing diplomatic solutions to those efforts, by working with our friends and allies, by working with regional partners who understand the stakes involved and understand the consequences of failing to confront those threats early, before it's too late.

Q What are the consequences?

MR. McCLELLAN: The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, they are very serious in terms of stability --

Q Are you warning Iran that it has consequences as you did Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what has happened with Iran right now is that the matter has been reported to the United Nations Security Council because the regime in Iran has failed to come into compliance with its safeguard obligations, and they continue to engage in enrichment related activity. And we have supported the efforts of the Europeans to resolve this matter diplomatically, but the regime in Iran continues to pursue the wrong course.

They need to change their behavior. They continue to defy the international community. That's why the matter has been reported to the Security Council. We have now entered a new phase of diplomacy. And there are a lot of discussions going on about how to prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapon capability, or developing nuclear weapons. And that's why those discussions are ongoing.

This is an important issue. It outlines in our national security strategy that this is one of the most serious challenges that we face.

Q Are we threatening Iran with preemptive war?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're trying to resolve this in a diplomatic manner by working with our friends and allies.

It is the outrageous US policy of invading to ``confront threats before they fully materialize'' that has materialized what is now reported as a ``sectarian'' conflict bordering on civil war in Iraq. It's incredible that anyone can blame some supposed Iraqi historical animosities for the conditions now existing.

In fact, it appears the Americans are fanning the flames as hard as they can. The policy reaches back even farther than El Salvador in the 80s--to a Vietnam-style program of smashing a country to pieces so that it will never be a threat to American hegemony.

In Iraq, this is a far more important strategic goal than it ever was in Vietnam. Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is too important to give up in the end. America appears to be moving towards destroying the country, then keeping it.

Evidence for that? General John Abizaid said yesterday that the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil supplies!

Meanwhile, to distract the public from the meltdown resulting from 2003's attack, groundwork for some sort of new war in Iran is being laid.