Pressure Pentagon for Investigation

Time to quickly raise our voices...

AFP reports,

"The Committee to Protect Journalists has urged the Pentagon to investigate the death of journalists in Iraq at the hands of US forces in that country."

The straw that broke the camel's back was the Wikileaks release of US helicopter gun ship videos showing the calculated unleashing of massive fire power on a group of Iraqis, killing around 12 people including Reuters photographer and his driver, and wounding two children in a van that came to the aid of those who were shot.

Help call for an independent investigation of the long series of journalists killed in Iraq.

For Your Convenience:

• Contact the US Defense Department
  
• Contact the Broadcast Media
• Contact the Newspapers
• Contact the US Senate
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

AFP, Pentagon pressured to probe journalists' deaths, April 27, 2010.

April 10, 2001 - Iraq Aluminum Tubes

April 10, 2001 - Lone CIA analyst known only as "Joe" tells top Bush brass that aluminum tubes bought by Iraq can only be used for nuclear centrifuges. The public became aware of this in August 2003.

What Wiki has to say about Iraq Aluminum Tubes.

Source:

Mother Jones, Sept/Oct 2006, "Chronicle of a War Foretold" Tim Dickinson & Jonathan Stein.

Release Full British Foreign Office Iraq strategy paper

Why should we be able to see the entire British Foreign Office Strategy paper on Iraq from November 2000? The British Foreign Office was good enough to explain why:

"Releasing the paper would make Government more accountable and increase trust," the Foreign Office conceded. "There is public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being given to ministers and subsequent decision-making."

According to The Independent of UK, "The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey (right), then head of Middle East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential election which brought George Bush to the White House. "

Thanks to the efforts of The Independent UK, "the Foreign Office eventually agreed to release a redacted version – with the views of the United States and other countries blacked out."

Lets call for the re-release of a version that shows the views of the Clinton Administration. Lets call on the US State Department to give Britain the OK to do so. Here's my request to the US State Dept.:

Subject: British November 2000 Strategy Paper on Iraq

I'm writing to request that the US State Department allow the British Foreign Office to release references to US views in the the November 2000 strategy paper on Iraq that was commissioned by Sir William Patey.

For further reference, See:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warned-in-2000-iraq-war-was-illegal-1914293.html

Thank You

For Your Convenience:

• Contact the US State Department
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

The Independent UK, "Blair warned in 2000 Iraq war was illegal: Secret papers withheld by Chilcot inquiry reveal Foreign Office fears over invasion," March 2, 2010.

Iraq Gains Independence, Speaks Mind on Blackwater

The planets have aligned and now Iraq won't allow Blackwater to operate in country.

The planets: The Bush goon squad pressure tactics are gone, the consciousness is high due in great part to Jeremy Scahill's book [1], Blackwater's hubris reached a peak in the unprovoked Nassor Square killing 17 people, Iraqi is finding it's sovereign voice.

All good news. But the reality is that the inertia of Bush's post-911 unleashing of the security industrial complex is force that will take generations to reverse. People trained to fire fully automatic weapons from speeding vehicles don't forget their skills, and yearn to use them. Hoards of wealth are still controlled in many private hands willing to pay for private armies. Mutual fears among rivals with private security forces feeds private army and arms races (Look at Mexico for example).

We need to build on this little victory to slowly roll back the growth of the private security state of the world.

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

1. Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Iraq Veterans Send a Message to Obama

You can too. Watch this 30-sec. video and post where you can.




You can also promote it through the Digg.com page too.

Here's the Code to Paste:

<object height="364" width="445"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UWKXJmIJpTM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UWKXJmIJpTM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="364" width="445"></embed></object>

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Don't Worry, They're Just Trainers

Today we hear:

Thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraqi cities at local security stations after the summer deadline to have combat troops out of the urban areas, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Saturday.

The report continues,

Gen. Raymond Odierno told reporters that the troops would serve as training and mentoring teams, and thus would not be included in the mandate to pull combat troops from the cities. That mandate is included in the recently approved U.S.-Iraq security agreement.

My first thought was "in your face Iraqi scum," as in the USA! USA! shouters saying, "the US doesn't really have to adhere to its agreements... because we're the superior USA!"

My second thought was, these little security stations will be sitting ducks. It's only a matter of time before one is over run and every American in it is liquidated. Then we'll have a big step backwards; we're all familiar with such events. (Hopefully I'm wrong).

My final thought drifted back to the prediction I made back, coincidentally as I check the date, two years ago today in a piece entitled Iraqization and Predicted Length of Iraq War.

Vietnamization was a term used to describe the training and mentoring of South Vietnamese soldiers by US trainers so that war could be "vietnamized."


Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Associated Press, Commander: Troops to stay in cities past deadline, December 13, 2008.

Slavery is Alive and Well

Dusty's Blog, It's My Right to be Left of Center, has an informative piece on how the corporation that Dick Cheney headed, and still profits from, Halliburton/KBR, knowingly participated in modern day slavery. We also have McClatchy News Service to thank.

Lets beat the drum on the theme of criminal investigations. The new Attorney General needs to hear from us come January 20, 2009.

But in the mean time, we should all Contact President-elect Obama.

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Graphic Credit: Snape71

Is al-Maliki Part of an October Surprise Whisper Campaign?

One has to wonder if Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and his aides, are staging a propaganda campaign in coordination with Bush and the Republican Party. Calls for troop withdrawals sound fishy to me.

Think of it. Al-Maliki and his aides leak the following message, "We want ALL US troops out by 2011." The Bush administration pretends to be somewhat dismayed. But what is the effect?

If the voting public is led to believe that ALL US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011, regardless of who is elected president, then the Iraq War is no longer a presidential campaign issue. Who benefits? McCain.

Of course, come 2011, with McCain as president, or even Obama, "facts on the ground" change and US troops remain in Iraq. Hello. Am I being too cynical?

Don't put it past Cheney and Rove to engineer this al-Maliki whisper campaign as part of an October Surprise.
Sources:

GIs miss own weddings, baby's first words during long Iraq tour

Today we read a Yahoo! news headline

GIs miss own weddings, baby's first words during long Iraq tour

So, we can expect to be told, by the TVs, and the Bush administration, and McCain-backers, that "the surge has worked" and we are on the verge of "success" in Iraq. They will argue that the sacrifices identified in the Yahoo! News headline were worth the victory. If it takes self-delusion to get us out of Iraq, I suppose I can go along with it for a while. But really...

Success? Fewer deaths per month is "success?" The ethnic cleansing has played itself out, as over 2 million Iraqis have left the country and walls now divide newly created ethnic fifdoms that depend on local militias for security. Was this part of the plan? Is this part of the "success"? Is buying off and arming Sunnis, who were involved in the Shia ethnic cleansing, an honorable "success"? Many don't believe this "stability" will hold, given that it was effectively created by the US with pay checks and short-term interests that can change in the future.

It's as if a bee (Hussein) was buzzing around in someone's house and the US came in, without permission, to get the bee. The homeowner was glad about that in the beginning.

Then, in it's initial shock and awe, US soldiers destroyed the living room... smashed TV, chairs turned over with broken legs, stuffing torn out of cushions, walls bashed in, windows broken, reading materials and unopened mail burned. Meanwhile, the bee buzzed off into another room. Then, room by room, the US inflicts similar destruction.

Eventually the home owner intervenes to demand a say in how the US is going after the bee. The owner wants to be informed of US attacks, so at least nobody will get hurt as US soldiers, led by George W. Bush, continue to hammer away trying to get that bee.

Finally, they smash the bee! Success!

The children in the house have black eyes, swollen lips, missing teeth, worse than any bee sting. Many of the family heirlooms are completely ruined. The homeowner's spouse has left and filed for divorce. The homeowner no longer has a job and is in debt and has late bill payments, and a credit record in shambles. Success?

The soldiers lament missing their weddings and baby's first words. But the bee is dead! Was the sacrifice worth it? Is this really "success"?

The king has no clothes. Less violence in Iraq will never be "success" or "victory." US policy and actions have destroyed the society once called Iraq. Many of its antiquities and public records have been ruined. It's economic independence has been subjugated by the US in order to rid it of Hussein? Of course not. If getting rid of Hussein was the goal, the US would be gone by now.

If stability or control in the region was the goal, the US has certainly made a mess of that, tilting the balance of power toward Iran. I could go on, but the notion of "success" or "victory" in Iraq is impossible given the horrible destruction inflicted on generations by the war. We got nothing in return... the end of violence is NOT a victory, despite what McCain or the mass media pundits say. The king has no clothes when it comes to victory in Iraq.

Sources:

GIs miss own weddings, baby's first words during long Iraq tour

Winter Soldier 2008 Overview

Winter Soldier 2008
Unauthorized Trailer

In wars too dangerous for corporate news reporters, personal accounts are provided by US veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, active service members and civilians. The reality these wars is captured for you in the March 2008 "Winter Soldier Hearings".

This short video features Iraq war veteran Kelly Daugherty being interviewed by Nation Radio Laura Flanders. Daugherty provides an overview of the weekend Winter Soldier Hearings with compelling video footage as a backdrop.

For full coverage of Winter Soldier 2008 see:
WWW.IVAW.ORG

Sources:

Audio: The Nation Radio with Laura Flanders.

Video: Various sources compiled by GDAEman Productions.

How Bush Started the Iraq War

Most of us believe that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) served as Bush's lynch pin for starting the war with Iraq five years ago today (March 20 in Iraq). But Bush used a different criterion to trigger the war.

The context to Bush's ultimate trigger was that the WMD inspections were going well, unless like Bush you wanted to use WMDs as the excuse for starting a war. 731 inspections between November 2002 and March 2003 had found nothing, despite using intelligence from the US. As an aside, this puts the lie to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's claim that....

We know where they are (Iraq's WMD). They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.

On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, told the UN Security Council that his inspectors faced "relatively few difficulties," and

at this juncture are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

Asked how long it would take to address the remaining issues, Blix said it:

will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

Bush's excuse for starting the Iraq war, disarming Saddam Hussein, was seriously threatened. He had to come up with a guarantee to ensure he could have his war. At the 11th hour Bush changed his criterion for triggering a war. On March 17, 2003 Bush gave an ultimatum that he knew Hussein would not accept:

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict.

There you have it. Bush's final excuse for starting a war of agression was that Hussein and his sons would not leave Iraq upon his demand.

Sources:

1. Interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week, March 30, 2003.

Vincent Buliosi, The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder. See pages 130-135 for more on this.

DIrty War, Dirty Water

Associated Press reports:

Dozens of U.S. troops in Iraq fell sick at bases using "unmonitored and potentially unsafe" water supplied by the military and a contractor once owned by Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, the Pentagon's internal watchdog says.

... and they weren't even drinking it! The AO continues:

A report obtained by The Associated Press said soldiers experienced skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea and other illnesses after using discolored, smelly water for personal hygiene and laundry at five U.S. military sites in Iraq.

According to Wikipedia, "Cellulitis is an inflammation of the connective tissue underlying the skin, that can be caused by a bacterial infection."

The article closes with,

KBR is a former subsidiary of Halliburton Co., the oil services conglomerate that Cheney once led.

Note, the Cheney connection is made twice in this article. That wouldn't have happened earlier in the Bush administration, which says something about our fair and balanced corporatized media system.

Another war profiteer story for the growing file.

Sources:

Associated Press, Water makes US soldiers in Iraq sick, March 9, 2008.

Military Admits Killing Nine Civilians

We are told...

The U.S. military said Monday that it had accidentally killed nine Iraqi civilians during an operation targeting al-Qaida in Iraq — the deadliest known case of mistaken identity in recent months.

The operative word there is "known"... via the establishment media that is. Those who are reading this probably seek alternative sources of information and know the only thing rare about this event is the military admission.

The other word to parse is "accidentally." As I write, before reading the full AP article, I'm guessing, "hmmm... If this was an air attack by the US, and it probably is, then the military's standard operating procedure is to conduct a collateral damage assessment before bombing. So, is the military saying that it's "accident" was a flawed collateral damage assessment? Did they predict zero civilian deaths, or did they predict only a couple dead civilians rather than nine? An even better question is whether only nine civilians were actually killed."

Sure enough, it was an air attack, the use of which increased five fold from 2006 to 2007.

I grow weary writing about this supposedly rare event, which I've written about before. This is just another government propaganda piece, taking a bad situation and spinning it to give the impression that this is "known" to be a rare "accident." It's not.

Sources:

Associated Press, 9 Iraqi civilians accidentally killed, LAUREN FRAYER, February 4, 2008.

U.S. Bombings in Iraq Increased Fivefold in 2007

The following report updates my blog entry of January 11, 2008 on this topic. According to news headlines from DemocracyNow:

U.S. Bombings in Iraq Increased Fivefold in 2007

New figures from the Pentagon show the U.S. carried out fives times as many aerial bombings in Iraq last year as it did in 2006. According to the Washington Post, U.S. forces dropped more than 1,400 bombs—an average of nearly four a day. The 2006 total was 229 bombs, an average of four per week. The UN estimates at least two hundred civilians were killed in U.S. bombings from April until the end of the year. The figures come as the U.S. continues an extensive bombing campaign over Arab Jabour south of Baghdad. In one of the largest strikes since the 2003 invasion, U.S. warplanes dropped 40,000 pounds of bombs in a ten-minute span one week ago. Military experts are predicting an increase in the bombing, should the U.S. draw down its forces in Iraq. Airstrikes are also at record levels in Afghanistan. NATO bombings topped 3,500 last year, doubling the number for 2006.

Sources:

DemocracyNow Headlines, January 17, 2006.

Pure Propaganda: Air Strikes a Success

The record, logic and the physics are clear. Increased areal bombing increases civilian deaths, regardless of increased accuracy of the weapons.

In Vietnam, the US drew down troops, increased bombing and civilian deaths increased. For over a year now, in addition to troop increases in Iraq, the US has significantly increased air attacks. A resulting increase in civilian deaths has been documented by many sources.

The Associated Press reports, "Commanders tout success of Iraq strikes." [1] This is a clear propaganda piece, and unfortunately, the AP is serving as the stenographer.

We know, and AP editors know, that my opening statements are true. That's why they throw the following bone to the unwashed masses:

Despite the massive size of the air strikes, Donnelly said that to the military's knowledge, no civilians were killed. That could not immediately be independently confirmed. He added that the targeting of three targets was called off because unmanned surveillance planes showed civilians in those areas.

As a government official, I know what the phrase "to the military's knowledge" means. It means, "we know that this policy of increased use of areal bombing increases civilian deaths, but in this particular case, we don't have detailed data, so... maybe civilians didn't die."

There's an implication that the military will get back to us later when they have more "knowledge." But how many of us will ever hear about their improved knowledge on this particular case? I follow this Iraq war fairly closely, and can almost guarantee I will NOT ever hear what happened to civilians in this case, even if the military gains the "knowledge".

But I have enough knowledge to see through the propaganda. It's a pathetic embarrassment to be American in the face of this Orwellian state of affairs. So I write a stupid blog entry, and go to work. I should do better than that.

Here's the contact for the Associated Press. Refer to the article sourced below. Ask them to find out, and report back to you, how many civilians died in this particular set of air strikes.

See Update: "U.S. Areal Bombings in Iraq Increased Fivefold in 2007"

The Date in 2003
Bush tells [former] Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar he plans to go to war two days before he tells Secretary of State Powell. This fact is revealed to the public April 18, 2004 [2].

Sources:

1. Associated Press, Commanders tout success of Iraq strikes, BRADLEY BROOKS, January 11, 2008.

2. Mother Jones, Chronicle of a War Foretold, Tim Dickinson and Jonathan Stein, Sept - Oct 2006.

Photo: This photo happens to be of Lebanon, but it's counter propaganda value is justified. We need an image in our mind of what "bomb" or "explosion" means.

Who is General Petraeus?

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who David Petraeus is. Arun, you’re the first person to mention General Petraeus on our show years ago.

ARUN GUPTA: Yeah. What we were talking about two-and-a-half years ago was Petraeus’s role in helping to set up the Special Police Commandos. In 2004, 2005, he was given the mission to train all Iraq military and police forces. And, in fact, in July 2004, Newsweek had this cover of him, saying that Petraeus was going to train Iraqis to take over the fight. Now, the reality is, is that was, of course, a failure, because three years later he was back with an escalation of US forces.

Now, one of the key things that Petraeus did was they decided—him and his command decided—that they were going to create this paramilitary force, the Special Police Commandos. They armed them. They funded them. They trained them. And they also issued the usual denials: “Oh, we’re not giving them any weapons. This is an Iraqi initiative.” And so, now he’s saying the same thing with the Sunni militias.

So, anyway, the Special Police Commandos quickly morphed into Shiite death squads that were used against the Sunni insurgency and against Sunnis, in general, throughout Iraq. And this played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had these death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the US, going around killing Sunnis randomly. It generally alienated the Sunni Arab population from the government and drove them into the arms of the resistance.

Now what Petraeus is doing is he’s funding and arming these Sunni militias. And there are reports that have stated clearly with these militias saying, like, “Yes, we’re getting weapons from the US government.” And part of it is, is that they do want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is another Sunni-based group. It’s an Iraqi-based group. But their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias.

So here we have them, like in 2004, setting up these Shiite militias, and now he’s setting up these Sunni militias to fight these Shiite militias. And what it portends is just an absolute disaster for Iraq. And, of course, it will also be used as justification: “Well, we can’t leave because a bloodbath will result.” But we’re not looking at the fact that it’s the US that’s creating this bloodbath.

Sources:

DemocracyNow, A Look At How Petraeus Helped Arm Warring Sunni and Shia Militias in Iraq, September, 12 2007.

US Army Admits to Shooting Iraqi Civilians

The Headline:

U.S. soldiers shoot 4 Iraqi civilians, one killed

The punchy opening hook:

U.S. soldiers mistakenly shot four Iraqi civilians, killing one, during operations against al Qaeda militants, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.

The Story:

U.S. soldiers had detained a suspected al Qaeda fighter in Tarmiya, 30 km (20 miles) north of Baghdad, on Monday when they were approached by a car that did not obey an order to stop.

The readers eyes roll:

As if this is a rare news story. Doh!

The Google Results: approached car stop fired Iraq

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Security guards fire on Iraqi car

Security guards open fire on car, kill two Iraqis Oakland Tribune ...

U.S. soldiers attempted to warn the occupants of a car carrying a freed Italian journalist before troops opened fire, ...

ABC News: Pregnant Iraqi Woman Shot Near Security Checkpoint

Worldandnation: U.S. troops fire on car, killing 2 civilians (Jan. 2005)

A shooting after nightfall -- Newsday.com
The car rolled to a stop. It was not the first time soldiers in Iraq have fired on vehicles driven by people who were either uncomprehending of the danger ...

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Middle East
In western Baghdad, an Iraqi police officer said an American patrol fired at a group of civilian cars as they approached a bridge, killing two people. ...

What Iraq's checkpoints are like | csmonitor.com

I could go on, but there are over a million links.

The Links: CLICK HERE

The Head Shakes:

*sigh*

Sources:

Reuters, U.S. soldiers shoot 4 Iraqi civilians, one killed, December 4, 2007.

Iraq "Quagmire": An Intentional Sequence of Steps with No Exit Strategy

Vali Nasr, of Tufts, is not the only one to observe that

The United States is trying to fight on all sides—Sunni and Shia—and be friends with all sides. [1]

The Bush administration recognizes that their earlier steps, including elections, had empowered the Shia majority. At the time, the US military focused on the Sunni insurgency. This shifted the regional balance of power to Shia-oriented Iran. Oops. Can't have that.

The more recent step, the troop surge, generated US alliances with Sunni tribes in Anbar Province. The stated goal was to fight foreign al-Qaeda, which was partly true. This was was mirrored by a sharp increase in establishment media references to al-Qaeda as the primary source and target of violence at the time.

But the shifting US alliance composition also serves to counter balance the earlier imbalance created when the US brought a Shia-dominated government to power; Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malik spent years exiled in Iran. Many analysts and Iraqis believe the Anbar alliances will be ephemeral, and worse, could fuel the Iraqi civil war. Referring to one of the groups with which the US has allied in Anbar, Saad Mutaleibi says:

The Amiriya group, is notorious for beheading people and killing and major atrocities [ethnic cleansing of Shia from Anbar]. And these people are sitting in Amiriya with the American support now. And the Iraqi army or police cannot enter that area. These efforts are tactical moves to resolve today's problem, but in essence you're adding another problem with another layer to the problems of Iraq.

The Bush administration's next likely step has literally become a joke in Iran:

How will the US leave Iraq? Through Iran.

The sad fact is that the US isn't going to leave Iraq, and it's going to hammer Iran via air strikes.

Quagmire? Blunder? No exit strategy? Somehow I think not. The lack-of-security-quagmire justifies continued US occupation of Iraq, which is the Bush administration's intent. This is not a "blunder." No exit strategy is needed if the intent is to stay, which it is and has been. It would be unacceptable to both the Democratic and Republican establishment to leave an Iraqi power vacuum to be filled by Iran. That is why both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now saying the US will be in Iraq until at least 2013.

These people, while intelligent, are blinded by information overload, harried schedules and being inside the establishment bubble. The US has created war conditions on two sides of Iran; imagine how the US would react if another nation, citing the US as "evil," created violent instability in Mexico and Canada in an effort to control those country's resources and regional power balances. The US would not just sit there, as is the present case with Iran. Imagine further if this other nation initiated air strikes on the US. The US would be justified in striking back, as is the hypothetical case with Iran. We shouldn't be surprised if Iran strikes back in ways, and over time horizons, that make the Iraq war look like a tea party.

Sources:

New Yorker, Shifting Targets: The administration's plan for Iran, Seymour Hersh, September, 2007.

Media Censorship in Iraq

U.S. authorities confiscated an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told the AP the government of Iraq had made it illegal to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks.

Sources:

Associated Press, Polish ambassador hurt in Iraq bombing, BUSHRA JUHI, October 3, 2007.

Flagship Contractor Sinking in Blackwater

Guest Writer: L. Vincent Sebastian

Dateline: September 19, 2007

For the third day in a row, the controversy surrounding Blackwater security guards in Iraq is headline news. Last Sunday, the Blackwater guards of a State Department motorcade allegedly killed as many as 20 Iraqi civilians in a firefight with armed insurgents in Baghdad [1]. In response, the Iraqi government suspended Blackwater's license to work in Iraq and has ordered a full investigation of the incident.

This might seem like just another violent episode in the chaos that is Baghdad, but it is much more significant. Secretary of State Condolleezza Rice has been pressuring Prime Minister Maliki to return Blackwater's license, and President Bush himself plans to weigh in on the issue when he meets with Maliki next Tuesday. The revocation of Blackwater's license is fundamentally unacceptable to the Bush administration because it represents a setback in the achievement of their goal of a huge ramp-up in the U.S. private military force, as openly stated by Dick Cheney and other neocons formerly in the administration. The removal of a private security
contractor is not a precedent Bush & company would like to see set. Blackwater, as one of the largest and the most prominent of 28 contractors working in the region, is something of a flagship. The public's perception of Blackwater will be a strong indicator of the public's support for a privatized military.

Editor's Notes:

1. By some accounts there weren't "armed insurgents" shooting at the motorcade.

2. According to DemocracyNow!, Sept. 21, 2007, there is no "license" to be revoked.

A more grave issue being exposed by this controversy is that the US has become dependent on the military contractors. Peace movement activists might consider focusing energy on removing contractors from Iraq to undermine the viability of the occupation.