Descent into Chaos
Áine on December 8th, 2004 filed in PoliticsA leaked CIA station chief’s cable is the latest warning that Iraq would descend even deeper into violent chaos unless the government was able to assert its authority and deliver concrete economic improvements. The leak is particularly ill-timed for the White House, which has been focused on assuring Americans that the situation in Iraq would improve with the coming elections. It is also a personal embarrassment for Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman, who had made it his mission to stem the flow of embarrassing leaks from the agency.
The classified assessment was sent to CIA headquarters in Virginia late last month as the officer ended a year-long tour in Iraq. His identity, of course, has not been revealed as it would compromise the agent’s ability to serve undercover elsewhere. The information in the cable was bolstered by a similar assessment from a second CIA officer, Michael Kostiw, who serves as a senior adviser to the agency chief, Porter Goss. As station chief, the unnamed CIA official supervised more than 300 operatives, the largest intelligence operation since the Vietnam War. A station chief’s assessment carries authority, since men and women in this position are in place geographically with a network of informants, and they are able to assess the situation where it is occurring in real-time.
Such assessments, however, usually fail to take into account the deaths of Iraqis, who don’t seem to count as human beings. No “official” totals of Iraqi deaths are available because none are being compiled. The war against the occupation is now being fought out in the open, by regular people defending their homes and neighbourhoods… and we call these people the “insurgents,” although at the beginning of this whole quagmire, these were the very people we were supposedly going to Iraq to liberate. The insurgents, who are largely Iraqis opposed to the US occupation, are now the “terrorists” (according to Bush in a speech to US marines in Camp Pendleton, California, yesterday).
How this administration can fail to see that it’s own methods of torture and interrogation of “detainees” also amounts to State-sponsored terrorism is a phenomenon that many Americans are still struggling to understand. And you’ll note that to date, no senior military or intelligence or administration official has been held responsible for the atrocities in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, or the scores of other secret military prisons around the globe.
In Iraq, according to the following article by Naomi Klein, evidence is mounting that those few humanitarian individuals who would tally Iraqi body counts are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.
You asked for my evidence, Mr Ambassador. Here it is
In Iraq, the US does eliminate those who dare to count the dead
Naomi Klein
Saturday December 4, 2004
The GuardianDavid T Johnson,
Acting ambassador,
US Embassy, LondonDear Mr Johnson, On November 26, your press counsellor sent a letter to the Guardian taking strong exception to a sentence in my column of the same day. The sentence read: “In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are no longer bothering to conceal attacks on civilian targets and are openly eliminating anyone - doctors, clerics, journalists - who dares to count the bodies.” Of particular concern was the word “eliminating”.
The letter suggested that my charge was “baseless” and asked the Guardian either to withdraw it, or provide “evidence of this extremely grave accusation”. It is quite rare for US embassy officials to openly involve themselves in the free press of a foreign country, so I took the letter extremely seriously. But while I agree that the accusation is grave, I have no intention of withdrawing it. Here, instead, is the evidence you requested.
In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that “Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital”. 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw.
US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April’s siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed “senior American officer”, speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital “a centre of propaganda”. But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya’s reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that “what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable … ” Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.
Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that “the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties”, noting that “this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents’ most potent weapons”. The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers “stole the mobile phones” at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital “had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre” before it was hit.
Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja’s doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: “There is not a single surgeon in Falluja.” When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.
Eliminating journalists
The images from last month’s siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April’s siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. Al-Saadi’s detention has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists. “We cannot ignore the possibility that he is being intimidated for just trying to do his job,” the IFJ stated.It’s not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera’s Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.
On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing Jos� Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso’s family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.
Eliminating clerics
Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, “Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country’s Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja”. On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric - another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that “US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border”. The report described the arrests as “retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive”. Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, “both had spoken out against the Falluja attack”.“We don’t do body counts,” said General Tommy Franks of US Central Command. The question is: what happens to the people who insist on counting the bodies - the doctors who must pronounce their patients dead, the journalists who document these losses, the clerics who denounce them? In Iraq, evidence is mounting that these voices are being systematically silenced through a variety of means, from mass arrests, to raids on hospitals, media bans, and overt and unexplained physical attacks.
Mr Ambassador, I believe that your government and its Iraqi surrogates are waging two wars in Iraq. One war is against the Iraqi people, and it has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. The other is a war on witnesses.
Additional research by Aaron Mat
Naomi Klein’s Column - Guardian UK Archives
Technorati Tags: Iraq War, Journalism, Military, Politics, Terrorism












December 10th, 2004 at 9:26 am
At the best it’s hearsay, but most likely it’s lies as normal for the media. It’s printed by a left wing media luvvie with an axe to grind. Journalists are the scum of society rating only below used car salesmen.
Let the troops get on with it.
December 10th, 2004 at 10:53 am
Before everybody gets their collective ‘panties’ in a knot, please step back and look at the situation from a third persons point of view.
Everybody looks at the typed material, points fingers at all who are supposedly left wing right wing netural…… Come on think about this incident, the others not reported, and the ones ONLY reported by Americanos……
I am glad to finally see someone posting the other side for once…..
BTW no I am not an extremist, nor a right or left winger….. just an outsider looking in on Amerika!
December 11th, 2004 at 12:33 am
@Troy : I hardly think the reports of the International Red Cross are hearsay. They don’t belong to any political party or nation. Your evening television news is merely talking-head “news model” entertainment that accompanies the advertised products, or haven’t you realized that yet? Just wait until the National ID cards come out.
December 11th, 2004 at 1:33 am
@slapnuts : *grins* Thanks.