[Peace] News notes for Aug. 11 [part 2 of 2]

[C. G. Estabrook]

[continued from part 1]

FRIDAY, AUGUST 09, 2002

NAGASAKI DAY: WHY DO THEY HATE US WHEN WE'RE SO GOOD? "At the end, Japan
was defenseless, therefore demolished at will. Tokyo was removed from the
list of atom bomb targets because it was 'practically rubble' so that an
attack would not demonstrate the bomb's power. Many believe that the war
ended with the atom bomb. Not so. In the official US Air Force history, we
read that General Arnold 'wanted as big a finale as possible,' and, with
management skills that compare to Stormin' Norman's, assembled over 1000
planes to bomb Japan after Nagasaki, killing thousands of people and
dropping leaflets saying 'Your Government has surrendered. The war is
over!' Truman announced Japan's surrender before the last planes returned.
Japan was prostrate, so why not?  As the Korean war ground on, the Air
Force could locate no more targets.  Therefore, as an official US Air
Force study records, it attacked North Korean dams, leading to such
stirring sights as a "flash flood [that] scooped clean 27 miles of valley
below," while 75% of the water supply for rice production was wiped out
and the enemy suffered "the destruction of their chief sustenance --
rice.' 'The Westerner can little conceive the awesome meaning which the
loss of this staple food commodity has for the Asian,' the study explains:
'starvation and slow death, ...more feared than the deadliest plague.
Hence the show of rage, the flare of violent tempers, and the avowed
threats of reprisals when bombs fell on five irrigation dams.' The threats
of reprisal were empty, and there were no political costs, so these war
crimes joined the long list of others compiled with impunity by the
powerful..."

IN THE UK, YOU COULD GET A BET DOWN ON THIS. America will attack Iraq on
November 6, US defence experts believe. They are so sure of the date that
they have posted an Iraq Countdown clock on the internet to show the
minutes ticking away. Five of the US Navy's aircraft carriers will be
close to the Gulf region. Weather and political factors also favour the
date picked by international think tank GlobalSecurity.org for the start
of the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein. Respected commentator John Pike,
director of the Washington-based organisation, told the Daily Mirror:
"Iraq is going to happen a lot sooner than most people think." The eight
key pointers are: - President Bush must have resolved the Iraq situation
when his re-election campaign begins in under 18 months, and a war and
clean-up will take at least a year; - Delaying an attack will give Saddam
more time to prepare his defences; - A war in the desert would be almost
impossible before October because it is too hot for troops to wear
protective bio-chemical suits; - In December and January, temperatures are
low enough to freeze diesel oil, cloud hinders air visibility, and desert
snow can hamper tanks; - Elections to the US Congress finish on November
5. President Bush cannot fight a war in the month-long run-up; - Media
speculation and government leaks had all predicted an invasion in February
or March 2003, so early November might have given the US an element of
surprise; - The military will have time to replenish stocks of smart bombs
that were depleted by the Afghanistan campaign; - Five US aircraft
carriers will be close by, together with Royal Navy carrier Ark Royal,
providing an invasion base under the cover of routine deployment. Aircraft
carriers are expected to play a key role in any assault on Iraq. Several
allies, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan, that gave facilities in the
1991 Gulf War have ruled out the same support for America's drive to oust
the Iraqi dictator. Each American carrier will have a full complement of
F18 Hornet fighter-bombers and a strike force of up to 1,000 Marines. All
five will be battle ready and within five days sailing from the region on
manoeuvres by the beginning of November. Ark Royal's war games mission in
the Mediterranean, announced this week, is due to finish on November 5. Mr
Pike said: "The opportunity to attack without having to announce new
deployments to the world beforehand is likely to be far too good for
Pentagon war-planners to ignore. "You can go to war within three weeks of
making a decision about it, and within one week of the world finding out.
"The President is under a lot of political pressure for results and his
window is pretty tight. "If I was a betting man, November 6 is where all
my money would be." [MIRROR UK]

HEY, YOU NEVER DO... WorldCom has added another $3.3 billion to its tally
of inappropriately booked funds. Now it has mis-accounted for a total of
about $7.2 billion. WorldCom's CEO blamed the former chief financial
officer and controller, the guys who played with the books to create the
original $3.9 billion in fake revenue and have been arrested for it. The
CEO is not convinced that WorldCom's auditors have found all the company's
accounting problems: "You never really know for sure," he says [WP]

HE'S QUITTING, SO HE CAN TELL THE TRUTH. House Majority Leader Dick Armey
said that his own view is to let Saddam "bluster, let him rant and rave
all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As
long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be
addressing any attack or resources against him." On Wednesday, Armey said
that the U.S. should lift its embargo against Cuba. He is also trying to
spike Operation TIPS. [CURSOR]

BIG COVERAGE IN ALL THE MAJOR MEDIA? Thirty-five U.S. activists return
today from a ten-day human rights delegation to Colombia. They will engage
in a nonviolent direct action at the School of the Americas (renamed
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation) in Ft. Benning,
Georgia on Sunday morning, at 11AM. The group shares concerns over current
US policy towards Colombia, including a military aid package of historic
proportions, a highly controversial program of aerial fumigation of coca,
and the human rights implications of training Colombian soldiers abroad
and at the SOA/WHISC ... SOA Watch and Witness for Peace sponsored the
delegation. These groups hold that U.S. military aid exacerbates violence
in Colombia. Human Rights Watch and the US State Department have
documented links between the Colombian military and illegal paramilitary
forces responsible for 70% of Colombia's civilian killings. Since the US
began sending aircraft and on-the-ground training to Colombia in 2000,
politically motivated killings have risen from 14 to 20 per day, and the
number of kidnappings and disappearances has doubled. Colombia has sent
10,000 soldiers to the SOA/WHISC. The SOA/WHISC is a combat training
school for Latin American soldiers. Its graduates are consistently
involved in human rights atrocities. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to
release training manuals used at the school that advocated the use of
torture, extortion and execution. In December 2000 Congress authorized the
WHISC to replace the SOA ... "Colombia has sent more soldiers to this
school than any other country, and it has the worst human rights record to
date in the Western Hemisphere," said Carrie Eikler, one of the delegates.

THERE GOING TO 'EXPLAIN' THE MIDDLE EAST TO LAWYERS. American Bar
Association convention had a seminar - broadcast on C-Span -- on the
Middle East for lawyers: the only speakers - rabid columnist Charles
Krauthammer and Israeli lobbyist Dennis Ross.

SUNDAY, AUGUST 11, 2002

HOW MANY TIMES DOES HE HAVE TO SAY THIS? The Mail on Sunday said George
Galloway, a member of parliament from Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour
Party who also writes a column for the weekly's Scottish edition, had met
the Iraqi leader at a secret underground bunker near Baghdad.  Saddam
announced "he would implement all U.N. resolutions on Iraq and admit
weapons inspectors without hindrance," the paper said ... Washington and
London argue that Iraq is in violation of U.N. Security Council
resolutions calling for it to admit weapons inspectors to search for
weapons of mass destruction, leading to the suspension of sanctions
imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.  Britain and the United
States have dismissed as a ploy an Iraqi offer made in recent days for
technical talks on the possible return of the weapons inspectors. The
inspectors left Iraq in 1998 ahead of U.S.-British air strikes aimed at
punishing Baghdad for failing to cooperate with inspections.  Iraq said on
Saturday it was waiting for an official response from the U.S. Congress to
an invitation to visit Baghdad which it said could include arms experts.
The Iraqi letter on August 5 said such experts would be given free access
to any site alleged to be developing weapons of mass destruction.

THEY HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE THREAT OF DEMOCRACY. Both the NYT and
WP front, and the LAT stuffs, yesterdays comments by Vice President Cheney
and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to a gathering of Iraqi opposition leaders
in Washington. Both leaders delivered a message of U.S. resolve to oust
Saddam Hussein and both discussed the makeup of a post-Saddam Iraq. The
NYT makes much of the fact that both Cheney and Rumsfeld spoke of
replacing Saddam with a democratic regime, saying the declaration has
"important implications" and "comes at a particularly important juncture."
Interestingly, the WP barely mentions democracy at all in its article.
Both papers quote Bush's remark yesterday that Iraq will be considered "an
enemy until proven otherwise." [SLATE]

READINESS IS ALL. Preparations for the impending war and to actually
create the new "New World Order" in the Middle East are moving ahead very
quickly, even as the domestic politics of the situation in the US has the
Bush Administration cautious and hesitant with the mid-term election
looming. 
	TURKEY:  Many steps are underway to enhance the U.S., Israeli,
Turkish military alliance that has been written about in the pages of MER
in past years.  The Jordanians and others are involved as well; though far
more in secret.  One many development is that with the Turks in the lead
the US and Turkey have recently taken over three air bases in northern
Iraq, outside the control of the Iraqis for years because of the "No Fly
Zones" policy that has Iraq already divided into segments.  These bases,
as well as others in the region especially in Turkey and Qatar, are being
quickly readied for the major regional war ahead; plus of course the U.S.
has major military facilities in Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and special
relations with Israel and Egypt, as well as growing military relationships
with various south Asian countries including those that were once part of
the Soviet Union. 
	SAUDI:  The frightened and shaking Saudi Government has taken a
new step to control dissent and opposition in the Kingdom.  Regardless of
what the Saudi Royals say in public, since 9/11 CIA infestation of the
Kingdom has been considerably stepped up.  One demand now being
implemented by the Saudis is to try to bring the Mosques and Imams -- many
of whom are very much opposed to US and Israeli policies -- much more into
line.  And one way of doing that is the new decree from Riyadh that all
satellite dishes in Mosques and associated homes of Imams be removed so as
"not to conflict" with their religious duties. 
	HASHEMITE JORDAN:  A special elite secret American military ops
team, coupled with a still expanding covert CIA presence, has been
dispatched to Jordan to protect King Abdullah who sits on the last
remaining Hashemite Throne.  Last month the U.S. also took over direct
protection of the American-installed President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan
after he dismissed his own military forces from that role; clearly fearing
a coup or assassination.  In Jordan, the "excuse" for taking this further
step, as it begins to leak that something is afoot, is that more American
military are showing up to protect Jordan against a possible
Iraqi-inspired coup, especially now that the U.S. and the Jordanian
Hashemites have shown an interest in "returning" one of their own to the
throne in Baghdad.   Feisal II was the last Hashemite King in Iraq,
installed by the Brits until the bloody revolution in 1958 when his
household was dragged through the dusty streets and rather literally
dismembered.  But there is also growing fear in Jordan of civil uprising
and popular revolution.   Indeed, some astute observers have concluded
that King Abdullah's public utterances these days appearing to be against
the coming war are actually designed to mask the ongoing and still growing
collaboration between his regime and the US/Israeli/UK/Turkish alliance;
protecting his hold on power until the Americans have greater forces in
the region and war is imminent, when his public stance will also change.
[MER]

RUMSFELD SAYS TO JUMP-START THE WAR. Communist Party of the Philippines
founder Jose Maria Sison said the US wants to go to war in the
Philippines, reacting to the US move to include the CPP in its list of
foreign terrorist organisations. "This designation of the CPP as terrorist
is a psy-war (psychological warfare) preparation for further US military
intervention and even aggression," Sison said in a telephone interview
with local ABS-CBN television from the Netherlands. "I suppose the US is
raring to go for war in the Philippines."  Sison also said the designation
is intended to "destroy once and for all", peace negotiations between the
Philippine government and the CPP's political front, the National
Democratic Front (NDF), based in Utrecht, Netherlands.  Sison did not say
how the decision could affect the CPP. President Gloria Arroyo's spokesman
Ignacio Bunye said, "The exclusion list simply means that the US
government will tighten its noose as far as the CPP and its guerrilla arm
New People's Army are concerned." This could result in less funding from
leftist groups in the US, he added. National Security Adviser Roilo Golez
said the US listing "was expected due to the serious threats they (the
CPP) have been making against innocent civilians including Americans and
US interests." He was referring to an NPA statement in April ordering the
guerrillas to "inflict severe casualties on the invading US forces and to
take punitive action against US economic and related interests". Despite
the US listing, government peace negotiator Eduardo Ermita said
"back-channeling" efforts to reopen peace talks with the communist
leadership will continue. The government suspended formal peace talks with
the CPP last year after the communists assassinated two congressmen. But
Ermita said a draft of an agreement to reopen the talks will be presented
to the rebels this month. Sison also criticised the just-concluded
six-month long joint US-Philippine operations against the Abu Sayyaf, a
Muslim kidnapping group in the south, which has prompted President Arroyo
to redeploy troops away from hunting the kidnap band and towards battling
communist guerrillas elsewhere in the country. "Now they are trying to
spread the war. They are going to shift to a war," from the Abu Sayyaf to
the NPA, Sison said. Sison said, however, his side is still awaiting
informal efforts to reopen peace negotiations between the government and
the NDF. [AFX-ASIA]

THE DEMS THINK THEY HAVE AN ISSUE.  Bush's "new vulnerability": it's no
longer enough just to be a wartime president -- there are growing signs of
concern about his handling of the economy. [WP]

HOW ABOUT WHAT ALL OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES DO? The NYT sees a
health care crisis, like the one that helped put Bill Clinton in office a
decade ago, "looming on the horizon." Though health care costs had
stabilized during the mid-90's, they're once again on the rise due to the
expensive fruits of the last decade's biomedical revolution. There are
more and better medicines than a decade ago, but they come at an ever more
burdensome price that some employers say they just can't afford to absorb.
The increasing costs of insurance are being transferred to workers, many
of whom are being priced out of the market and into the ranks of the
uninsured. Meanwhile, Medicaid is straining to keep up and Democrats and
Republicans are deadlocked over how to deal with the issue. Bush believes
tort reform and tax credits for the uninsured will solve the health care
problem; Democrats think what's needed is an expansion of existing
government programs. [NYT]

IT REALLY IS US V. THEM, BUT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT. The
Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) -- the party's dominant,
corporate-backed wing -- convened in New York. With Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh
chairing the gathering, the hot topic of discussion was the populist,
"people-versus-the-powerful" message that Al Gore adopted toward the end
of the 2000 election. 

ET TU, JOEY? Gore's former running mate turned presidential aspirant, Sen.
Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut, set the tone when he told the press
that Gore's message "was not the 'New Democrat' approach, was not the
pro-growth approach. It made it more difficult for us to gain the support
of middle-class, independent voters who don't see American as 'us vs.
them.'" USA Today quoted Bayh: "I think the strategy was wrong;" it
sounded like "a general criticism of people who have been successful."
Gore responded to the Business Democrats with a lengthy op ed in the New
York Times, in which he declared: "Standing up for 'the people, not the
powerful' was the right choice in 2000. And, in fact, it is the Democratic
Party's meaning and mission. The suggestion from some in our party that we
should no longer speak that truth, especially at a time like this, strikes
me as bad politics and, worse, wrong in principle." [NYT]

DO WE WONDER WHOM HE'S WORKING FOR? Al Gore is having a hard enough time
convincing Democratic Party leaders that he deserves another shot at the
presidency in 2004. But now he may be having trouble where it really
counts: with his moneymen. The latest setback comes from Jonathan Tisch,
the New York City hotelier who has generously backed Gore causes since
1988, giving the Democratic Party $325,000 during Gore's 2000 presidential
bid. Sources tell Time that Tisch recently informed Gore he's uncommitted
for 2004. That might not sound like a rebuff, but considering Tisch's
previously unwavering support for Gore, Democratic insiders were stunned.
Tisch was just one of several Gore loyalists missing from Gore's June
"donor retreat" in Memphis, Tenn. Also awol were all but a few Democratic
patrons from the key campaign-money centers of Hollywood and New York
City. Now, with Tisch's refusal to commit to Gore, the former Veep may
have more trouble than he ever imagined raising the $30 million-plus he
will need to compete against a crowded -- and to date well-financed --
field of candidates in the Democratic primaries. [TIME]

ANXIOUS SAUDIS BRING GIFTS TO THE EMPEROR. In an exclusive interview held
yesterday at his private residence, Saudi Prince Saud Faisal told the
Washington Post that 16 suspected al-Qaida members fleeing Afghanistan had
been arrested in Iran and turned over to the Saudis. When Iran turned over
the captured al-Qaida suspects to Saudi Arabia, it did so with the
knowledge that any information the Saudis could extract from the suspects
would be conveyed to the United States. According to Prince Saud, "Iran
has... cooperated extensively with the United States" 
 According to the
Prince, the handoff of the al-Qaida operatives occurred in June.
Unfortunately, the WP declines to conjecture on the intriguing question of
the Saudi prince's motivation for making this information public now.
[SLATE]

MAYBE THEY CAN'T CONTROL IT. On Tuesday the Federal Reserve Board will
meet to discuss a possible interest rate cut. "Washington has already used
most of its weapons for handling economic trouble." Following the
conventional wisdom on Wall Street, the paper predicts the Fed will not
cut interest rates at its Tuesday meeting, but the paper does predict a
rate cut later this year.  [LAT]

THEY WON'T BE TREATED LIKE THE KIDS THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION FRIED
THERE. President Bush will host an economic form in Waco, TX, on Tuesday.
The LA Times called the convocation a "gathering of corporate chiefs" in
its online edition's sub-headline, but removed the line about "corporate
chiefs" in the print edition. [SLATE]

AND WAR IS A CURE FOR RECESSION. Wages have remained stagnant over the
last year. In an effort to cut costs, companies are doling out meager
raises this year and cutting back on overtime hours. They're also asking
their employees to shoulder a greater portion of health insurance costs 

When stock market losses are factored in, it's hard to say how large the
net affect will be, but economists fear stagnation in personal income
could lead to a recession. [NYT]

	*	*	*

	Counting the dead  
	Attempts to hide the number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs 
	are an affront to justice 
	Marc Herold - Thursday August 8, 2002 - The Guardian 

When the US bombing of Afghanistan started on October 7 2001, an official
"counting of the dead" was deemed unnecessary. The public was assured that
American and British military planners would go to great lengths to avoid
civilian casualties. The combination of newer, precision-guided munitions
and the fact that bombing would take place in remote areas would mean
that, in this war, only the "bad guys" would get killed. Subsequent events
have proved these claims wrong. But how wrong? Everyone now accepts that
civilians have died in American bombing raids in Afghanistan, but exactly
how many is hotly disputed. Given the lack of official interest, the
counting of the dead fell upon interested individuals and non-governmental
organisations. To date there have been nine studies, of which eight have
been made public.

The first study was my own, published in December last year. Relying on
wire services, NGO and worldwide newspaper reports, I attempted to survey
the bombing incidents to date and concluded that more than 3,500 Afghan
civilians had been killed. A weakness of the initial study was some
double-counting due to confused site names - the figure for the October to
December period should have been between 2,650 and 2,970 civilian deaths. 

Soon afterwards, a couple of cursory estimates were made by Le Monde and
Reuters of about 1,000 dead civilians. At first sight, these seem
considerably lower than my own, but this is because only a sample of
bombings was examined. Reuters looked at just 14 incidents, which
reportedly killed 982 Afghans. If one extrapolates out from the sample,
the count broadly tallies with my own. 

In February, the Wall Street Journal announced that Human Rights Watch was
sending three researchers to Afghanistan - headed by William Arkin, a
supporter of the war - to produce the "correct" tally of Afghan dead. HRW
officials, it was widely reported, had "said privately" that they
estimated the civilian death toll at between 100 and 350 in December,
figures consistent with the group's record of severe undercounting in the
1999 Nato campaign in Yugoslavia. The HRW study has never appeared, though
it has - absurdly - had some influence: the number 350 is still bandied
about as if it had some scientific basis. 

Around the same period, a major study was released by a prominent US
thinktank, the Project on Defense Alternatives, arguing that US bombing in
Afghanistan had killed civilians at a rate four times higher than the Nato
bombing of Yugoslavia. By January 1 2002, the report calculated, between
1,000 and 1,300 civilians had been killed. The bombing campaign "failed to
set a new standard for accuracy" because of the mix of weapons used, the
unreliable nature of intelligence and the decision to bomb al-Qaida and
Taliban leaders in their houses, where little margin of error existed. 

The PDA study was authoritative. Its total was lower than mine only
because it relied exclusively on western sources. This made it more
palatable to the media, but meant it involved a restricted number of
incidents. 

On February 11, the Associated Press released its counter-study, boldly
reassuring an increasingly alarmed public: "Hundreds lost, not thousands".
Its astonishingly low figure of 500-600 was reached "by examining hospital
records, visiting bomb sites and interviewing eyewitnesses and officials."
The report was beset by methodological problems. Most Afghan deaths are
not recorded in hospital records because people are buried immediately; no
details were given of interview methods or which bombing incidents were
included; many bomb attacks were not reported; and Afghan officials have
been shown often to seriously underestimate civilian casualties. 

A far better survey - of 14 sites bombed by US warplanes, which resulted
in 830 civilian deaths - was published the same month by John Donnelly and
Anthony Shadid of the Boston Globe. The authors noted: "Because the 14
sites represent only a small fraction of the total sites targeted... since
October, the total is estimated at 1,000 or more." The prime culprits for
civilian deaths were: faulty intelligence; imprecision of aerial warfare;
and "the selection of targets in civilian areas".  Another compilation, by
the Los Angeles Times, came up with a death toll of between 1067 and 1201
between October and February. But neither raw data nor sources were
disclosed. 

Last month, the NGO Global Exchange released a preliminary report of
civilian casualties caused by US bombing since the beginning of the war.
The study of 11 sites purported to document 812 deaths. This report is
seriously flawed. We are not told which bombed places were visited (though
we do know that only four of Afghanistan's 30 provinces were included). No
raw data is produced and the number of bombing incidents is not divulged.
Without this context, the low count of 812 dead is meaningless. 

Finally, Dexter Filkins of the New York Times last month published his
study of 11 bombing incidents in which 396 Afghan civilians reportedly
perished. My own database reveals that in the same 11 incidents between
408 and 509 civilians died. Filkins points to the use of overwhelming
force as causing many of the casualties. His study drew an immediate
rebuke from Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary. 

In the eight months since I published my original study, I have updated
and corrected my database, and incorporated the civilian deaths resulting
from British and US special forces attacks. My most recent figures show
that between 3,125 and 3,620 Afghan civilians were killed between October
7 and July 31. This is compatible with the sample counts done by
Donnelly-Shadid, Filkins and (probably) the Reuters study. Comparison with
the PDA and Los Angeles Times reports is difficult to make as they do not
reveal raw data and exactly which sources were employed. The AP count is
flawed both in coverage and methodology and the Global Exchange report is
incomplete. 

In war, counting is not value-free. To overlook or underestimate the
civilian dead gives rein to the enthusiasts of precision-guided weaponry.
It is an invitation to proliferation of war. The thousands of Afghan
civilians who perished did so because US military and political elites
chose to carry out a bombing campaign using extremely powerful weaponry in
civilian-rich areas (the isolated training camps were largely destroyed
during the first week). For political reasons, it has been necessary to
hide the human carnage on Afghan soil as much as possible from the western
public. 

Given that many of the bombing attacks - such as those on civilian
infrastructure (cars, clinics, radio stations, bridges) and those during
November and December on anything rolling on the roads of southern
Afghanistan - violated the rules of war, there are war crimes that need to
be investigated. An inadequate count will make it impossible for the
families of those wrongfully killed to get the compensation to which they
are entitled. It will also impede international justice. 

[The author is an associate professor at the University of New Hampshire,
US. His writing on the human costs of the Afghan bombing campaign can be
found at www.cursor.org; his database of Afghan civilian casualties is at
<http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold>.]

	--end--