Added at the end of diary is link showing insurgents taking break from civil war to step up attacks on occupation troops.
I would think this would have made headlines but it didn't. The corporate news media cares when American children are killed in school. But Iraqi kids? No.
- Around 10.30 am, an American helicopter opened fire on a primary school at Al-Nida ( 9 km north west of Mendli ) killing 7 pupils and injuring 3 other pupils with huge damage to the school building. Eyewitnesses confirmed this report while the American side said that they opened fire on the building after being fired from it.
This was reported by McClatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder) news reporters in Iraq four weeks ago, and yet...
Why did this event not make the corporate news in the US, except as a fleeting blip, an aside from one reliable news service. It was the second lead item on the widely read Juan Cole May 9. Cole linked to an item in a round up by
McClatchy reporters in Iraq. And then it became a cold case in only one month, forgotten in the cavalcade of daily mayhem that knows only one truth: George W. Bush set the fire.
I'd like to text message General Petraeus to tell him how the killing of school children is a clue to understanding why the insurgency is growing in Iraq. Insurgents are normal average people who stand up when their children are murdered.
I want to tell General Petraeus that turning soldiers into murderers --on his watch-- isn't helping his PR problem.
I want to tell him to read Scott Shane's insightful article in today's edition of The New York Times.
I want to summarize that article for General Petraeus in case he doesn't have the time to read it because it answers the question: "HOW did the United States, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, come to adopt interrogation techniques copied from the Soviet Union and other cold war adversaries?"
I want to tell General Petraeus to be mindful that this nation's leaders have become what they profess to most despise.
I want to tell General Petraeus that, to accomplish his mission, he must answer this question. "How did something used as an example of what an unethical government would do become something we do?" Scott Shane.
His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, "Communist Interrogation," in The Annals of Neurology and Psychology, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information.
I want to encourage General Petraeus to read the entire article in The New York Times today, which includes this:
The Bush administration concluded that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Qaeda detainees. Similarly, the Soviets argued that international rules did not apply to foreign detainees:
In typical Communist legalistic fashion, the N.K.V.D. rationalized its use of torture and pressure in the interrogation of prisoners of war. When it desired to use such methods against a prisoner or to obtain from him a propaganda statement or "confession," it simply declared the prisoner a "war-crimes suspect" and informed him that, therefore, he was not subject to international rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.
Though the Pentagon is punishing McClatchy reporters for telling
hard truths, I want General Petraeus to know he should still read McClatchy for the insights the non-pandering press can provide him, such as this. Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S.
I want to remind General Petraeus that the Mahdi Army represents the poorest of the Shiite people, the majority of Iraq and the group most oppressed by the previous regime.
I want to tell General Petraeus that he can continue to order US soldiers to raid and bomb Shiite neighborhoods but then the US Army becomes Saddam's army when it does as Saddam's thugs did.
I want to make sure General Petraeus knows that he can not stop the insurgency.
I want to tell General Petraeus a simple truth. We would not tolerate occupation by foreigners and the Iraqi people are no different.
I want to encourage General Petraeus to drop by McClatchy's Real Cities to readthe blog written by Iraqi reporters, because it contains raw honesty seldom seen elsewhere.
I want to mention to General Petraeus that Knight-Ridder is singled out in Bill Moyers' film Buying the War, about an otherwise "compliant press." Moyers characterized Knight-Ridder, as one of the few reliable news outlets that reported accurately the lead-up to the war, and the war itself. Knight-Ridder reporters became McClatchy reporters when that chain bought Knight-Ridder.
Mainly, I want General Petraeus to know that, despite what Pentagon higher-ups say, McClatchy reporters have a reputation for telling the truth, even the most difficult truths.
Most of all, I want to tell General Petraeus that courage comes in many forms, that in his case, it means standing up for what he knows is right.
I want to encourage General Petraeus to end the occupation because it mocks the moral values for which this country stands. The occupation is hurting the morals of our soldiers, killing and maiming some, turning others into torturers and murderers, and also bringing out the best in some.
But mainly, as US soldiers widely acknowledge, there is no justification to continue the occupation. General Petraeus is intelligent. The only issue is whether he can withstand the onslaught of pressure from the White House.
While the occupation is killing so many in the Iraqi population and making refugees of millions, it is also destroying the morals of the soldiers and people of the United States.
No good can come of continuing the occupation, and one last thing I want General Petraeus to know: failing to take a moral stand will not enhance your career, or respect for you in the longterm.
Finally, I want to ask General Petraeus to explain why US soldiers killed school children in Al-Nida?
General Petraeus, this article in today's WP underscores the futility of the occupation.
Notice, General Petraeus, that the attacks on US troops are becoming more frequent and more lethal and that the diverse insurgent groups are taking time off from their civil war to unite around one proposition-- and that is to drive the occupying power out of their country.
How many Iraqis, how many US troops will die before you declare victory and tell Bush there is no choice but to leave?
Attacks on U.S. Troops in Iraq Grow in Lethality, Complexity
Bigger Bombs a Key Cause of May's High Death Toll
By Ann Scott Tyson and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 3, 2007; A01
... "It is very clear that the number of attacks against U.S. forces is up" and that they have grown more effective in Baghdad, especially in recent weeks, said Maj. Gen. James E. Simmons, deputy commander for operations in Iraq. At the same time, he said, attacks on Iraqi security forces have declined slightly, citing figures that compare the period of mid-February to mid-May to the preceding three months. "The attacks are being directed at us and not against other people," he said....
...U.S. deaths have risen sharply in some of Baghdad's outlying regions, such as Diyala province, where Sunni and Shiite groups have escalated sectarian violence and fought back hard against American forces moving into their safe havens. "Extremists on both sides of this thing are trying to make a statement by attacking U.S. troops," Simmons said. ....
...Insurgents are also staging carefully planned, complex ambushes and retaliatory attacks as they target U.S. troops, the officials said. While few in number, these include direct assaults on U.S. military outposts, ambushes in which American troops have been captured, and complex attacks that use multiple weapons to strike more than one U.S. target. For example, attackers will bomb a patrol and then target ground forces or aircraft that come to its aid. ...
Read in its entirety here