turnips in the morning

it's what's for breakfast every day in iraq: today so far, six bodies turned up in baghdad, eight turned up in mosul, one turned up in kirkuk ...

(photo courtesy of InvisibleParadigm)

i died in iraq

from texas: a report from beyond the grave ... ?

rockport man among 14 soldiers killed in iraq chopper crash corpus christi, texas (ap) — a 23-year-old coastal bend man says he's been identified as one of 14 soldiers killed in a helicopter crash in iraq this week. rockport police chief tim jayroe is a friend of garrett mclead's family. he says the army has told the family that the 2002 rockport-fulton high school grad was among those killed in yesterday's crash of a blackhawk helicopter. most of the 14 soldiers killed in the crash in northern iraq were based in hawaii, while several others were from washington state. the military says mechanical trouble likely took down the chopper, not hostile fire. the army hasn't released the names of those killed in the crash, which was part of the pentagon's worst single-day death toll in iraq since january. the military said it appeared the aircraft was lost by mechanical problems and not from hostile fire.

... or just sloppy editing?

it's official

3000 ^{1, 2} deaths confirmed by the department of defense.

---

¹ 3006 reported deaths at iraq coalition casualy count

² 3013 reported deaths at globalsecurity.org

and to start off the year ...

3002.^{1, 2}

---

¹ according to the iraq coalition casualty count, "two task force lightning soldiers assigned to 3rd brigade combat team, 1st cavalry division, were killed sunday as a result of an explosion while conducting operations in diyala province."
² the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002.

happy new year, mr. president

3000.^{1, 2, 3}

---

¹ according to the iraq coalition casualty count.
² the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002.
³ thinkprogress.org identifies the 3000th casualty as "specialist dustin r. donica, 22, of spring, texas, killed thursday by small arms fire in baghdad."

minus one

2999.¹

---

¹ (the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002)

minus two

2998.¹

that didn't take very long.

---

¹ (the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002)

minus three

2997.^{1, 2}

---

¹ (december is now the deadliest month of 2006)
² (the globalsecurity.org count continues to stand at 3002)

the nth man?

globalsecurity.org is now reporting that 3002 u.s. servicemen have been killed in iraq.

for my countdown i have been tracking the numbers at the iraq coalition casuality count, which, since my last update and for the first time that i have noticed, have been reduced by one for a current total of 2995.

minus four

2996.¹

---

¹ (now tied with october as the deadliest month of 2006)

minus seven

2993.

minus eight

2992.

countdown

2991.

blood on the shoulder of narcissus

2990.

as little as a week ago, it did not seem likely, but the number of u.s. deaths in iraq may pass 3000 before the year's end.

while december's deaths (101 so far) are still lower than october's high (106), the casualty rate (3.68/day¹) has picked up dramatically and has already surpassed october's (3.55/day²).

that number will sit like a vulture on bush's shoulder during his coming state of the union address.

---

^{1, 2} (includes all coalition deaths)

less than human

those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. (voltaire)

even in an age of laser-guided precision instuments of mayhem, warfare still remains an untidy business. civilians still get slaughtered, exposing the slaughterers to bad press and, more inconvenient, the risk of legal sanction. just how can an honest warmonger do what he does best — mass murder — without all the headaches?

never fear, celebrity lawyer-pundit alan dershowitz is here! and he has just the solution you need when you can't — or won't — let pesky civilians hamstring your efforts to bomb your opponent into the stone age:

just redefine the term "civilian" — no purchase necessary!

... we need a new vocabulary to reflect the realities of modern warfare. a new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the middle east: "the continuum of civilianality." though cumbersome, this concept aptly captures the reality and nuance of warfare today and provides a more fair way to describe those who are killed, wounded and punished. ... the israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern lebanon that have been turned into war zones. those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims. ... every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others.

it is epiphanies like these that honestly make me wonder if it is actually embarassing to be as brilliant as alan. i mean, this is so simple! no need to retool weapons or rethink strategies. (or — god forbid — question the legitimacy of the attacks!) just relabel the dead!

of course, a nonetheless elegant solution, even one as brilliant in its simplicity as this, can sometimes be a little too simple. as juan cole explains, does relabeling really go far enough?

alan "torture is ok" dershowitz is annoyed that the israelis have been accused of killing innocent civilians. he is now arguing that there are degrees of "civilianity." he wonders how many innocent civilians killed by israel in lebanon would still be innocent if we could make finer distinctions. (he should read the lebanese newspapers and he would get the answer. one third of those killed by the israelis are children. i'd guess they are all civilian all the time. and then there are the families, like the canadian women, children and men blown up at aitaroun. i suppose they are really civilians. etc.) but i don't know why dershowitz stops there. let me reformulate his argument for him. shouldn't we recognize degrees of humanness? after all, isn't that the real problem? that the enemy is considered a full human being in the law of war? that horrible supreme court judgment that hamdan had to be given a trial of some sort was based on the misunderstanding that he is a human being. israeli officials have already showed us how arabs can be reclassified away from a full "human" category that they clearly, in the view of the kadima government, do not deserve. for instance, israeli ambassador to the united nations dan gillerman angrily denounced kofi annan for neglecting this key fact. the guardian reports,' mr gillerman said "something very important was missing" from mr annan's speech: any mention of terrorism. hizbullah were "ruthless indiscriminate animals", he told reporters.' so you see, one reason that you can just bomb the hell out of the lebanese in general is that they aren't human beings at all. they are "animals." you might quibble that gillerman is only referring to members of the hizbullah party as animals, not all lebanese. but most shiite lebanese, some 45 percent of the population, support hizbullah. and the lebanese government, made up of christians, sunnis and druze, let hizbullah into the lebanese government and gave it cabinet posts. so probably those who tolerate hizbullah are at most half-human. this has yet to be worked out. it might be possible to declare them .66 animal. or maybe they are just all animals. they speak arabic, after all, right mr. gillerman? there is a problem with stopping here, however. it is not enough to reclassify some human beings as animals. after all, you have to treat animals humanely. you can even be fined for mistreating an animal, though probably you would not go to jail. the staff of us secretary of state condi rice has made a suggestion for another, more convenient level, that of snake. thus, a senior white house official referred to the massive israeli bombing campaign and destruction of lebanon's civilization and killing of hundreds and wounding of over a thousand as "defanging" hezbollah. i am pretty sure that language is meant to suggest that the shiites of lebanon, although apparently human beings, are actually snakes. i suppose it is possible that another sort of reptile is is intended, but i suspect that "snake" is the intended classification. but some snakes are protected species. we need a lower category. it is clear that some human beings are neither human nor animal. hamas and hizbullah members, for instance, are actually not even full organisms, just diseases. israeli deputy consul general for san francisco, omer caspi, said of the lebanese and palestinian publics concerning hamas and hizbullah members, "we say to them please remove this cancer off your body and soul before it is too late." caspi did not specify whether members of hamas are leukemia and those of hizbullah melanoma, or the reverse. the good thing about finding out that some apparent human beings don't have to be treated as well as whales (which have almost been wiped out) is that it allows us to put behind all wimpy hesitancy just to do what needs to be done. i mean, a cancer. everyone knows what you have to do with a cancer. it requires chemotherapy. it needs to be just exterminated, before it kills the snakes, animals and humans. so we have the human beings, like israeli prime minister ehud "bomb'em back to the stone age" olmert and torture defender, attorney alan dershowitz. then we have the animals, like the "persons" who vote for hizbullah and hamas. then we have the level of human-appearing snakes, who need to be "defanged," which apparently involves killing their wives and children with air strikes. then we have the cancers, who need to be "wiped out" immediately. i understand that president bush is appointing alan dershowitz to be head of the "human-non-human metrics" commission that will decide which people are full human beings, and which fall into other categories, such as "animal," "snake," and "cancer." it is rumored that that dershowitz intends to create a special category, of "cockroach," for the human-appearing creatures who dare to criticize him.

sacrifice

for a country at war is there any more heart-rending ceremony than memorial day?

because as we pause to honor the fallen, as we acknowledge the sacrifices they've made on our behalf, we must also consider the sacrifices we have or haven't made for them.

sacrifice, or the paucity of it, is perhaps at the heart of the failure of the iraq adventure. it is a failed cakewalk, a failed war-on-the-cheap. it was supposed to have been not a war but a police action and it was supposed to have been finished in may 2003 — that’s all that had been planned for. it is an occupation attempted with the minimum resources, run by shirkers and dodgers, manned by backdoor conscripts and mercenaries. it is deficit-funded during a time of tax cuts, asking no real demand from the citizenry but their applause, and lacking that, their silence.

so the question we face is what are we willing to sacrifice in support of the occupation? what are we willing to sacrifice in opposition to it? personally, i have never supported the war, am not in the military, nor have family in the military, but i can’t think of anything that i’ve had to sacrifice in opposing the occupation except the time i’ve spent writing against it.

on another blog (i can’t remember which), someone asked that if this war is so vitally important, why no draft, no full mobilization of our resources? perhaps the unspoken (and unspeakable) answer is now that this “slam-dunk” investment has become a money pit, the architects want to hold onto whatever diminishing profit remains — and i’m referring here more to those mega-bases than exxon and halliburton profits — at least until they can “ponzi” the war off onto the next administration.

the time is drawing near, if it is not in fact already upon us, when people are going to have to make a decision. some believe that the occupation is necessary, if only to responsibly fix what we broke. others like myself believe that withdrawal is necessary, to make way for those who actually can fix it. it's time for those supporting the occupation to make the sacrifices necessary to make it work or those opposing the occupation to make the sacrifices necessary to stop this war and remove the officials running it. but what those sacrifices may be i don't have an answer to yet.

why are we still there?

(cross-posted at daily kos)

iraq: dateline, february 2006.

insurgents. jihadists. militias. suicide bombers. death squads.

at least 30,000 and up to 100,000 or even more dead; many tortured, executed. over 40,000 injured. perhaps 1,000 more each month.

in the midst of this abbatoir: a 20-something, over-extended guardsman from anytown u.s.a. who doesn't speak the language, doesn't look like the locals. her assigned task: "security". what can she secure? according to respected middle-east scholar juan cole, not much, not even her own safety:

"sunni arabs in iraq blamed us troops for not protecting sunni mosques and worshippers from violence. the us military ordered the us soldiers in baghdad to stay in their barracks and not to circulate if it could be helped. (later reports said some us patrols has been stepped up.) this situation underlines how useless the american ground forces are in iraq. they can't stop the guerrilla war and may be making it worst [sic]. last i knew, there were 10,000 us troops in anbar province with a population of 1.1 million. what could you do with that small force, when the vast majority of the people support the guerrillas? us troops would be useless if they hcad [sic] to fight in alleyways against sectarian rioters. if they tried to guard the sunni mosques, they'd have to shoot into shiite mobs, which would just raise the level of violence they face from shiites in the south."

it seems crystal clear that u.s. forces have been reduced to serving only one function in iraq: target practice. the majority of iraqis feel that attacks on u.s. troops are justified. with reconstruction effectively halted, and no further funds forthcoming, guess who bears the brunt of civilian frustration? as long as u.s. troops stay in iraq, they remain too convenient as scapegoats for everything there that continues to go wrong:

"on saturday, al-sadr's movement joined sunni clerics in agreeing to prohibit killing members of the two sects and banning attacks on each other's mosques. the clerics issued a statement blaming "the occupiers," meaning the americans and their coalition partners, for stirring up sectarian unrest." (AP)

having successfully alienated all the rival factions, the u.s. no longer can find any meaningful candidate to partner with. cooperation with the u.s. has become the literal kiss of death in iraq, delegitimizing and rendering impotent any iraqi that might still wish to help implement any american plan for recovery.

there have been many calls, out of feelings of both guilt and pride, to, in so many words, clean up the mess that iraq has become. such calls, even if somewhat narcissistic, might be lauded for their acceptance of our ultimate responsibility. others call for us not to allow iraq's oil infrastructure to become incapacitated or be altogether destroyed. such calls are compelling for their sobering practicality. still other calls demand that we keep the conflict from engulfing the entire region, for the sake of stability and security. but our guilt, pride, practicality, stability and security cannot be helped by staying in iraq if in fact our presence has no positive influence whatsoever.

withdrawal from iraq removes both a focus for much iraqi anger and an easy excuse for iraqi dysfunction. most importantly, withdrawal will save lives that can be saved. the time for withdrawal is long overdue.