| ARMS
TRADE RESOURCE CENTER
CURRENT
UPDATES: November 10, 2003
Dear Friends,
It has been almost exactly a month since our last email update. A lot has changed, and more has stayed the same, but we are still "slogging" along (to use Rumsfeld's favorite word).
In this issue of our email update we talk about increases- the travesty of increased U.S. troop casualties in Iraq and the outrage of increased spending on war and occupation.
We conclude with a shameless plug for our favorite new book POWER TRIP: Unilateralism and Global Strategy after September 11.
Peace,
Arms Trade Resource Center
In this update:
I. PROGRESS IN IRAQ?
II. THE WAGES OF WAR
III. HEARTS AND MINDS
IV. DESTROY, REBUILD AND PROFIT
V. POWER TRIP: THE PERFECT STOCKING STUFFER
PROGRESS IN IRAQ?
Shot Down, Killed, Wounded, Depressed
By Frida Berrigan, Senior Research Associate
You just want to cry- for the dead and wounded and war traumatized U.S. soldiers, and for the dead and wounded and war traumatized Iraqis, and for those who continue to hold on to the worn platitudes that our "mission" in Iraq is "accomplished" or ever could be.
Sunday's attack that downed a Chinook helicopter and killed 16 soldiers and wounded 20 more is the gravest attack on U.S. soldiers in the war - so far.
Just last week, President Bush tried to explain the relationship between progress in Iraq and the mounting U.S. casualties. "There are terrorists in Iraq," Bush said, "who are willing to kill anybody in order to stop our progress. The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react." At some point - and that point may be right around now -- Bush's logic falls apart. The notion that more attacks on U.S. troops is a sign of "success" surely can't be sustained for more than a very, very short run, assuming that the argument has been thought through at all by Bush and his PR "spin" machine.
Judging from the U.S. blood spilt in Iraq in the past few weeks, U.S. forces must be progressing rapidly, according to "Bush-think." This is the worst attack of the war, and it follows on the heels of the bloodiest month-- in October, 33 U.S. soldiers were killed in hostile fire, double the number killed in September. The Pentagon is now estimating that for every soldier killed in Iraq, another seven are wounded. The numbers of U.S. troops wounded are running far higher than Gulf War I, for obvious reasons. A military occupation is far more dangerous and draining than driving an occupying power (Saddam Hussein) out a country (Kuwait) that he has illegally invaded (Kuwait).
The frequency of attacks has increased as well. Throughout the summer, Army spokesman Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez estimates, U.S. forces came under fire 10-15 times per week. By early October attacks were coming 20-35 times each week.
The downing of the Chinook, shot out of the sky by a surface to air missile, should also down the White House's posturing that progress is being made in Iraq-- that the mission is being accomplished, that the "hostilities" are waning, that the regime change is successful.
Just last week, Bush distanced himself from the slick banner - with the words "Mission Accomplished" emblazoned across it in huge letters made to be seen on TV screens across America and throughout the world -- that served as his backdrop on the USS Abraham Lincoln where he announced an end to the hostilities in Iraq.
At the time the banner seemed gratuitous and overblown, just one more indication of the Bush team's obsession with photo ops and commitment to make every public appearance part of Bush's re-election campaign. Now, it just seems wrong.
Bush's "top gun" landing on the aircraft carrier was scripted down to the last second. An advance team spent days on the ship preparing for the event. And when Bush finally arrived, he brought an entourage of 75-100 people with him. The carrier had to stay out at sea an extra day so that Bush could do a "sleepover" with the troops. Not only did this delay their reunions with their loved ones an extra day, but it cost taxpayers a cool $3.3 million (the cost of keeping a carrier task force afloat for one day).
The New York Times reported that Bush's speech was timed to coincide with what image-makers call ''magic hour light.'' As one aide noted, ''If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right…It looked great.''
But with casualties mounting and confidence lagging, it seems that the American people are finally able to say- "image isn't everything." Bush might look great, but the mission is far from accomplished, and in the mean time what is it costing us?
It does not take much digging to find overwhelming evidence that the "mission" is not "accomplished."
Bush recently commented that military spirit was high and observed that life in Iraq "is a lot better than you'd probably think. Just ask people who have been there." He said.
Stars and Stripes did. The magazine, which is funded in part by the Pentagon but retains editorial autonomy, conducted a survey of U.S. troops in August. Their findings contradict the President's. Half of those polled said that their morale is low, they are inadequately trained and they do not plan on re-enlisting when their tour of duty is up.
One third were critical of the way the administration is prosecuting the war, saying that the their mission lacks clear definition and the war in Iraq has little or no value.
The "The Ground Truth" series is online at www.stripes.com
For some, the spartan living conditions, the separation from families, and the danger, stress and precariousness of living in a war zone has caused severe mental distress and even led some to suicide. The Army has sent 478 soldiers home for mental health reasons, and has recently reported that at least 11 soldiers have committed suicide in Iraq in 7 months.
According to USA Today the Army is investigating at least a dozen other deaths as possible suicides. This issue is starting to gain some attention in the press, but it took months for the military services acknowledge they had a deadly morale problem on their hands.
In the numbers game played by politicians, the wounded and non-combat casualties get discounted and ignored. The Pentagon has been reporting only the combat casualties- not deaths from accidents, friendly fire, and suicide.
The Pentagon has held off on reporting the number of wounded soldiers, creating a major gap in reporting on the war. In late October, Stars and Stripes reported that the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had treated 7,381 wounded American soldiers.
Maybe the saddest irony of this attack is that the soldiers on board the Chinook were beginning a "sanity break" but instead they became the latest casualties in this insane war.
This article was posted on CommonDreams.org November 4, 2003.
II. THE WAGES OF WAR: Iraqi Combatant and Noncombatant Fatalities in the 2003 Conflict
Project on Defense Alternatives recently released the most comprehensive account of the Iraqi death toll in the 2003 war. In their October 2003 report, PDA estimates that as many as 15,000 Iraqis were killed in the first days of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants.
PDA focuses their findings on the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad, drawing on hospital records, official US military statistics, news reports, and survey methodology to arrive at their figures.
The report can be found online at www.comw.org
III. HEARTS AND MINDS: Post-War Civilian Casualties in Baghdad by U.S. Forces
Human Rights Watch's latest report compliments the work done by Project for Defense Alternatives, looking at civilian deaths in Iraq since the declared end of hostilities.
HRW confirms twenty deaths in the Iraqi capital alone between May 1 and September 30. These are not accidental deaths, but the direct result of U.S. military personnel's use of excessive or indiscriminate use of force.
In total, Human Rights Watch collected credible reports of 94 civilian deaths in Baghdad, involving questionable legal circumstances that warrant Department of Defense investigation. The full report, which includes detailed case studies of the 20 deaths, is online at www.hrw.org
IV. DESTROY, REBUILD AND PROFIT
By Michelle Ciarrocca, Senior Research Associate
Last month we read news of $6,000 radio and phones, $50,000 prison beds and $9 million zip codes -- all part of President Bush's $87 billion supplemental request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the details started to come to light, a number of members of Congress spoke out against the supplemental and offered amendments. It looked as if a spirited debate was going to ensue. Critics and supporters of the request gave reporters their sound bytes. The Los Angeles Times said, "the votes by White House hopefuls on the measure loom as one of the campaign's most important tests of how far they are willing to go in making Bush's Iraq policy central to their challenge to his reelection."
In the end, lawmakers got rid of the zip codes and prison beds, increased the request by $500 million, and dropped the proposal to have Iraq repay a portion of the funds. But, all in all, it was a lot of talk and little real action.
The House passed the bill, 298-121, with 82 Democrats voting for it and 5 Republicans opposing the measure. Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio -- the only Democratic candidate to vote against the war resolution -- voted against the spending bill. His rival candidate, Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, voted for it.
In the Senate, in the preliminary vote on the spending request (before the bill went to House-Senate conference) Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina voted against the spending bill, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for it. Yet, when the final bill came to the Senate floor, only Robert Senator Byrd of West Virginia could be heard saying "no" when the vote was called.
The Senate decided not to hold any member individually accountable by passing the measure with a voice vote. The rationale was that no lawmaker wanted to vote against the spending request and be seen as not supporting our troops. As the San Francisco Chronicle noted, "by making final passage a voice vote, members could support the troops without endorsing Bush's postwar policy on Iraq or taking a formal position on the loan provision." The fact that only 6 Senators voted on the President's $87.5 billion emergency spending bill - the largest ever sought - is not only outrageous but also disheartening.
Outspoken critic and vocal opponent of the war, Senator Robert Byrd said he found correlating the vote for the supplemental as a vote for our troops a "twisted logic" which was both irrational and offensive. "To my mind backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them … the supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not -- I say NOT -- a vote "for our troops" in Iraq," Byrd remarked.
Commenting on the voice vote, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said, "People are willing to let the bill pass without a vote, yet they are criticizing the president?" While an editorial in the Washington Post pointed out that, "it wasn't Democratic critics who forced a Republican-run Senate to cast an unrecorded vote on the occupation. It was Republicans, who voted for the funding but who lack all confidence in the president's chosen course." Each side can point fingers, but in the end they are all responsible.
In the November 3rd edition of Newsweek, the article "The $87 Billion Money Pit" blatantly asked, "where are the billions really going?"
The bulk -- $65 billion -- will go to the Defense Department for things like operation and maintenance, personnel, procurement and fuel. About $20 billion will go towards reconstruction efforts in Iraq, all listed under broad categories such as electricity, security, public works, water, health and transportation.
The Newsweek investigation elaborates on the difficulties arising in the reconstruction efforts, everything from a lack of accountability and transparency in the contracting process to price gouging, favoritism and fraud. One Coalition Provisional Authority staffer said, "It always comes back to the same thing: no plan."
Newsweek points to Halliburton, Dick Cheney's former firm, charging $1.59 a gallon for fuel when an Iraqi national oil company says it can buy it for as little as 98 cents a gallon, and cronies of Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi being awarded a large contract for mobile telecommunications networks.
Where else are "the billions really going?" According to a new study from the Center for Public Integrity, more than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the past two years. Topping the list is Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney's former firm Halliburton, with more than $2.3 billion in contracts. Second is Bechtel Group, a firm that USAID chief Andrew Natsios used to work for, with $1.03 billion in contracts.
While much has been said about how tightly Halliburton and Bechtel are tied to the Bush administration, the study details just how pervasive ties between the companies and the administration are. At least 60% of the companies receiving contracts "had employees or board members who either served in or had close ties to the executive branch for Republican and Democratic administrations, for members of Congress of both parties, or at the highest levels of the military."
A few examples:
· David Kay, former UN weapons inspector hired by the CIA to track down weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is a former vice president of SAIC, a top recipient of contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
· Scott Spangler, a former senior USAID official during the first Bush administration, is the principal owner of Chemonics International, which according to information provided by USAID's FOIA office holds the third-richest contract of all American companies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The study also looks at the campaign contributions the companies have given to candidates over the last decade. Not surprisingly, President George W. Bush tops the list with more than $500,000 in donations.
Links to Resources:
Special Report: Windfalls of War, The Center for Public Integrity
"A High Price for a Hollow Victory," by US Senator Robert Byrd, Senate Floor Remarks, November 3, 2003.
"The $87 Billion Money Pit," by Rod Nordland and Michael Hirsh, November 3, 2003,
V. POWER TRIP: THE PERFECT STOCKING STUFFER
Do you have your copy of the book of the year? If not, order it today.
A concise dissection of the new U.S. unilateralism, Power Trip is the first book-length critique of this fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy to consolidate and extend U.S. global control. Charting the new terrain of foreign policy after September 11 and demonstrating how the Bush administration is building on the policies of its successors, here are Barbara Ehrenreich, William Hartung, Ahmed Rashid, Michael Ratner, Noy Thrupkaew, Coletta Youngers, Mark Weisbrot, and many more exciting authors.
Read more and order online today: www.SevenStories.com
Reports
| Recent News Coverage
| Updates
|
