Mind Games- reading Iraq
Today's BBC news- headline, opening statements... and conflicting side reports. Three main points.
1. "Tony Blair has reacted defiantly to the official confirmation Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. "
2. "After searching for over a year, the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence he had had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the time Iraq was invaded. "
3. "But it found evidence Saddam hoped to revive a WMD programme after sanctions. "
Let's analyze and approach the three points backwards- as befitting when dealing with statements emanating from No.10 and the White House gang.
First, and last, #3> If one peruses the BBC's "Key findings in the report" -same day, same news site, observe the marked difference in conviction, tone and language.
* "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
Is this allegation now at all credible? No further details regarding said "evidence" are being offered, though perhaps "fragmentary and circumstantial" says it all. I suspect the vast majority of BBC's readers are not expected to read further on the subject, which opens a window of opportunity for politicians such as Bush, Blair and their henchmen /women to interpret and synthesize it for them.
For example, SIMONS SAYS... Foreign Office Minister Baroness Simons, who presumably read the same report, nevertheless " told BBC2's News night the report showed Saddam had been "very close" to breaking sanctions. It was his overriding aim - that was what he was about."
It reminds me of something Bush announced during the Kerry debate, that they had both seen the same "intelligence" regarding Iraq. Why hadn't they reached the same conclusion? 'Intelligence' is as intelligence does.
Saddam himself is allegedly the direct source of some of the statements regarding his WMD wish list. How were they acquired? Again, from the BBC - "The report bases many of its findings on US "debriefing" sessions with Saddam Hussein and former regime officials. " American Interrogation techniques in Iraq have included rolling around an Iraqi general in a sleeping bag and subsequently asphyxiating him. Other methods include forcing prisoners to simulate homosexual acts and actual rape has been reported. It leads one to question the validity of any of their captives' post-interrogation statements.
On to#2> Saddam- Did he or didn't he? It appears that all of the WMD had disappeared long ago from Iraq. We could presume that Saddam actually complied with the UN's demands and destroyed (or sold) them. Who knows. Considering the No-Fly zone, daily bombings and crippling sanctions Iraq was enduring at the time, is that a likely scenario? It's probably easier now that the border has been left virtually unguarded. Recent reports criticizing countries which opposed the West's sanctions are omitting their original reason - concern for the millions of innocent Iraqi children who died as a direct result of the sanctions, which left hospitals under-equipped and destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, causing wide-spread health problems and deprivation.
BBC- "But the report also says there are few indications of a concrete programme to renew Iraq's WMD capabilities behind the threat it projected. "While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or programme for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period," says the report. His overriding ambition was to see sanctions dismantled, says the report."
Considering the deviating effect sanctions were having on Iraq's economy and people, in effect plunging a modern society back into the dark ages, Saddam's desire to see them lifted is hardly surprising or unreasonable. He also allegedly felt that Iraq's possession of WMD had convinced the US to tread more warily during the first Iraq war, possibly a reason for their departure before they had succeeded in removing him from power. This too is not an unreasonable strategy- one evidently echoed in North Korea, China and Israel. Speaking of the latter, as long as the West turns a blind eye to Israel's nuclear arsenal, they will not have a credible voice with which to convince Arab states not to embark upon the same path.
"Key findings" again stated in its elusive language-
* "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
When? 10 years ago? Possibly longer? What? (Exactly are they referring to?) I remember reading a similar report, when weapons of mass destruction Blair had used to state his case for war were revealed to be of the limited range sort sold at UK gun fairs. Are these the same ones?
* "The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."
Hans Blix attempted to correct the misconceptions and was forced into "early retirement’ from his job as chief weapons inspector. He had this to say-
"Had we had a few months more we would have been able to tell the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction ... former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the same BBC programme sanctions had "contained" Saddam. "They did destroy all the biological and chemical weapons and the nuclear weapons sector was also all cleared up. "
Which brings us to #1 and a "defiant" Blair, flanked by his equally defiant buddy Bush. Both steadfast in their convictions. Both with the blood of thousands on their hands, but unwilling to face up to their failings, either as democratic or moral leaders. Both faulty interpreters of "intelligence" - both wrong. And both up for re-election.
Wrong again.
100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since invasion, survey finds
Sarah Boseley
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians ? half of them women and children ? have died since the invasion, mostly as a result of coalition airstrikes, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.
The study, carried out in 33 randomly chosen neighbourhoods representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, strokes and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.
Last week the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid but extensive peer review and editing, because, said its editor, Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". The findings raised important questions for the governments of the United States and Britain, who, Dr Horton said in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".
The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors, and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards. When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.
They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.
"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small-arms fire. In one case a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say; in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint; and in the third an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, US soldiers apologised to the families.
"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.
The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.
The British government said it had "concerns and difficulties" about the survey's methodology, adding: "The findings were based on extrapolation and treating Iraq as if it were all the same in terms of the level of the conflict. This is not the case."
SBlt A soldier of Britain's Black Watch regiment sent north from Basra to a base southwest of Baghdad, near insurgent territory, was killed last week when a Warrior armoured fighting vehicle overturned. The accident, and several roadside bombs, delayed the convoy's journey.
The Guardian Weekly 2004-11-05, page 4
1. "Tony Blair has reacted defiantly to the official confirmation Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. "
2. "After searching for over a year, the Iraq Survey Group found no evidence he had had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the time Iraq was invaded. "
3. "But it found evidence Saddam hoped to revive a WMD programme after sanctions. "
Let's analyze and approach the three points backwards- as befitting when dealing with statements emanating from No.10 and the White House gang.
First, and last, #3> If one peruses the BBC's "Key findings in the report" -same day, same news site, observe the marked difference in conviction, tone and language.
* "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
Is this allegation now at all credible? No further details regarding said "evidence" are being offered, though perhaps "fragmentary and circumstantial" says it all. I suspect the vast majority of BBC's readers are not expected to read further on the subject, which opens a window of opportunity for politicians such as Bush, Blair and their henchmen /women to interpret and synthesize it for them.
For example, SIMONS SAYS... Foreign Office Minister Baroness Simons, who presumably read the same report, nevertheless " told BBC2's News night the report showed Saddam had been "very close" to breaking sanctions. It was his overriding aim - that was what he was about."
It reminds me of something Bush announced during the Kerry debate, that they had both seen the same "intelligence" regarding Iraq. Why hadn't they reached the same conclusion? 'Intelligence' is as intelligence does.
Saddam himself is allegedly the direct source of some of the statements regarding his WMD wish list. How were they acquired? Again, from the BBC - "The report bases many of its findings on US "debriefing" sessions with Saddam Hussein and former regime officials. " American Interrogation techniques in Iraq have included rolling around an Iraqi general in a sleeping bag and subsequently asphyxiating him. Other methods include forcing prisoners to simulate homosexual acts and actual rape has been reported. It leads one to question the validity of any of their captives' post-interrogation statements.
On to#2> Saddam- Did he or didn't he? It appears that all of the WMD had disappeared long ago from Iraq. We could presume that Saddam actually complied with the UN's demands and destroyed (or sold) them. Who knows. Considering the No-Fly zone, daily bombings and crippling sanctions Iraq was enduring at the time, is that a likely scenario? It's probably easier now that the border has been left virtually unguarded. Recent reports criticizing countries which opposed the West's sanctions are omitting their original reason - concern for the millions of innocent Iraqi children who died as a direct result of the sanctions, which left hospitals under-equipped and destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, causing wide-spread health problems and deprivation.
BBC- "But the report also says there are few indications of a concrete programme to renew Iraq's WMD capabilities behind the threat it projected. "While he may have said he had the desire, no source has claimed that Saddam had an explicit strategy or programme for the development or use of WMD during the sanctions period," says the report. His overriding ambition was to see sanctions dismantled, says the report."
Considering the deviating effect sanctions were having on Iraq's economy and people, in effect plunging a modern society back into the dark ages, Saddam's desire to see them lifted is hardly surprising or unreasonable. He also allegedly felt that Iraq's possession of WMD had convinced the US to tread more warily during the first Iraq war, possibly a reason for their departure before they had succeeded in removing him from power. This too is not an unreasonable strategy- one evidently echoed in North Korea, China and Israel. Speaking of the latter, as long as the West turns a blind eye to Israel's nuclear arsenal, they will not have a credible voice with which to convince Arab states not to embark upon the same path.
"Key findings" again stated in its elusive language-
* "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but [there is] the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq, although not of a militarily significant capability."
When? 10 years ago? Possibly longer? What? (Exactly are they referring to?) I remember reading a similar report, when weapons of mass destruction Blair had used to state his case for war were revealed to be of the limited range sort sold at UK gun fairs. Are these the same ones?
* "The problem of discerning WMD in Iraq is highlighted by the pre-war misapprehensions of weapons which were not there. Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions."
Hans Blix attempted to correct the misconceptions and was forced into "early retirement’ from his job as chief weapons inspector. He had this to say-
"Had we had a few months more we would have been able to tell the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction ... former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told the same BBC programme sanctions had "contained" Saddam. "They did destroy all the biological and chemical weapons and the nuclear weapons sector was also all cleared up. "
Which brings us to #1 and a "defiant" Blair, flanked by his equally defiant buddy Bush. Both steadfast in their convictions. Both with the blood of thousands on their hands, but unwilling to face up to their failings, either as democratic or moral leaders. Both faulty interpreters of "intelligence" - both wrong. And both up for re-election.
Wrong again.
100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since invasion, survey finds
Sarah Boseley
About 100,000 Iraqi civilians ? half of them women and children ? have died since the invasion, mostly as a result of coalition airstrikes, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts.
The study, carried out in 33 randomly chosen neighbourhoods representative of the entire population, shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq. Before the invasion, most people died of heart attacks, strokes and chronic illness. The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it was before the invasion.
Last week the Lancet medical journal fast-tracked the survey to publication on its website after rapid but extensive peer review and editing, because, said its editor, Richard Horton, "of its importance to the evolving security situation in Iraq". The findings raised important questions for the governments of the United States and Britain, who, Dr Horton said in a commentary, "must have considered the likely effects of their actions for civilians".
The research was led by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went to the 988 households in the survey were doctors, and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards. When death certificates were not available, there were good reasons, say the authors. "We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths," they write.
They found an increase in infant mortality from 29 to 57 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is consistent with the pattern in wars, where women are unable or unwilling to get to hospital to deliver babies, they say. The other increase was in violent death, which was reported in 15 of the 33 clusters studied and which was mostly attributed to airstrikes.
"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground," write the researchers. Only three of the 61 deaths involved coalition soldiers killing Iraqis with small-arms fire. In one case a 56-year-old man might have been a combatant, they say; in the second a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint; and in the third an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the second two cases, US soldiers apologised to the families.
"The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry," they write.
The biggest death toll recorded by the researchers was in Falluja, which registered two-thirds of the violent deaths they found. "In Falluja, 23 households of 52 visited were either temporarily or permanently abandoned. Neighbours interviewed described widespread death in most of the abandoned houses but could not give adequate details for inclusion in the survey," they write.
The British government said it had "concerns and difficulties" about the survey's methodology, adding: "The findings were based on extrapolation and treating Iraq as if it were all the same in terms of the level of the conflict. This is not the case."
SBlt A soldier of Britain's Black Watch regiment sent north from Basra to a base southwest of Baghdad, near insurgent territory, was killed last week when a Warrior armoured fighting vehicle overturned. The accident, and several roadside bombs, delayed the convoy's journey.
The Guardian Weekly 2004-11-05, page 4
posted by Dawn One at 2:50 am
