Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Fallujah is an atrocity. It’s a war crime that is never likely to see any justice meted out in recompense. No one in a position of power is ever going to ever face any consequences. Instead, punishment will inevitably fall on those unfortunate enough to loose control of themselves in the heat of battle in a nonsensical war of attrition. Its clear that US policy has totally jettisoned any pretense of following the Geneva Conventions. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva convention states: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The leveling of an entire city of several hundred of thousand for harboring a guerilla movement falls under that under any reasonable definition. The men that weren’t killed were arrested. The guerilla leaders left before the attack with most of the population - if they were there at all. What have we done? How is it going to help one bit? What happens when the people come back and find most if not all of their city and its 77 mosques destroyed? Fallujah was the birthplace of the rebellion that threw out the British in 1920. It’s something that they’re proud of, and we have given them reason after reason to do it again.

The battle was deliberately timed to begin after the election. If it was so tactically important to “retake” Fallujah, why the wait? If the purpose of the attack was to help prepare the way for elections in January, why are Sunni candidates threatening to boycott the election because of it? If the Sunni’s boycott you can kiss a legitimate government goodbye. Once people start coming back to the city and the true extent of the destruction and death is known a boycott will probably be a sure thing, barring some kind of miracle. Why destroy the entire city? Why keep the Red Crescent out (Middle Eastern Red Cross)?

This was an old school slash and burn job. Its one of the oldest tactics for dealing with rebels. It’s a one two punch to beat down the rebel fighters themselves and scare the shit out of the civilians who actively and silently support them. The idea is to kill and destroy as much as possible. One step closer to the dark side. Bush is trying to have it both ways: He wants to brutalize and make the Iraqis fear us enough to abandon hope of pushing us out, but he also wants to be seen as trying to help, protect, and safeguard the Iraqis. The result is going to be a disaster. You can’t mix and match. Its either or. Mix and match gets you Algeria, Vietnam, Soviet Afghanistan, North Ireland, etc… As a country that supposedly works for democracy and human rights, the only reasonable choice is doing the right thing and make an honest attempt at rebuilding. But the only thing on the minds of our Pentagon friends were no bid contracts and creating a government for the benefit of the American Enterprise Institute. Why is everyone surprised that the Iraqis got angry at us? We blew their shit up, stole from them, tortured them, killed them, and for that they’re supposed to thank us? “Winning” in Iraq now means killing a lot of Iraqis. We are not the good guys. We are not the underdog. We are not the White Knight or the Good Sheriff. We are The Galactic Empire. We make a desolation and call it peace. We reelected Abu Ghraib.

This is Marlboro Marine thing is bullshit. What the fuck is wrong with people? He was under orders to go and kill people. This is not sexy. He was there because the Bush administration are less than worthless and bordering on avaricetic. The failure of our policies is what led to this mess. There is a line between support and fetishizing. A sexual icon should be the last thing that comes out of all this.