vets speak about iraq war crimes

Former U.S. Army Sgt Logan Laituri

Photo by Nina Berman

Vets Break Silence on Iraq War Crimes

By Aaron Glantz, IPS  

U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are planning to descend on Washington from Mar. 13-16 to testify about war crimes they committed or personally witnessed in those countries.

“The war in Iraq is not covered to its potential because of how dangerous it is for reporters to cover it,” said Liam Madden, a former Marine and member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. “That’s left a lot of misconceptions in the minds of the American public about what the true nature of military occupation looks like.”

Iraq Veterans Against the War argues that well-publicized incidents of U.S. brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire family of Iraqis in the town of Haditha are not the isolated incidents perpetrated by “a few bad apples,” as many politicians and military leaders have claimed. They are part of a pattern, the group says, of “an increasingly bloody occupation.”"The problem that we face in Iraq is that policymakers in leadership have set a precedent of lawlessness where we don’t abide by the rule of law, we don’t respect international treaties, so when that atmosphere exists it lends itself to criminal activity,” argues former U.S. Army Sergeant Logan Laituri, who served a tour in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 before being discharged as a conscientious objector.Laituri told IPS that precedent of lawlessness makes itself felt in the rules of engagement handed down by commanders to soldiers on the front lines. When he was stationed in Samarra, for example, he said one of his fellow soldiers shot an unarmed man while he walked down the street.”The problem is that that soldier was not committing a crime as you might call it because the rules of engagement were very clear that no one was supposed to be walking down the street,” he said. “But I have a problem with that. You can’t tell a family to leave everything they know so you can bomb the shit out of their house or their city. So while he definitely has protection under the law, I don’t think that legitimates that type of violence.”

Iraq Veterans Against the War is calling the gathering “Winter Soldier,” after a quote from the U.S. revolutionary Thomas Paine, who wrote in 1776: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

Organizers say video and photographic evidence will also be presented, and the testimony and panels will be broadcast live on Satellite TV and streaming video on ivaw.org.

Winter Soldier is modeled on a similar event held by Vietnam Veterans 37 years ago.

In 1971, over 100 members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with fellow citizens. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions.

iraqi central government fractures

BAGHDAD, March 10 (UPI) — The political crisis within Iraq’s central government seems to be ongoing despite recent claims of political reconciliation, Al Sumaria said Monday.Iraqi Vice President Tarek al-Hashemi said the conflict with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continued but a statement from the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said the disputes weren’t of a personal nature.

Hashemi, the leader of the Sunni Accordance Front Party, said in a statement that his party was unlikely to return to the government while conflicts continued with the Shiite-led majority.

Maliki, head of the Shiite Islamic Dawa Party, said in earlier statements that he hoped the six members of the Accordance Front, as well as Kurdish officials, would return to the central government, but Hashemi is saying the differences stem from the direction Iraq is headed and not power-sharing arrangements.

fallon’s resignation raises issue of bush iran policy

Fallon’s Resignation doesn’t indicate war with Iran?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has dismissed as “ridiculous” any suggestion that the resignation of America’s military chief in the Middle East signals the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Adm. William Fallon had been serving as chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia since 2007.

Adm. William Fallon resigned Tuesday as chief of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia after just a year in the post, citing what he called an inaccurate perception that he is at odds with the Bush administration over Iran.

Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, was the subject of a recent Esquire magazine profile that portrayed him as resisting pressure for military action against Iran, which the Bush administration accuses of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

In a written statement, Fallon said the article’s “disrespect for the president” and “resulting embarrassment” had become a distraction.  Watch why some believe Fallon was forced to resign »

“Although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there,” Fallon said.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Gates told reporters at the Pentagon he accepted Fallon’s resignation “with reluctance and regret.”

But, he added, “I think it’s the right decision.”

“Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own. I believe it was the right thing to do, even though I do not believe there are in fact significant differences between his views and administration policy,” Gates said.

Gates said repeatedly that he believed talk of Fallon opposing President George W. Bush on military action against Iran was mistaken.

Fallon, a 41-year veteran of the Navy, took over as chief of Central Command in early 2007. Gates said he will be replaced by Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, his deputy, who commanded an Army division in Iraq in the early days of the war and led efforts to train the Iraqi military.

The article that Fallon states lead to his resignation:

• Esquire: The Man Between War and Peace

The perception that Fallon has opposed a drive toward military action against Iran from within the Bush administration dates to his confirmation hearings in January 2007, when he told the Senate the United States needed to exhaust all diplomatic options in its disputes with the Islamic republic.

But he also has said the United States would be able to take steps if Tehran were to attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, the outlet of the Persian Gulf and a choke point for much of the world’s oil.

And he recently told CNN that the United States was looking for a peaceful settlement to disputes “in every case.”

“We’re trying to encourage dialogue and find resolution,” he said. “In fact, that’s our message to the Iranians out here, given that everybody is nervous and anxious about their activities, is to come forth and explain what they are doing with all the people in the region.”

On Tuesday, Gates said: “We have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months and, frankly, just have not been successful in doing so.”

In a written statement, Bush praised Fallon for helping “ensure that America’s military forces are ready to meet the threats of an often troubled region of the world.

“He deserves considerable credit for progress that has been made there, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

But Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Fallon’s resignation showed that independent views “are not welcomed in this administration.”

“It is also a sign that the administration is blind to the growing costs and consequences of the Iraq war, which has so damaged America’s security interests in the Middle East and beyond,” said Reid, D-Nevada. “Democrats will continue to examine these matters very closely in the coming weeks and months.”

mc cain lobbies for airbus

Mc cain advisers lobby for Airbus By: Jim Kuhnhenn AP Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years. Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain’s campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain’s national finance chairman. EADS is the parent company of Airbus, which teamed up with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to win the lucrative aerial refueling contract on Feb. 29. Boeing Co. Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in a statement Monday that the Chicago-based aerospace company “found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal.” McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been a key figure in the Pentagon’s yearslong attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier tanker contract with Boeing and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to develop bidding procedures that did not exclude Airbus. EADS retained Ogilvy Government Relations and The Loeffler Group to lobby for the tanker deal last year, months after McCain sent two letters urging the Defense Department to make sure the bidding proposals guaranteed competition. “They never lobbied him related to the issues, and the letters went out before they were contracted” by EADS, McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said Monday. According to lobbying records filed with the Senate, Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Loeffler and Susan Nelson, who left the firm and is now the campaign’s finance director. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who was assigned the EADS work, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign’s congressional liaison. “The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. “Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition.” McCain, a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics, has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago. He has also cast himself as a neutral watchdog in the Air Force tanker contract, one of the largest in decades. “All I asked for in this situation was a fair competition,” he told reporters Monday at Lambert Field in St. Louis, home of a Boeing fighter jet plant. On Friday, he defended his aggressive oversight: “I never weighed in for or against anybody that competed for the contract. All I asked for was a fair process. And the facts are that I never showed any bias in any way against anybody — except for the taxpayer.” Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the EADS-Northrop Gruman plane was “clearly a better performer” than the one proposed by Boeing. It is unclear what EADS hired the lobbyists to do. Loeffler and Airbus officials did not immediately respond to phone and e-mail messages left late Monday. A Boeing spokesman declined to comment Monday on the links between McCain and lobbying efforts on behalf of EADS. But Boeing supporters already have begun to accuse McCain of damaging Boeing’s chances by inserting himself into the tanker deal. One of them, Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said the field was “tilted to Airbus” because the Pentagon did not weigh European subsidies for Airbus in its deliberations — a decision he blamed on McCain. Everett, Wash., is where Boeing would perform much of the tanker work, and Dicks is a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was “troubled” by the Air Force’s draft request for bids. The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks. Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. The request was widely viewed as hurting the EADS-Northrop Grumman bid. The proposed bid request “may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted,” McCain wrote in a Dec. 1, 2006, letter to Gates. The Air Force changed the criteria four days later. Dicks said the removal of the subsidy language was a “game-changer” that favored EADS over Boeing. “The only reason that they could even bid a low price is because they received a subsidy,” Dicks said last week. “And Senator McCain jumped into this and said that (the Air Force) could not look at the subsidy issue — which I think is a big mistake, especially when the U.S. trade representative is bringing a case in the (World Trade Organization) on this very issue.” EADS’ interest in the tanker deal is evident in the political contributions of its employees. From 2004 to 2006, donations by its employees jumped from $42,500 to $141,931, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. So far this election cycle, company employees have donated $120,350. Of that, McCain’s presidential campaign has received $14,000, the most of any other member of Congress this election cycle. McCain prides himself in the role he played blocking an earlier version of the tanker deal that gave the contract to Boeing. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and of an Armed Services subcommittee, McCain led an investigation that eventually helped kill that contract in 2004. A former Air Force official and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing’s chief executive and several top Air Force officials. “I intervened in a process that was clearly corrupt,” McCain said Friday. “That’s why people went to jail.” While McCain has praised Boeing for fixing its practices, his campaign said the experience prompted him to demand “a full, fair and open competition.” His letters — one to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in September 2006 and the other to Gates — were sent with that spirit in mind, Hazelbaker said Monday. Once the rules were in place, Hazelbaker said, bidders submitted proposals, the Air Force reviewed them and the contract was awarded. “That is a process that McCain, appropriately, had absolutely no role in,” she said. Associated Press Writers Glen Johnson and Libby Quaid contributed to this article. © 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.