New report by NGO's points out excessive US violence in Iraq

[Watser?]

A report has been made by Global Policy Forum and about 30 NGO's. Some highlights from the Executive Summary (pdf warning).

This report considers many aspects of the conflict, with special emphasis on the US Coalition’s responsibilities under international law. It also considers political and economic issues in Iraq and argues for urgent change, including a speedy withdrawal of Coalition forces. The report does not examine in detail the insurgency, or the criminal gangs and militias which are so often in the news. These forces, which have diverse motivations, often engage in violent tactics and some are responsible for large numbers of deaths and injuries among innocent Iraqi civilians. The increasing bloodshed and sectarian division among Iraqis is abhorrent. But whatever responsibility Iraqis themselves bear for the present impasse within the country, the primary responsibility lies with the United States and its Coalition, whose military occupation gave rise to these groups and whose policies have failed to protect the Iraqi people or to bring peace, prosperity and democracy, as earlier claimed. From our perspective, the responsibility of the US Coalition is especially grave because the UN Security Council gave it a mandate. As such, it should comply with the highest standards of international legality. Though the Council had refused to authorize the war, just a few months later it mandated the Coalition as a “multinational force” (MNF). Council members at the time hoped that the UN would assume a “vital role” in Iraq, leading the way back to peace and international legality. But this did not happen. The United States allowed the UN only marginal involvement, both on the ground and in New York. On August 19, 2003, a truck bomb destroyed UN headquarters in Baghdad and the organization drastically reduced its presence in the country. Since then, the UN has had almost no oversight role and the Security Council has rarely had a substantive discussion about the matter. Each week, there are further disturbing reports from Iraq and further evidence of international law violations and massive human suffering. Iraqi public opinion overwhelmingly favors a near-term withdrawal and the public in the United States has signaled its disapproval of the occupation in the Congressional mid-term elections. Public officials and military commanders in Washington and London increasingly express misgivings, too. But understanding of the conflict remains incomplete and clouded by official dogma and multiple misconceptions. This report hopes to bring new information and analysis to the public debate, to help bring an end to the suffering and violence.

...

US Coalition forces have used indiscriminate and especially injurious weapons that are banned by international convention or widely considered unacceptable and inhuman. The US used a napalm-type incendiary weapon as well as white phosphorous munitions, the latter against ground targets in densely populated areas. During the 2003 invasion, the US Coalition also made use of depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs. Both violate prohibitions against weapons that cause unnecessary suffering and indiscriminate harm.

...

US Coalition forces have attacked and destroyed a number of important Iraqi cities, on grounds that they were “insurgent strongholds.” The attacks have resulted in the massive displacement of people, large civilian casualties, and colossal destruction of the urban physical infrastructure. In addition to Falluja, there have been assaults on a dozen other cities including al-Qaim, Tal Afar, Samarra, Haditha, and Ramadi. The attacks include intensive air and ground bombardment and cutting-off electricity, water, food and medicines. The attacks have left hundreds of thousands of people homeless and in displacement camps.

...

US military commanders have established permissive “rules of engagement,” allowing troops to use “deadly force” against virtually any perceived threat. As a consequence, the US and its allies regularly kill Iraqi civilians at checkpoints and during military operations, on the basis of the merest suspicion. US Coalition forces also kill many Iraqi non-combatants during military operations and air strikes. In this environment of permissive violence, some soldiers have committed pre-meditated murder, and several shocking atrocities, such as the Haditha massacre, have come to light.

[California Tanker]

Can I just say I disagree with a lot of it?

It's true that there are some troops who need to be reined in, but there are a couple of warning bells in the bits that you have extracted which indicated perhaps not the most neutral point of view.

NTM

[Watser?]

Such as?

[Zadalya]

The troops are completely out of hand over there, it's like they're playing a video game, shooting people for 'points'. Sure, not all of them are that way, but even one idiot doing that is too many. The case alone, not so long ago, of that 14 year-old Iraqi girl getting raped and then set on fire and killed (along with her family) is, I am certain, only the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure there's a lot more incidents going on that we don't hear about.
I see nothing 'neutral' about your article, Watser, but then I don't see neutrality as the issue. Why should we be in regards to the amount of suffering that's happening?
BTW- have they released an official death count of the civilians there? The only thing I read was in that Lancet report, saying it was 650,000, but people are scoffing and saying that's crap. Me, I don't know what to believe anymore.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Zadalya

The troops are completely out of hand over there, it's like they're playing a video game, shooting people for 'points'. Sure, not all of them are that way, but even one idiot doing that is too many.

One is too many; but if it's just one, then it's not "the troops".

The only thing I read was in that Lancet report, saying it was 650,000, but people are scoffing and saying that's crap. Me, I don't know what to believe anymore.

I believe the Lancet report, because I read it and read how it was conducted, relative to thousands of other studies the conclusions of which are accepted without question.

The story of how it came to be characterized as unreliable is an excellent example of predetermined conclusions, shoddy journalism, and wilfull obtuseness. The relevant attitude is crystallized perfectly in Independent foreign affairs chief Mary Dejevsky's remark, after it was explained in great detail that the numbers were real and not extrapolations:

Originally Posted by intellectual coward

i stick to my position that extrapolation, however scientific and well-thought through is no substitute for real figures.

I recommend reading on through the second part of that article, linked from the bottom of the page. The contrast between "liberal" media treatments of the reseachers' methods in earlier work on civil war in the Congo, and the treatments of same methods in Iraq, is a fine illustration of just what frame of mind one ought to adopt in making sense of the coverage of the Iraq war.

And neither part makes reference to the subsequent revelation that the British government, who started off the pooh-poohing of the Lancet report, was initially privately advised by its own experts that the report's methods were sound. Lying sacks of shit.

Don't be buffaloed into not knowing what to believe. Read original sources, and bear in mind who has incentive to lie and who has incentive to support the status quo.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Zadalya

BTW- have they released an official death count of the civilians there? The only thing I read was in that Lancet report, saying it was 650,000, but people are scoffing and saying that's crap. Me, I don't know what to believe anymore.

I don't know either. But with 2.2 million refugees in the neighbouring countries and 2 million internal displace persons (UNHCR), it doesn't sound unreasonable. I think we have a thread on it somewhere.

About the 'video game playing': there was a page-long interview in my newspaper (this one, but it is behind a pay wall and in Dutch anyway) with an American soldier named James Burmeister who deserted from the army when they were gonna send him back after he got wounded. He told a story about a game they played. His platoon (Scout Platoon, First Infantry Division) hung a camera somewhere in a poor neighbourhood with a sign on it 'Government property, don't touch'. They shot everyone who tried to touch it, killed 30 people in total he said.

[California Tanker]

Such as?

Sorry, had limited Net access. Had to be brief.

US Coalition forces have used indiscriminate and especially injurious weapons that are banned by international convention or widely considered unacceptable and inhuman. The US used a napalm-type incendiary weapon as well as white phosphorous munitions, the latter against ground targets in densely populated areas. During the 2003 invasion, the US Coalition also made use of depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs. Both violate prohibitions against weapons that cause unnecessary suffering and indiscriminate harm.

Considering how many countries use cluster munitions, WP, DU and other incendiaries, I'm wondering how 'widely considered' such an opinion actually is. I don't think there's a country in the world with a nuclear reactor and an arms industry that doesn't make DU ammunition, actually, though I admit I need to check on the ammo for the Japanese Type 90. Don't have my reference books with me.

whatever responsibility Iraqis themselves bear for the present impasse within the country, the primary responsibility lies with the United States and its Coalition, whose military occupation gave rise to these groups and whose policies have failed to protect the Iraqi people or to bring peace, prosperity and democracy, as earlier claimed

This strikes me as analagous to the LAPD being to blame for the widespread lawlessness in 1991 in places like Koreatown as they set the conditions by refusing to police the place. Whilst the occupation was certainly a catalyst, and the initial policies did nothing to dampen the problems, the blame for the internecine warfare is, to my mind, purely on the participants thereof.

As to the problem of 'excessive violence', I would point out that we're talking about 150,000 troops. Find me a city of that size with no violent crime. On the plus side, troops are supposed to be disciplined to start with. On the negative side, normal city residents aren't often faced with instances where indecision or inaction can result in your death. I think it about evens out.

NTM

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Considering how many countries use cluster munitions, WP, DU and other incendiaries, I'm wondering how 'widely considered' such an opinion actually is. I don't think there's a country in the world with a nuclear reactor and an arms industry that doesn't make DU ammunition, actually, though I admit I need to check on the ammo for the Japanese Type 90. Don't have my reference books with me.

The Dutch parliament has just this month banned the troops from using cluster ammunition (though they still have them). There is also a worldwide campaign going to ban cluster weapons altogether, just like landmines. And every time any of those weapons are used there is widespread protest by NOGs, so in that sense they are right.

Originally Posted by California Tanker

This strikes me as analagous to the LAPD being to blame for the widespread lawlessness in 1991 in places like Koreatown as they set the conditions by refusing to police the place. Whilst the occupation was certainly a catalyst, and the initial policies did nothing to dampen the problems, the blame for the internecine warfare is, to my mind, purely on the participants thereof.

As to the problem of 'excessive violence', I would point out that we're talking about 150,000 troops. Find me a city of that size with no violent crime. On the plus side, troops are supposed to be disciplined to start with. On the negative side, normal city residents aren't often faced with instances where indecision or inaction can result in your death. I think it about evens out.

NTM

I think we are talking about international law and laws of war here. The occupying force is responsible for maintaining law and order and protecting civilians. That is something the US occupation failed grossly in from the start, when even museums were looted and Rumsfeld was laughing it off.

[California Tanker]

The Dutch parliament has just this month banned the troops from using cluster ammunition (though they still have them)

Probably because the Dutch MoD are too cheap to do what the British have done, and ban the use of old cluster munitions and buy the newer versions which have self-destruct abilities after a period of time if the impact fuze turns out to be a dud. From the translation of last week's announcement that I found, the quote was "The Dutch government continues to believe that the use of cluster munitions is legitimate."

when even museums were looted

Wasn't that later found to be somewhat overstated? The looting was nowhere near as bad as the original reports had advertised. The LAPD analogy still applies. If you're away from home on holiday, and someone burgles your house, do you blame the police, or the people who did the burglaring?

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

If the level of burglary was previously n, and the LAPD started some program that was recognizably boneheaded and likely to increase burglaries, and then the level of burglaries became 20n after they implemented the program, and they were powerless to prevent the burglaries... I'd primarily blame the LAPD.

Also, note the moral false dichotomy. Blame both.

[Watser?]

Blame both.

Yup, I would.

And it is clear from the report that so do the NGOs. All they are saying is the PRIMARY responsibility lies with the occupation forces.

[California Tanker]

I think, then, we'll just agree to disagree.

Merely because one provides opportunity does not automatically make one cuplable. There's an old 'test' at Parris Island, wherein a recruit, ordinarily prohibited by order from using telephones, is told one night to clean the Drill Instructor's office. In it is a telephone. The D.I. has just provided the opportunity. The Recruit knows that telephone use is wrong. Is the D.I. to blame if the recruit uses the telephone?

I think the average Iraqi knows that taking artifacts from a museum is morally questionable. They make the conscious decision to break from integrity and take something, the fact that there's no security in place does not absolve them of that culpability. I flat do not accept that primary blame for this lies with the occupation forces. Indeed, I'd like to see someone try to use that sort of defense in a court. "M'lud, yes, it's true that I did something illegal and caused damage, but it's security's fault for not being there. They should pay the majority of the restitution..."

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

"We just destroyed the domestic security and social fabric of the society. It's not like we committed any of the crimes that resulted!"

Possible pleas in a domestic court, in which a system of laws and political stability are presumed, are, shall we say, a remarkable analogy for the act of invading a nation and overthrowing its political and legal order.

[California Tanker]

You do understand the concept of personal responsibility, do you not?

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Indeed. And responsibility tout court, moreover. That would rather obviously be the reason for holding America accountable for the state of lawlessness its foolish, arrogant, and foreseeably disastrous invasion of Iraq has produced, you see.

Do you?