U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq is Fiction

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Embedded corporate media rose to new heights of non-journalism as, on command, they conjured up an end to (America's) Iraq War based on nothing more than a change of nomenclature. Combat soldiers woke up one morning as "advise and assist" troops whose "bases" were magically transformed into "fortified compounds." Still, the U.S. empire has no intention of leaving Iraq - especially when there are so many available euphemisms for staying.


U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq is Fiction

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

"The United States is an empire that has never voluntarily withdrawn from any of its bases or 'fortified compounds.'"

It was perversely hilarious to observe the corporate media, last week, as they collectively celebrated an event that never happened. "Last combat soldiers leave Baghdad" read the Washington Post headline, with variations on the same fantasy theme in Newsweek, UPI, Reuters...virtually everywhere. One had to turn to the Army Times newspaper for an accurate headline:"Combat Brigades in Iraq Under Different Name."

It is a wonderment to watch the blind enthusiasm with which the corporate media embrace name changes as if they are actual facts. As the Washington Post announced the departure from Iraq of the 2nd Infantry Division's 4th Stryker Brigade, describing the unit as the "final U.S. combat brigade to be pulled out of the country," seven brigades just like the 4th brigade remain on Iraqi soil. There is no difference in armament, equipment, configuration and training between the 4th Stryker Brigade that exited for Kuwait, and the Stryker Brigades that remain behind - except, the name change. The in-country Stryker units are now called "Advise and Assist Brigades." The two National Guard infantry brigades left behind in Iraq have also undergone a nomenclatural transformation: they are no longer "combat" units, but "security" forces.

There are also 4,500 Special Forces troops in Iraq, who are prepared to train other soldiers in the daytime and kill all night long.

Army Times readers are primarily military people, their families, and retirees - folks that know a little something about the U.S. military and have a strong interest in learning the plain truth about the realities of U.S. deployments in the world. The Army Timesappears to respect their intelligence. The New York Times and its sister publications, on the other hand, seem to think that their readers will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous on its face. For example, The Times has adopted the new practice of calling U.S. bases in Iraq "fortified compounds." Combat soldiers, you see, live on bases. Personnel involved in advising and assisting Iraqis live in fortified compounds.

"Powerful figures in the Obama administration say they are confident they can talk the Iraqis into allowing 10,000 uniformed American troops to stay in the country after the deadline."

In addition to the fantasy reporting, American military and civilian authorities are conducting fantasy arguments behind closed doors about whether the U.S. is going to withdraw all of its military forces, regardless of the nomenclature, by the end 0f 2011 - as required by solemn agreement with the Iraqis. One faction favors deploying a force of up to 10,000 mercenaries, complete with their own armored trucks, air force and missile-firing drones. But powerful figures in the Obama administration say they are confident they can talk the Iraqis into allowing 10,000 uniformed American troops to stay in the country after the deadline. Certainly, billions of dollars in bribes can sometimes work wonders - but U.S. plans for an eternity in Iraq have repeatedly been thwarted by the Iraqi people, themselves.

One thing is perfectly clear: the United States is an empire that has never voluntarily withdrawn from any of its bases or "fortified compounds." The Americans are playing word games. They will leave Iraq only when they are forced to do so.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to www.BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].


Pots, Kettles, Irony.

"The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike "Al Capone" Mullen, has asserted this week that Assange (head of Wikileaks) already has his hands stained with the blood of American soldiers and Afghan personnel."

So it's not satisfying enough for the dimwitted thug, Mullen, to murder people on every continent in the name of American Imperialism. The son of a bitch must murder our language in true Orwellian fashion by saying a courageous journalist has blood on his hands for revealing crimes by the U.S. military.

The U.S. armed forces will be in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Colombia, Somalia-- and at Kent State and Jackson State, as long as there are resources to steal, workers to exploit, protesting students to repress, and dissenters to disappear.

Violence in Iraq

Interestng queston. And there are interesting answers.

Peter Phillips writes in Dissident Voice:

A second study published in the Lancet in October 2006 documented over 650,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since the start of the US invasion. The 2006 study confirms that US aerial bombing in civilian neighborhoods caused over a third of these deaths and that over half the deaths are directly attributable to US forces.

And in story #1 in Censored 2009, it is reported,

Over one million Iraqis have met violent deaths as a result of the 2003 invasion, according to a study conducted by the prestigious British polling group, Opinion Research Business (ORB). These numbers suggest that the invasion and occupation of Iraq rivals the mass killings of the last century—the human toll exceeds the 800,000 to 900,000 believed killed in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and is approaching the number (1.7 million) who died in Cambodia’s infamous “Killing Fields” during the Khmer Rouge era of the 1970s. ...

Authors Joshua Holland and Michael Schwartz point out that the dominant narrative on Iraq—that most of the violence against Iraqis is being perpetrated by Iraqis themselves and is not our responsibility—is ill conceived. Interviewers from the Lancet report of October 2006 (Censored 2006, #2) asked Iraqi respondents how their loved ones died. Of deaths for which families were certain of the perpetrator, 56 percent were attributable to US forces or their allies. Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated.

Schwartz points out that the logic to this carnage lies in a statistic released by the US military and reported by the Brookings Institute: for the first four years of the occupation the American military sent over 1,000 patrols each day into hostile neighborhoods, looking to capture or kill “insurgents” and “terrorists.” (Since February 2007, the number has increased to nearly 5,000 patrols a day, if we include the Iraqi troops participating in the American surge.) Each patrol invades an average of thirty Iraqi homes a day, with the mission to interrogate, arrest, or kill suspects. In this context, any fighting age man is not just a suspect, but a potentially lethal adversary. Our soldiers are told not to take any chances (see Story #9).
According to US military statistics, again reported by the Brookings Institute, these patrols currently result in just under 3,000 firefights every month, or just under an average of one hundred per day (not counting the additional twenty-five or so involving our Iraqi allies). Thousands of patrols result in thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths and unconscionably brutal detentions.

....and friendly amendments.. The "Redirection" writ large

They have no intention of leaving Iraq. And I think you already know the answer to your question. Pentagon provoction was suspected in the Samarra mosque bombing which ignited Shia/Sunni tensions to levels of ethnic cleansing. Remember, Ayatollah Sistani had preach for and gotten restrain from the Shia coming under attack from A.Q. and Sunni insurgents, that is until the Sammara mosque bombing.




Into the Dark
The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people. Let's say it again: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice--a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action--by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves?--they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."







Same song, different verse

Everything That Happens in Afghanistan Is Based on Lies or Illusions, Ann Jones


How Lies Begat Illusions Begat Lies

"What I want to focus on, though, is the way the film resonates with conditions in Afghanistan today. Olds has the good sense to insert a quick history lesson in this film, on the grounds that you can't understand the Taliban without knowing about America's covert operations in the region in the 1980s. Back then, President Ronald Reagan's administration, mainly through the CIA, used the Pakistani Intelligence services to fund, arm, and train Afghan and foreign Islamist jihadis to defeat the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Pakistan subsequently used "channels built with U.S. money" to install in Afghanistan a friendly government -- the Taliban.

Later, after the George W. Bush administration invaded the country and the U.S. ousted the Taliban, it installed Hamid Karzai as president and returned many of the old Islamist jihadis to power in his government. Thus, this peculiar, well-established fact underlies the current war in Afghanistan: the United States sponsored both sides."

"Only the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has called, year after year, for a moral accounting. Its surveys of Afghan citizens consistently find that the people want lasting peace, and to attain it, they would prefer some sort of truth and reconciliation procedure, like the one that took place in South Africa, to cleanse the country and set it on an honest intellectual and moral footing.

For obvious reasons, the United States wants no part of the truth that would emerge from such a process. Just this week, the Obama administration first claimed it had no grounds to investigate General Abdul Rashid Dostum's infamous 2001 massacre of Taliban prisoners, even though Dostum seems to have been on the CIA payroll at the time, and his troops were backed by U.S. military operatives. Later, the president reversed course, ordering national security officials to "look into" the matter. In the end, President Obama may prefer to "move on." As does Dostum, who recently rejoined the Karzai administration.

I've elaborated here on Olds's quick history lesson to more fully explain why you may be finding it hard these days to understand how we got into what's already being called "Obama's War" -- and how to get out. Think of it this way: everything that happens in Afghanistan is based on (1) a lie, (2) an illusion, or (3) both. Then throw in mass illusion as well, carefully constructed so that each person tells others only what they want to hear."



Actually the roots of current American involvement in Afghanistan go back to the Carter Administration and the Mad Polack, Russia-hater, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

It was Big Zbig who decided to provide Russia with its own Viet Nam–his words, by recruiting, training (on U.S. military bases by U.S. military personnel), and arming the most deranged fundamentalist Muslims from all over the world and deploying them in Afghanistan.

Anyone seen Zbiggy around anyone lately?

Freedom Fighters, Al Qaeda, Taliban: 3 Card Molly

The video link of Zbig urging the "Taliban" er.. "Freedom Fighter's" er... A.Q "wannabees" on is PRICELESS.

As the "conquering" nation the US writes it's own history, that coupled with Madison Avenue "news" and Hollywood enabling, it's a world wide "Horatio Alger Story."

"You can grow up to be whatever (The US and Zionist Propaganda Machine) wants you to be. LOL

Most of the dumb fuck Americans, before (and maybe even after) 9/11 didn't know a Indian from a Pakistani from a Saudi from a Sikh. They were all "A-Rabs."

Personal Note: I actually had a conversation with an educated, thirty-something, white female who works from Blue Cross/Blue Shield as a top administrator/manager who truly, honestly, in her heart of hearts believe Obama is Muslim.

If I had more time I would have asked her, "then why in the hell is killing more of them than Bush?"

When confronted with this thinking, often times fueled and shaped by Fundamentalist Christianity (she thought Obama was hostile towards Israel, can you believe it, the "Jewish President"?) a bit of despair sinks in. Is the "Left" suppose to dialogue rationally with these people? She was a good hearted soul, as far as I could discern. I think a truer Christian than most (more New Testament than Old), married to a guy who appeared Hispanic, he was a stay at home Dad, not backwards in other words, but completely, unalterably BLIND.
Of course the Bible was her guiding force and life's "playbook." I would have also like to ask her why the Israel's are the only Caucasian looking Middle Easterners to see her response, but time wouldn't allow.

America is incapable of problem solving. Period, point blank. That's why we're fucked. An incredible number, tens of millions of Americans are incapable of grasping simple truths, not matter how well intentioned they believe themselves to be the facts never get in the way of their mythology.

If you ran a documentary, blanketed all networks for a week, so the viewer had no choice, which demonstrated conclusively and factually that the Americans created both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I would bet money that more than 60% of Americans still wouldn't believe it.

Can yall see my point?

Peace Laureate continues to "outBush" GWB

Advertise on NYTimes.com
Secret Assault on Terrorism Widens on Two Continents


"The attack offered a glimpse of the Obama administration’s shadow war against Al Qaeda and its allies. In roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife — the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists."