Jackson Free Press

Fables of Reconstruction: A Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq

Association of Alternative Newsweeklies

AS THE SITUATION in Iraq grows ever more tenuous, the Bush administration continues to spin the ominous news with matter-of-fact optimism. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi uprisings in half a dozen cities, accompanied by the deaths of more than 100 soldiers in the month of April alone, is something to be viewed in the context of "good days and bad days," merely "a moment in Iraq's path towards a free and democratic system." More recently, the president himself asserted, "Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country."

But according to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author — a US government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director — have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the US-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, US efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war.

Provided to this reporter by a Western intelligence official, the memo was partially redacted to protect the writer's identity and to "avoid inflaming an already volatile situation" by revealing the names of certain Iraqi figures. A wide-ranging and often acerbic critique of the CPA, covering topics ranging from policy, personalities, and press operations to on-the-ground realities such as electricity, the document is not only notable for its candidly troubled assessment of Iraq's future. It is also significant, according to the intelligence official, because its author has been a steadfast advocate of "transforming" the Middle East, beginning with "regime change" in Iraq.

'The trigger for civil war'

Signs of the author's continuing support for the US invasion and occupation are all over the memo, which was written to a superior in Baghdad and circulated among other CPA officials. He praises Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, and laments a lack of unqualified US support for Chalabi, a long-time favorite of Washington hawks. (It bears noting that Chalabi was tried and convicted in absentia by the Jordanian government for bank embezzlement, in 1989, and has come under fire more recently for peddling dubious pre-war intelligence to the US.) The author also asserts that "what we have accomplished in Iraq is worth it." And his predictions sometimes hew to an improbably sunny view. Violence is likely, he says, for only "two or three days after arresting" radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr, an event that would "make other populist leaders think twice" about bucking the CPA. Written only weeks ago, these predictions seem quite unwarranted, since simply trying to arrest al Sadr has resulted in more than two weeks of bloody conflict — with no end in sight — and seems to have engendered more cooperation between anti-Coalition forces than before.

Yet the memo is gloomy in most other respects, portraying a country mired in dysfunction and corruption, overseen by a CPA that "handle(s) an issue like six-year-olds play soccer: Someone kicks the ball and one hundred people chase after it hoping to be noticed, without a care as to what happens on the field." But it is particularly pointed on the subject of cronyism and corruption within the Governing Council, the provisional Iraqi government subordinate to the CPA whose responsibilities include re-staffing Iraq's government departments. "In retrospect," the memo asserts, "both for political and organizational reasons, the decision to allow the Governing Council to pick 25 ministers did the greatest damage. Not only did we endorse nepotism, with men choosing their sons and brothers-in-law; but we also failed to use our prerogative to shape a system that would work ... our failure to promote accountability has hurt us."

In the broadest sense, according to the memo's author, the CPA's bunker-in-Baghdad mentality has contributed to the potential for civil war all over the country. "[CPA Administrator L. Paul] Bremer has encouraged re-centralization in Iraq because it is easier to control a Governing Council less than a kilometer away from the Palace, rather than 18 different provincial councils who would otherwise have budgetary authority," he says. The net effect, he continues, has been a "desperation to dominate Baghdad, and an absolutism born of regional isolation." The memo also describes the CPA as "handicapped by [its] security bubble," and derides the US government for spending "millions importing sport utility vehicles which are used exclusively to drive the kilometer and a half" between CPA and Governing Council headquarters when "we would have been much better off with a small fleet of used cars and a bicycle for every Green Zone resident."

While the memo upbraids CPA officials — an apparent majority — who stay inside the Green Zone in the name of personal safety, it also maintains that the Green Zone itself is "less than secure," both for Westerners and Iraqis. According to the author, "screening for Iranian agents and followers of Muqtada al Sadr is inconsistent at best," and anti-CPA elements can easily gather basic intelligence, since no one is there to "prevent people from entering the parking lot outside the checkpoint to note license plate numbers of 'collaborators.'"

Ordinary Iraqis also "fear that some of the custodial staff note who comes and goes," according to the memo, causing a "segment of Iraqi society to avoid meeting Americans because they fear the Green Zone." It also derides the use of heavily armed personal-security details (PSDs) for CPA personnel, saying the practice inspires reticence among ordinary Iraqis. "It is ingrained in the Iraqi psyche to keep a close hold on their own thoughts when surrounded by people with guns," the memo notes. "Even those willing to talk to Americans think twice, since American officials create a spectacle of themselves, with convoys, flak jackets, fancy SUVs."

While the memo offers an encouraging and appealing picture of thriving businesses and patrons on the streets of a free Baghdad, it notes that "the progress evident happens despite us rather than because of us," and reports that "frequent explosions, many of which are not reported in the mainstream media, are a constant reminder of uncertainty."

Indeed, while boosters of the Iraqi invasion delight in the phrase "25 million free Iraqis," if the CPA memo is any indication, this newfound liberty does not include freedom from fear. "Baghdadis have an uneasy sense that they are heading towards civil war," it says. "Sunnis, Shias, and Kurd professionals say that they themselves, friends, and associates are buying weapons fearing for the future." The memo also notes that while Iraqi police "remain too fearful to enforce regulations," they are making a pretty penny as small arms dealers, with the CPA as an unwitting partner. "CPA is ironically driving the weapons market," it reveals. "Iraqi police sell their US-supplied weapons on the black market; they are promptly re-supplied. Interior ministry weapons buy-backs keep the price of arms high."

The memo goes on to argue that "the trigger for a civil war" is not likely to be an isolated incident of violence, but the result of "deeper conflicts that revolve around patronage and absolutism" reaching a flashpoint.

'Their corruption is our corruption'

Asserting that the US must "use our prerogative as an occupying power to signal that corruption will not be tolerated," the CPA memo recommends taking action against at least four Iraqi ministers whose names have been redacted from the document. (Though there may be no connection, two weeks ago, Interior Minister Nuri Badran abruptly resigned, as did Governing Council member Iyad Allawi.) Also redacted is the name of a minister whose acceptance of "alleged kickbacks . . . should be especially serious for us, since he was one of two ministers who met the President and had his picture taken with him." (Though the identity of the minister in question cannot be precisely determined, the only Iraqi ministers who have been photographed with President Bush are Iraqi public-works minister Nesreen Berwari and electricity minister Ayhem al-Sammarai, on September 23, 2003.) "If such information gets buried on the desks of middle-level officials who do not want to make waves," the memo warns, "the short-term gain will be replaced by long-term ill."

Developing this theme, the memo asserts that the US "share[s] culpability in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis" for engendering Iraq's currently cronyistic state; since "we appointed the Governing Council members ... their corruption is our corruption." The author then notes that two individuals — names again redacted — have successfully worked to exclude certain strains of Shia from obtaining ministerial-level positions, and that for this "Iraqis blame Bremer, especially because the [CPA] Governance Group had assured Iraqis that exclusion from the Governing Council did not mean an exclusion from the process. As it turns out, we lied. People from Kut [a city south of Baghdad recently besieged by Shiite forces loyal to Muqtada al Sadr], for example, see that they have no representation on the Governing Council, and many predict civil war since they doubt that the Governing Council will really allow elections."

Fanning the embers of distrust is the US's failure to acknowledge that the constituencies of key Governing Council members "are not based on ideology, but rather on the muscle of their respective personal militias and the patronage which we allow them to bestow," according to the memo's author. Using the Kurds as an example, he reveals that "we have bestowed approximately $600 million upon the Kurdish leadership, in addition to the salaries we pay, in addition to the USAID projects, in addition to the taxes which we have allowed them to collect illegally." To underscore the point, the author adds that he recently spent an evening with a Kurdish contact watching The Godfather trilogy, and notes that "the entire evening was spent discussing which Iraqi Kurdish politicians represented which [Godfather] character."

The memo also characterizes the CPA's border-security policy as "completely irrelevant," going so far as to state that "it is undeniable that a crumbling Baathist regime did better than we have" in that regard. Noting that senior Defense Department officials do not fully understand the nature of the problem, the memo recommends that the US "deploy far greater numbers [of soldiers] than we have now" to the borders. The memo also criticizes the Defense Department — in particular the Office of the Secretary of Defense — for keeping potentially useful personnel in Washington. "There is an unfortunate trend inside the Pentagon where those who can write a good memo are punished by being held back from the field," it says, adding that "OSD harms itself, and its constituent members' individual credibility, when it defers all real world experience to others."
The CPA's press operation — headed by Dan Senor, Bremer's senior communications adviser, who is seen by many as little more than a White House hack — doesn't escape the memo writer's criticism, either. The press office, he says, has made a bad political situation worse by "promoting American individuals above Iraqis." In one case, the memo says, "Iraqis present at the 4 am conclusion of the Governing Council deliberations on the interim constitution were mocking Dan Senor's request that no one say anything to the press until the following afternoon.... It was obvious to all that an American wanted to make the announcement and so take credit. Our lack of honesty in saying as much annoyed the Iraqis . . . [they] resent the condescension of our press operation."

Pre-war concerns validated

By and large, the March memo validates many points raised by career military, diplomatic, and intelligence officers before the war. For them, lack of planning for post-war stabilization was a primary matter of deep concern, which cannot be said for the Bush administration's hawkish advocates of "regime change."

Among the more informed and prescient in this camp is Retired USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner, a long-time National War College instructor and war-games specialist who asserted in February of 2003 that "the military is not prepared to deal with [Bush's] promises" of a rapid and rosy post-war transition in Iraq. Based on Gardiner's experience as a participant in a Swedish National War College study of protracted difficulties in rebuilding Kosovo's electrical grid after NATO bombed it in 1999, Gardiner made a similar study, in 2002, of the likely effect US bombardment would have on Iraq's power system. Gardiner's assessment was not optimistic. It was also hardly unknown: not only did he present his finding to a mass audience at a RAND Corporation forum, he also briefed ranking administration officials ranging from then-NSC Iraq point man Zalmay Khalizad to senior Pentagon and US Agency for International Development officials.

Despite repeated assurances over the past year from CPA chief L. Paul Bremer that Iraq's electricity situation has vastly improved, the memo says otherwise, reporting that there is "no consistency" in power flows. "Street lights function irregularly and traffic lights not at all.... Electricity in Baghdad fluctuating between three hours, on and off, in rotation, and four hours on and off."

"I continue to get very upset about the electricity issue," Gardiner said last week after reviewing the memo. "I said in my briefing that the electrical system was going to be damaged, and damaged for a long time, and that we had to find a way to keep key people at their posts and give them what they need so there wouldn't be unnatural surges that cause systems to burn out. Frankly, if we had just given the Iraqis some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things running, it would have been better. But instead we've let big US companies go in with plans for major overhauls."

Indeed, as journalists Pratap Chatterjee and Herbert Docena noted in a report from Iraq in Southern Exposure, published by the Durham, North Carolina–based Institute for Southern Studies, the steam turbines at Iraq's Najibiya power plant have been dormant since last fall. As Yaruub Jasim, the plant's manager, explained, "Normally we have power 23 hours a day. We should have done maintenance on these turbines in October, but we had no spare parts and money." And why not? According to Jasim, the necessary replacement parts were supposed to come from Bechtel, but they hadn't arrived yet — in part because Bechtel's priority was a months-long independent examination of power plants with an eye towards total reconstruction. And while parts could have been cheaply and quickly obtained from Russian, German, or French contractors — the contractors who built most of Iraq's power stations — "unfortunately," Jasim told Chatterjee and Docena, "Mr. Bush prevented the French, Russian, and German companies from [getting contracts in] Iraq." (In an interview last year with the San Francisco Chronicle, Bechtel's Iraq operations chief held that "to just walk in and start fixing Iraq" was "an unrealistic expectation.")

The CPA memo also validates key points of the exceptionally perceptive February 2003 US Army War College report, "Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario." Critical of the US government's insufficient post-war planning, the War College report asserted that "the possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace is real and serious." It also cautioned that insufficient attention had been given to the political complexities likely to crop up in post-Saddam Iraq, a scene in which religious and ethnic blocs supported by militias would further complicate a transition to functional democracy in a nation bereft of any pluralistic history.

According to a Washington, DC–based senior military official whose responsibilities include Iraq, CPA now estimates there are at least 30 separate militias active in Iraq, and "essentially, [CPA] doesn't know what to do with regard to them — which is frightening, because CPA's authority essentially ends on June 30, and any Iraqi incentive to get rid of the militias is likely to go away after that date, as sending US troops around Iraq against Iraqis isn't likely to endear the new Iraqi government to its citizens."

And then there is the problem of Iran. According to the memo, "Iranian money is pouring in" to occupied Iraq — particularly the area under British control — and it asserts it is "a mistake" to stick to a policy of "not rock[ing] the boat" with the Iranians, as "the Iranian actors with which the State Department likes to do business . . . lack the power to deliver on promises" to exercise restraint in Iraq. According to senior US intelligence and military officials queried on this point, the Iranian influence in Iraq is both real and formidable, and the US is, as one put it, at best "catching up" in the battle for influence. But the officials also added that pushing the point with Iran too hard — either through diplomatic channels or on the ground in Iraq — would likely be more troubled than the current course of action, possibly resulting in armed conflict with Iran or a proxy war in Iraq that the US isn't ready to fight.

Famously, Lord Cromer once described Great Britain's approach to the Land of the Nile: "We do not rule Egypt; we rule those who rule Egypt." Compare that with several statements made by the US official who wrote the memo considered here. Of one senior Iraqi official, whose name is redacted, he states that "it is better to keep [him] a happy drunk than an angry drunk." And he says of two other Iraqi leaders that they are "much more compliant when their checks are delayed or fail to appear," adding that "the same is true with other Governing Council members." The attitudes aren't much different, are they? And yet sometimes, the most true and heartbreaking view is afforded from the wheel of the mighty ship of state.

Jason Vest is a senior correspondent for the American Prospect. His book on the current Bush administration and national security will be published in 2005. This piece was commissioned by the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) for use by its members.Sixty alternative newspapers around the U.S. posted the following important story simultaneously the morning of April 20.

Previous Comments

ID

85038

Comment

AAN has released the full text of the redacted memo and posted it on their Web site. Interest has been high on this story -- Jason Vest, the author, is scheduled to appear on C-SPAN's Washington Journal tomorrow. http://aan.org/gbase/Aan/viewArticle?oid=oid%3A134346

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-04-20T21:17:19-06:00

ID

85039

Comment

The Philadelphia (Pa.) Daily News on this story today: THE GROWING pessimism about the situation in Iraq is shared by at least one U.S. official who was assigned to the nation's Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. A gloomy memo written by the official was leaked to journalist Jason Vest, whose article was posted yesterday on a number of alternative-weekly newspaper Web sites, including the Village Voice and the Boston Phoenix. The memo knocks corruption and nepotism in Iraq's Governing Council and says electricity shortages and explosions in Baghdad are worse than what's being reported.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-21T11:18:17-06:00

ID

85040

Comment

Yahoo News ran our association's statement on the above story and why AAN papers chose to break this simultaneously yesterday at 10 a.m. (EST). http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040420/nytu179_1.html

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-21T11:20:47-06:00

ID

85041

Comment

Okay, here's my 2 cents, since this piece has been bugging me all week. For one thing, I'd argue there never was "peace" to lose. But that's a quibble. Whatever we call it, things are not going in our favor. My current theory is this: We are stuck in Iraq for a long while, simply because we can't bomb the crap out of a country and then just leave. Plus, we really don't want to completely destabilize a country with that much in oil reserves. Therefore, I believe we need more troops. I don't think we're going to get squat from the international community, since we've spent the past 2 years calling them cowards and wimps and liars and such. Which means more US troops. Which means we're going to need to see the Draft reinstated. However, I think that Bush thinks that everything's hunky dory, simply because we've captured Saddam Hussein. I think bringing back the draft would take more awareness of the realities of the situation than he is willing to grant. It would take an admission on the part of the administration (tacit or otherwise) that we grossly underestimated the problems we'd face post-invasion. (And by saying 'we', I'm being charitable, since there's plenty of documentation that the administration was told that their predictions were too rosy, but they ignored what they didn't want to hear.) So, if we continue to be severely understaffed for the post invasion reconstruction of Iraq, then we are going to be stuck in this ugly situation for years, with progress being very slow, and more and more troops and civilians on both sides getting killed or maimed. Or, we retreat/pull out, and civil war ensues. The best exit scenario I can come up with is that Kerry is elected, and re-instates the draft. This starts to make the war more personal for more americans, especially americans in the upper wealth brackets (since most of the current troops are from poorer families). Egads, we might even have senators and congresspeople and governors and legislators with family members being drafted. So, we beef up our troops, more people die, but at least we get out of this stalement, establish an Iraqi government (hopefully Kerry would be less likely to appoint known liars to run the Iraqi gov't), and get out. My point is really that Bush seems so completely out of touch with what's going on that I don't think we can ever really achieve anything. So, yes, I'd say we're losing the 'peace' in Iraq.

Author

kate

Date

2004-04-22T15:33:49-06:00

ID

85042

Comment

It seems I'm in agreement with Senator McCain: "McCain called for more troops to be sent to the battlefield on top of 135,000 already there. "At least another full division and probably more" is needed, he said. A division is roughly 10,000 troops. McCain criticized the administration for not yet having a political strategy for transferring sovereignty to Iraqis on the target date of June 30. The United States must stay in Iraq because "if we leave, violence will fill the vacuum as groups struggle for political power and we risk all-out civil war," he said. "

Author

kate

Date

2004-04-22T16:14:22-06:00

ID

85043

Comment

The story about how many Americans have been wounded, or maimed, in Iraq is surfacing more and more. AP today: The Pentagon announced Friday in its weekly casualty report that 3,864 troops have been wounded in action since the war began in March 2003, an increase of 595 from two weeks earlier. The U.S. military death toll as of Friday stood at 707, according to the Pentagon's count. At least 100 have been killed this month, the highest total for any month since the U.S.-led invasion began. Most deaths were in the early part of April; about 25 have died in the past two weeks. ... As the toll on U.S. forces has mounted this month, most public attention has focused on the deaths. Less has been reported on the wounded, in part because the Pentagon has stopped providing daily updates and does not give details on the types or severity of wounds. ... The Pentagon's figures do not include troops who are injured in accidents or felled by illness. ... By far most of the battle wounds have happened since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1. Since that date there have been more than 2,700 wounded in action, of which 109 were females and more than half were lower-ranking enlisted soldiers. According to a Pentagon breakdown by age group, 579 troops aged 21 and below were wounded between May 1 and April 8, the latest date for which such figures are publicly available. A total of 669 troops were aged 22-24; 703 were aged 25-30; 353 were aged 31-35, and 327 were over 35. The Pentagon said ages were not yet available for 104 of the wounded." http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040424/D824SAA01.html

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T21:47:46-06:00

ID

85044

Comment

Rumsfeld insists that there is no need for a military draft. (Yet?) Today, AP: The Bush administration sees no need to reinstate the military draft, but it is pushing for improved Pentagon management of the 1.4 million-strong force in order to meet wartime needs, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday. "I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld told the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention. Some in Congress have questioned whether the long-term nature of the global war on terrorism might require a return to the system of military conscription that was abandoned in 1973. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., on Wednesday raised the possibility that compulsory military service might be necessary. The nation is engaged "in a generational war here against terrorism," Hagel said. "It's going to require resources." "Should we continue to burden the middle class who represents most all of our soldiers, and the lower-middle class?" Hagel said. "Should we burden them with the fighting and the dying if in fact this is a generational - probably 25-year - war?" http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040422/D82418PG0.html I would, indeed, lay money that we won't hear anything from the adminstration from the draft ... at least until after/if Bush is re-elected.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T21:50:04-06:00

ID

85045

Comment

Critics question whether Kerry deserves his three Purple Hearts (!): John Kerry has a piece of shrapnel in his left thigh from an injury he suffered in the Vietnam War, his doctor said Friday during a review of 36 pages of the Democratic presidential candidate's military medical records. The records shown briefly to reporters provided a few more details about the wounds that resulted in Kerry's three Purple Hearts and show that he suffered from respiratory ailments, a skin rash and a minor urinary tract infection during his four years in the Navy. Kerry was wounded three times while commanding a swiftboat in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, an assignment that brought him close to enemy fire several times. Some of Kerry's critics have questioned whether his injuries were serious enough to warrant three Purple Hearts and reassignment out of Vietnam. Kerry's doctor, Gerald Doyle, said he could not characterize the severity of the wounds since he didn't see them, but he noted that Kerry was in danger of serious injury several times. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040423/D824PC900.html

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T21:51:50-06:00

ID

85046

Comment

From our sister paper, the Colorado Springs Independent: Eric Wu lives with the effects of the war in Iraq every day. Pieces of shrapnel are embedded in his left arm and chest -- fragments of a flashlight that was attached to the muzzle of his gun. The flashlight shattered when it was struck by a sniper's bullet, intended as a more direct hit, as Wu stood on a rooftop in the town of Huseiba, Iraq, one afternoon last October. Wu, a sergeant in the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment based at Fort Carson, was on watch. His unit had set up Bradley fighting vehicles in the street below, hoping to draw out the enemy. "It was really quiet," the 33-year-old soldier recalled. "Next thing I know, I was hit really hard on my left side. I basically lost control of my body and fell down." The shrapnel punctured his chest, fractured one of his ribs and damaged his bicep. Medics, who initially had trouble stopping his bleeding, evacuated Wu to a nearby base camp. From there, he was sent to Baghdad and then to the U.S. Army hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. After four weeks and three surgeries, he was back at Fort Carson. Reassigned to his squadron's rear detachment, Wu now undergoes rehabilitation with a physical therapist four times a week. He works out at a gym, but is unable to lift anything with his left arm. He'll need additional surgery to remove the shrapnel, and healing his damaged arm will take time. ... His biggest regret, he says, is that he didn't get to finish his job in Iraq. "It was nice to be able to come back," he said, but added, "I wish I could have stayed over there with my soldiers. We're lacking many soldiers there. We have not enough manpower. We're so spread out." ... Some soldiers, though by no means all, have come home only to fight a new battle -- against a government that doesn't always look after its veterans. As in past conflicts, accounts have emerged at Fort Carson and elsewhere of the military neglecting to provide adequate care and counseling or outright denying medical treatment; there also are reports of commanders even punishing service members for seeking help. Veterans groups have reacted with alarm to such reports and are also concerned about the long-term fate of many veterans from the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system, already considered by many to be underfunded, is about to face an additional burden as tens of thousands of veterans from these wars hit the patient rolls. "These guys coming back now, that are the heroes, are going to need to get taken care of," said Bob Ensinger, a spokesman for the organization Paralyzed Veterans of America. http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2004-04-15/cover.html

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T21:56:22-06:00

ID

85047

Comment

Forgotten Solders of Iraqi Freedom ... from the Progressive Populist: http://www.populist.com/04.7.saulnier.html His name's Maurice. He's 26 years old with a face like an angel and a computerized prosthesis where his left leg used to be. His name's Victor and he still seems like a boy. His cherubic face, set against blond hair, is plagued by an unanswerable question every time his restless eyes inadvertently fall on the stump: "Why?" His name's Steve and you couldn't imagine a more All-American soldier -- that is to say if he hadn't lost his right arm. A real patriot, he's always in control of himself and he has the air of an American hero. His name's Rob. Bound to a wheelchair, he's mad at the whole world and explodes in a barrage of insults at everyone and everything for the loss of his right leg and the uselessness of his left. Maurice, Victor, Steve and Rob are just a few of the thousands of GIs returning from Iraq -- often with one or more limbs amputated, flown in with little notice under the cover of night and brought to Walter Reed military Hospital in Washington, D.C. Here, they're operated on, treated, fitted with prosthetics when possible, generally medicated, and given psychological and physical therapy. For the record, Walter Reed is the hospital where wounded soldiers returning from Vietnam went. No fanfare for these heroes. On top of the injuries they've had to endure to their bodies and hearts, they come home to be ignored by mainstream American media. Only an English TV station, Channel 4, considered it newsworthy to go to the hospital to interview the injured soldiers. Of course, all interviewees must be selected and briefed by army leadership in advance of any conversations with journalists. Curiously, the casualty statistics released by the Pentagon contradict those of the US Air Force. While the Pentagon contends that 2,722 soldiers have been wounded in action and 417 in non hostile fire as of March 1, the Air Force confides that it has flown approximately 12,000 evacuees into Andrews Air Force Base over the past 9 months. With the severity of injuries sustained, it seems as if the Pentagon's reduced estimates are meant to camouflage a scandal that could cost George Bush his re-election.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T21:57:36-06:00

ID

85048

Comment

MORE "They come here [to Walter Reed Hospital] 19 or 20 years old and when I see them leaving with missing limbs -- I've seen up to 3 limbs gone off people and I don't think in our generation, we've seen this amount of harm done to young people," explained Major Gene Delaune on Minnesota Public Radio. "During the Gulf War, there were about 3 soldiers wounded for every death. In the current Iraq war, there are 7 wounded for every death," says an article titled "New Technologies and Medical Practices Save Lives in Iraq" from the Knight-Ridder News Service. Facts support this statement: the Kevlar vests the soldiers now wear save lives, not limbs. The London Guardian reports that the medical personnel, overwhelmed, work 70-80 hours a week and, according to CBS, Washington's largest military hospital has had to borrow beds from its cancer ward to meet the swollen needs of its prosthetics ward. Still the hospital can't handle the load, and several wounded soldiers are being put up in a nearby hotel. This writer was able to meet with some of them there after having been prevented from continuing her interview in the ward, because she hadn't obtained the permission of the army, passed its screen tests, and the soldier she was interviewing hadn't been briefed as to how to respond. Against all odds, she had made it through the security gate at the entrance to the military-medical complex, into the building, to the 5th floor.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T21:58:04-06:00

ID

85049

Comment

ABCNEWS.com keeps an updated list of U.S. soldiers who have died in the Iraqi war. The site reminds readers that George W. Bush declared that the war was over on May 1, 2003. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Primetime/IRAQ_Casualties.html

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T22:00:05-06:00

ID

85050

Comment

President Bush considers the release of photographs of flag-draped military coffins a reminder of the fallen troops' sacrifice, but believes family privacy should be respected, the White House said Friday. Pentagon officials said the photos, issued last week and posted on an Internet site, should not have been made public under a policy prohibiting media coverage of human remains. Some activists argue that the photos, released last week, underscore the war's human cost. "America knows full well that our men and women are serving and serving brilliantly both in Iraq and around the world. ... America is aware this is a war against terrorism," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy said. But, he said, "The message is, the sensitivity and privacy of families of the fallen must be the first priority." The photographs were released to First Amendment activist Russ Kick, who had filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Kick posted dozens of photographs of American war dead arriving at the nation's largest military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, prompting the Pentagon on Thursday to bar further release of the photographs to media outlets. http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040423/D824N57G0.html (But, remember, it was perfectly fine to put footage of the 9-11 tragedy in Bush's campaign ads.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T22:03:27-06:00

ID

85051

Comment

The NY Times on Bush's "privacy" policy: Tami Silicio, an employee of a military contractor, had sent the picture to a friend, who passed it on to The Seattle Times, which published it last Sunday. Ms. Silicio told the newspaper that she had wanted to show the families how carefully the cargo workers tended to the coffins. But her employer fired her for disobeying government and company rules, and for good measure dismissed Ms. Silicio's husband as well. Since 1991, the Defense Department has prohibited taking photographs of the coffins of members of the armed services while they are being transported back to the United States. The reverent portrait Ms. Silicio produced demonstrates how irrational that policy is. The theory seems to be that the pictures are intrusive, or possibly hurtful, to bereaved families. But it seems far more likely that the Pentagon is concerned about the impact that photos of large numbers of flag-draped coffins may have on the American public's attitude toward the war. That certainly underestimates the fortitude of average citizens, who are able to accept the cost of war whenever they are confident that the cause is right. American men and women are currently suffering danger, death and injury every day in Iraq. The least those of us back home can do is to bear witness to the sacrifice of the real soldiers as well as the fictional. Read the editorial

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-04-23T22:07:26-06:00