[Thanks to David Honish, Veterans For Peace, who sent this in.]

“It Is The Lying Leaders And The Situation On The Ground In Iraq That Undermines Morale”
“Those Who Claim That Antiwar Activity Undermines The Morale Of The Troops Are Wrong”

In place of the “support the troops” rhetoric, the hawks have lately been switching over to the “those 2,400 cannot have died in vain” mode. My apologies to the families, but those 2,400 have died in vain, and there is no sense in adding to the list.

By Bill Shunas, Spring 2006 The Veteran, Vietnam Veterans Against The War [Excerpt from his column “Fraggin”] Bill Shunas is a Vietnam veteran and author.

It’s a different situation from Vietnam.

Back then, we were trying to convince fellow citizens of the bankruptcy of the war; now most of our fellow citizens have that figured out.

Back then, we felt we were part of the democratic process, like we could demand that the nation’s leadership change; now it seems like the nation’s leadership is oblivious to any kind of pressure.

They don’t care that these wars have no purpose for those who don’t hold oil stock. They don’t know that these wars can’t be won. They are arrogant and stubborn…and don’t forget stupid.

Today’s antiwar activity is also less publicized by the media.

I make these points to say that those who claim that antiwar activity undermines the morale of the troops are wrong. Morale gets undermined when you fight unjust or unwinnable wars.

It is the lying leaders and the situation on the ground in Iraq that undermines morale.

Troop morale is not lowered by antiwar activity, whether it is high-intensity activity (as during Vietnam) or what we have today. That brings us back to the point that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

In place of the “support the troops” rhetoric, the hawks have lately been switching over to the “those 2,400 cannot have died in vain” mode.

My apologies to the families, but those 2,400 have died in vain, and there is no sense in adding to the list.

That happened in Vietnam.

Long after it was evident that the war was unwinnable, we kept sacrificing troops, claiming that if we didn’t keep fighting, it would dishonor those who had previously paid the price.

Such rhetoric is only a cover for those who will not admit the war policy was misguided in the first place.

It is an effort to shift the guilt for the 2,400 dead.

Then we get to those who claim that the US military “never tucks tail and runs,” and “these colors don’t run,” and other such phrases.

Yeah, baby. You guys and gals get up front and fight this no-win war. We’ll support you all the way.

Finally, I must issue an apology. In the past, many of us have been critical of those we have called chickenhawks. This term refers to our nation’s leaders who see fit to lead us into various wars, but who, back in the day when they had their chance to serve in a war, found their way out of it.

Ronald Reagan helped fight World War II in the movie studio, but got us involved in a couple of minor wars. Bill Clinton avoided the draft.

The current president avoided Vietnam by joining the National Guard, but he wasn’t afraid to get us into this mess in Iraq. Most of those who advised him on this adventure were also skilled at avoiding military service.

We used to criticize them for this, but think about it: maybe it’s good that they didn’t serve.

Back in ‘Nam, if you were hunkered down in a firefight, would you have wanted Cheney with you?

If you were out in the field, guys would be afraid to go off to take a dump, not knowing where Cheney would be aiming on their way back.

I can picture a Three Stooges movie where Curly has his finger stuck on the trigger of a machine pistol.

So I apologize. If Cheney is an example, I’m glad these chickenhawks never served in the military.

IRAQ WAR REPORTS

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPREHENSIBLE REASON TO BE IN THIS EXTREMELY HIGH RISK LOCATION AT THIS TIME, EXCEPT THAT A CROOKED POLITICIAN WHO LIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE WANTS YOU THERE, SO HE WILL LOOK GOOD.
That is not a good enough reason.

A U.S. Army soldier from the 101st Airborne Division takes cover from sniper fire in Ramadi June 20, 2006. (AP Photo/Jacob Silberberg)

BAGHDAD SOLDIER KILLED BY ROADSIDE BOMB

6/27/2006 HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND NEWS RELEASE Number: 06-06-02C

BAGHDAD: A Multi National Division Baghdad Soldier died at approximately 3 a.m. today as result of injuries suffered from a bomb explosion while on a dismounted combat patrol south of Baghdad.

SOLDIER DIES IN AL ANBAR

6/27/2006 HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND NEWS RELEASE Number: 06-06-02C

A Soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division died from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province Monday.

Marine Killed in Anbar Today

June 27, 2006 Associated Press

The military said a Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died from “wounds sustained due to enemy action” Tuesday in Anbar province, an insurgent hotbed that stretches from just west of Baghdad to the Jordanian and Syrian borders.

Local Marine Killed In Combat

06/23/2006 BY CHARLES F. BOSTWICK, Staff Writer, Los Angeles Newspaper Group

LANCASTER

A 20-year-old Marine from Lancaster has been killed in Iraq, becoming the third young Antelope Valley man to die there since the 2003 invasion.

Cpl. Christopher Leon, a 2004 Lancaster High School graduate, died Tuesday from wounds suffered in combat, Marine officials said.

Leon had been serving with the 5th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, based in Okinawa, a unit that directs aircraft and artillery gunfire against enemy targets.

Leon was remembered as a quiet, dependable, helpful teen at his school and at the pet store where he worked stocking shelves during high school and after graduation until he joined the Marines.

“He was a real nice guy, with a big smile,” said Rosie Paez, Lancaster High School’s receptionist.

Leon had worked about a year and a half at the Lancaster PetSmart store, quitting when he enlisted in the Marines, who have a recruiting office next door.

“I think he said he’d always wanted to join,” said Laura Adkins, a PetSmart manager.

Adkins remembered Leon as a hard-working and dependable employee, who always helped customers carry purchases out to their cars. “He was a really good associate,” Adkins said.

Leon’s mother had come into the store two or three weeks ago and told Adkins she was looking forward to her son’s return from Iraq, Adkins said.

Leon was the third Marine from the Antelope Valley to die in Iraq, all in Al-Anbar province.

Ramadi:
“We Don’t Want Fight Our Own People”

Officers here said there were about 250 U.S. soldiers involved in the operation, and about 145 Iraqis. Lieutenant Colonel Raad Niaf Haroosh, the Iraqi battalion commander, said the 145 soldiers represented a fraction of the battalion’s usual numbers.

He said as many as 500 of his fellow soldiers – most of them Sunni Muslims from Al Jabouri tribe – stayed behind in Mosul rather than fight in Ramadi.

“They said, ‘We don’t want fight our own people,’” he said.

June 27, 2006 By Dexter Filkins, The New York Times [Excerpts]

RAMADI, Iraq

The 122 millimeter mortar shell landed with a crash in the middle of the new U.S.-Iraqi outpost, hurling foot-long shards of metal and puncturing the chest of a young American soldier.

“What’s the condition of the casualty?” Colonel Sean MacFarland asked, as a team of medics put the wounded soldier into a Humvee and raced to a field hospital.

“He stopped breathing, sir,” Captain Michael Bajema replied.

A couple of minutes passed.

“What’s his condition?” MacFarland asked.

“Still no breathing, sir,” said another officer who was manning a radio.

The soldier died. He was young, popular among his comrades, and the sixth American from the 1st Armored Division’s 1st Brigade to be killed in Ramadi since the unit arrived three weeks ago.

In the street, in the place where the soldier fell, lay a knife, a sock and a bloodstained American boot.

U.S. and Iraqi soldiers pushed deep into the heart of this contested city Monday, the latest step in their plan to regain control of Ramadi from guerrillas and to hold onto it.

The operation began late Sunday night, when about 400 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers advanced into the west side of the center of town, quickly taking over a number of houses and converting them into a small military base.

But rather than assaulting the city frontally, as the Americans did in Falluja in November 2004 – destroying it in the process – U.S. commanders have decided on a less destructive and more deliberate approach. This time, they have ringed Ramadi with thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops, and have begun to reclaim the city, not in one sudden attack, but neighborhood by neighborhood.

Instead of leaving after the shooting stops – as the Americans have been forced to do in other Iraqi cities – the Americans plan to leave behind garrisons of U.S. and Iraqi troops at various points throughout the city. For the first time, they say, they believe they have the manpower to make the strategy work. The combat outpost the Americans and Iraqis started building Monday morning was the fifth erected this month on the southern edge of the city.

Central to the strategy, U.S. commanders say, is the decision to commit significant numbers of Iraqi troops who can hold the neighborhoods after the Americans do most of the work of pacification. That, the U.S. commanders hope, will make the city safe enough for its shattered economy to renew itself and for Iraqi police officers to feel secure enough to start showing up for work.

“I’m a realist,” MacFarland said. “I know we are not going to be here long enough to realize that vision. The Iraqis will have to do that. What we can do is try impart an irreversible momentum.”

The challenges of doing that became evident as the operation unfolded Monday. U.S. soldiers – trained, disciplined, with overwhelming firepower – outnumbered their Iraqi counterparts.

Officers here said there were about 250 U.S. soldiers involved in the operation, and about 145 Iraqis.

Lieutenant Colonel Raad Niaf Haroosh, the Iraqi battalion commander, said the 145 soldiers represented a fraction of the battalion’s usual numbers.

He said as many as 500 of his fellow soldiers – most of them Sunni Muslims from Al Jabouri tribe – stayed behind in Mosul rather than fight in Ramadi.

“They said, ‘We don’t want fight our own people,’” he said.

As it was, Raad, who is a tribal sheik when out of uniform, said he received a warm reception from the Iraqis as he moved through the streets. He said he hoped the operation that started Sunday would begin to loosen the hold of insurgents on Ramadi.

“Insurgents have the bigger grip here,” he said.

As far as military operations go, the one that unfolded Monday was relatively bloodless. There was at least one Iraqi casualty, a suspected insurgent, killed by U.S. Navy Seals in the early hours of the operation. His body lay at the edge of a street, inside a black body bag.

Then there was the U.S. soldier who died on the way to the hospital. He was not easily forgotten by his comrades.

“We paid a price today,” MacFarland said.

AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS

Two UK Troops Die, One Badly Wounded

27 June 2006 BBC

Two British soldiers have been killed in fighting with Taleban forces in Afghanistan, officials have confirmed.

The troops were on night patrol in Sangin, in the volatile southern province of Helmand, when they were attacked by Taleban militia.

A rocket-propelled grenade destroyed a vehicle. Two soldiers died in the fighting and one was seriously hurt.

The UK’s Ministry of Defence said: “We believe the soldier’s injuries are not life-threatening at present.”

Captain Drew Gibson, a spokesman for the British military in southern Afghanistan, said the two UK soldiers killed in Helmand had been taking part in a “planned operation”.

“The patrol was supported by close air support and by the quick reaction force that came out to support them,” he said.

“Both those forces were then involved in separate contact incidents, and both were supported by close air support and artillery.”

The company of troops arrived in Sangin last week after about 40 members of the Afghan security forces had been killed in heavy fighting.

The BBC’s Alastair Leithead, with British troops in Afghanistan, has confirmed that the two soldiers killed had been travelling in a fortified “Snatch” Land Rover.

His understanding is that they had left the vehicle when it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.

The defence secretary said on Monday the use of the vehicles by British forces in Iraq is to be reviewed.

They have been criticised for being a “soft target”, especially for the roadside bombs which have killed a number of UK soldiers.

Our correspondent said the government headquarters in the region was on the point of being taken over by the Taleban and that local elders had made it clear that the Taleban was in control of much of the district.

The British troops were expecting an attack, he added.

U.S. Soldier Killed In Helmand Ambush

Jun 14, 2006 Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters

An American soldier died in an ambush in the southern province of Helmand on Tuesday, said Major Quentin Innes, a spokesman for international forces in southern Afghanistan.

The ambush triggered a fierce clash in which coalition forces backed by helicopters and planes attacked Taliban positions.

Foreign Occupation Soldier Killed In Kunar:
Nationality Not Announced

Jun 14, 2006 Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters

The U.S. military said a foreign soldier had been killed in the eastern province of Kunar on Tuesday but did not give his identity.

Two U.S. Soldiers Wounded In Zabul

Jun 14, 2006 Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters

Two Taliban fighters were killed in a gunbattle in the restive province of Zabul after they ambushed a U.S. convoy, wounding two American soldiers.

Assorted Resistance Action

June 27, 2006 AFP

Military commander General Rahmatullah Raufi says Taliban rebels attacked an Afghan army convoy in Zabul province yesterday, killing two soldiers.

In a separate incident, a spokesman for the US-led coalition says insurgents attacked the Afghan army in Musa Qala district of Helmand province and killed two soldiers.

The third operation was in Ghazni province when Taliban attacked an army vehicle, sparking an exchange of fire that left one Taliban dead, provincial governor Shir Alam told AFP. There were no army casualties, he said.

Another Blinding Flash Of The Obvious

23 June 2006 The Associated Press

Mustafa Alani, director of security and terrorism studies at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, said Afghanistan’s current situation was precarious.

“I would not be surprised if Afghanistan progresses to the level of Iraq’s violence. There is an anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan now. That’s where you see recruitment by militants,” he said.

TROOP NEWS

Majority Of Americans Want Plan To Get Out Of Iraq

6.27.06 USA Today, June 27

A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds that 57 percent of those surveyed want Congress to pass a resolution that offers a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

THIS IS HOW BUSH BRINGS THE TROOPS HOME:
BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW, ALIVE

The family of Sgt. Jose M. Velez during the funeral Monday, June 19, 2006 in New York. From left to right, are his son Christopher Velez, daughter Melody Velez, mother Rosa Velez, nephew Jason Velez, father Jose Velez and his fiance, Naomi De Jesus. Sgt. Velez, originally from Bronx, New York, was killed during combat operations near Kirkuk in Iraq. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

The 397th Blizzard Of Lying Bullshit About Troop Cuts In Iraq

Jun 24 2006 By Swopa, Needlenose.com

Here’s an interesting news story from the New York Times this evening:

In a classified briefing to senior Pentagon officials last month, the top American commander in the Middle East outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq by perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 troops by next spring if conditions on the ground permitted, three senior military officers and Defense Department officials said this week.

Oh, ooops … sorry, I don’t know how that happened. That story isn’t from tonight’s Times — it’s from August 2005.

Here’s the story for this Sunday’s NYT:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

A reduction of eight combat brigades would equal about 28,000 troops.

In the general’s briefing, the future American role in Iraq is divided into three phases.

The next 12 months was described as a period of stabilization. The period from the summer of 2007 through the summer of 2008 was described as a time when the emphasis would be on the restoration of the Iraqi government’s authority.

We’ll see if the plan works any better this time … or if we’ll have a repeat of the Beckettian dialogue I imagined last month:

ESTRAGON: Let’s go.
VLADIMIR: We can’t.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We’re waiting for the political and security environment to stabilize.
ESTRAGON (despairingly): Ah!

Update (6/25): The Washington Post notes that even after the insurgency had clearly started in the fall of 2003, top generals had wanted to cut the number of U.S. troops to 100,000 by the summer of 2004. So this Godot routine has been going on ever since the invasion.

MORE:

Troops Are Not Dying In Vain:
They’re Dying So The Traitor Bush Can Win The 2006 Elections

[Thanks to PB, who sent this in. He writes: AMAZING OPPORTUNISM: PLAYING POLITICS WITH TROOPS LIVES HITS A NEW LOW – THEY’RE WITHDRAWAL PLAN IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY ABOUT KEEPING THE G.O.P. IN POWER, NOT TROOPS’ LIVES OR FACTS ON THE GROUND.]

The combined strategy – reconciliation and resolution yet with the hint of a substantive withdrawal – is what Mr Bush hopes will pull his party through in November.

25 June 2006 BBC

Iraq’s new “reconciliation” is part of a strategy by the Bush team to stabilise Iraq by the November election, the BBC’s Paul Reynolds says.

The “reconciliation” plan announced on Sunday by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is part of a grand strategy by the Bush administration to stabilise Iraq – or to stabilise the perception of Iraq – in advance of the mid-term elections for Congress in November.

The Maliki plan is obviously an important part of this strategy, and for Iraqis far more important than whatever effect it might or might not have on the chances of the Republicans holding onto both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the US Congress.

The Vice-President Dick Cheney, so often the articulator of the policy in its purest form, put the administration’s position in an interview with CNN’s senior political correspondent John King.

“The worst possible thing we could do is what the Democrats are suggesting.”

Mr Cheney’s linking of the war in Iraq to Mr Bush’s wider war on terrorism is quite a powerful political message in an election year.

But in order to appeal to those Americans who do worry about the open-ended commitment to Iraq, word is emerging from US sources that the general in charge in Iraq, George Casey, has drawn up a proposal under which there would be, in the words of the New York Times, “sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September”.

The combined strategy – reconciliation and resolution yet with the hint of a substantive withdrawal – is what Mr Bush hopes will pull his party through in November.

MORE:

Iraqis Not Buying The Bullshit Either

6.27.06 Christian Science Monitor

News of a possible pullout of U.S. troops, beginning as early as this fall, is being met in Baghdad with the deep skepticism of a war-weary people who have witnessed many other American exit plans go unfulfilled.

Sailors’ Stolen Personal ID Info Posted On The Web

Jun, 24, 2006 Associated Press

WASHINGTON: The Navy has begun a criminal investigation after Social Security numbers and other personal data for 28,000 sailors and family members were found on a civilian website.

The Navy said Friday the information was in five documents and included people’s names, birth dates and Social Security numbers. Navy spokesman Lt. Justin Cole would not identify the website or its owner, but said the information had been removed. He would not provide any details about how the information ended up on the site.

As many as a half dozen federal agencies have been affected by computer data losses in recent months. [And these are the idiots in charge of “national security.]

IRAQ RESISTANCE ROUNDUP

Assorted Resistance Action

27 Jun 2006 Reuters

Three policemen were killed and three others wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol in southeastern Baghdad, a Ministry of Interior source said.

A local general inspector for the Ministry of Interior was wounded with his bodyguard on Monday when guerrillas opened fire at his car in the Shi’ite city of Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad. The driver was killed, police added.

An Iraqi army officer and two soldiers were wounded when a roadside bomb went off beside their patrol near the oil rich city of Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, army said.

An off duty soldier was killed while he was driving his car in Kirkuk, police said.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE RESISTANCE
END THE OCCUPATION

FORWARD OBSERVATIONS

“Fuck the oil man, fuck it,” he said. “It’s not worth it. I’ll even drive a Honda Insight.” Sgt. Zack Bazzi in the documentary film, The War Tapes

SPC Keith Powell Sends His View Of The War In Iraq

From: Keith Powel
To: GI Special
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006

Thanks for listening to my point of view regarding the war.

I am aware of many Americans that disagree with it. But I have a great deal of respect for those who listen to it, and consider it, even if they don’t agree.

I think bigotry is too pervasive in our country. Our country doesn’t need to agree on everything; that is an unattainable dream.

Our country needs more people who listen to all sides of issues.

I work at a gate here in one of the most volatile parts of Iraq, defending the base from the insurgency.

I worked for a while with a soldier who disagreed with my opinion on the war. But we not only got along fine, we enjoyed talking about issues. We just tried to understand what the other one was thinking, even though we didn’t agree with it.

I think we both enlightened each other not only on war issues, but other ones.

I wish our country could be more understanding in this way.

I know I am not perfect in it.

It is true that when we pray for success and safety we pray for destruction upon others. This cause here seems to be very clear-cut. We kill only the insurgents, not innocent citizens.

In fact we are very conscious of where we shoot and the possible collateral damage. We weigh that in every operation.

The good thing about what we are doing is that we are creating more peace in this country.

The insurgency elicits fear in the people, and also it kills numerous people daily, as you can see from the media. By killing the insurgency, we are giving the Iraqis more freedoms.

We are allowing them to one day have a country where their children can play in the streets safely, and also to have a country where the people choose their leaders.

We do not desire to kill, but sometimes killing is necessary to create peace and freedom.

It is well said in a favorite book of mine, “It is better that one man should die than an entire nation should dwindle in unbelief.” That is the attitude I have.

Removing these evil insurgents makes Iraq a better place.

I noticed that some of the soldiers on your websites looked down upon killing. That is fine for them to have that opinion, but what in the world were they thinking in joining the military?

I have only them to blame them for their tough predicament in the military.

People need to consider a little more what they are signing up to do when they join the military.

Sometimes they just see the benefits and money for college. Anyways, that’s all I have time for now.

Thanks for your time.

SPC Brady Powell

[In reply, SPC Powell was asked to specify the quote referred to above, re “I noticed that some of the soldiers on your websites looked down upon killing. That is fine for them to have that opinion, but what in the world were they thinking in joining the military? The next letter is in reply. T]

From: Keith Powell
To: GI Special
Sent: June 13, 2006
Subject: Re: Reply from GI Special

In response to your question about my sources about soldiers looking down upon killing, I will give you the following quote from Army reserve Specialist David Lewis, who served in Tikrit:

I’ve always been against war. I don’t think being in the military means that I am a lover of war. It just means that I believe that this country needs to be defended. When I took that oath of office, I didn’t take the oath to kill people. I took it to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic.

This quote was found in the Travelling Soldier in ‘words from the front lines.’

It’s perplexing to me why this soldier would join the military when he is against war. That is what the military is about. Anyone who feels sensitive to having to do such activities as killing others shouldn’t join. I myself am a believer of a more peaceful world, but sometimes war is necessary to advance that cause.

I also found a interesting segment in your gi-special about the situation in Ramadi.

I actually served there. It quotes from one of the shieks, who says that Americans are forcing people to move because of their violence to Iraqis. He says that the Iraqi’s can’t go anywhere without being shot unless they carry a white flag.

This seems pretty inaccurate from what I saw and witnessed. American forces have Rules of Engagement that they must strictly follow. These rules of engagement require that no action must be taken unless there is a hostile threat.

US forces do not shoot anyone that moves or goes about their normal, daily activities.

They engage those only who show hostile intent. This does not only protect our forces, but also the people of Ramadi.

The Ramadi situation is probably the most dangerous in Iraq. Most of the people there are Sunni and supporters of Saddam, so they have lost quite a bit since his fall. The best way for the people there to obtain peace they supposedly want is to turn the insurgents in to the US and Iraqi forces.

Southern Iraq is a peaceful place because the citizens renounce the insurgency and they turn the insurgents in.

Also while I was there many of the insurgents were not from Iraq, but from surrounding countries.

This shows that the insurgency is not just poor Iraqi people trying to get rid of the ‘infidels’, but much of it is inhumane terrorists who are trying to keep peace from Iraq.

Our best option in Iraq right now is to train the Iraqi Police and Army so they can assume full security responsibilities. Then our forces can withdraw.

Pulling our forces out right now would only create more violence, and allow more insurgents to move in and plan more terrorist acts.

Anyways, I guess I am telling you more than you asked about, but I think that there are a lot of things going on Iraq that the general public doesn’t know about due to the liberal agenda of the media.

There are so many good things going on in Iraq that the media neglects most of the time. They rarely show the Iraqi’s supporting the cause, which many in fact do.

Many schools, hospitals, and infrastructure have been built in Iraq due to the war. It is interesting to see that wherever the insurgency is the strongest the further building of these advancements is the weakest.

The removal of insurgents in Iraq is essential to its safety, peace, and progression.

It was an honor for me to be involved in such a cause.

I am now back in the states as of a couple of days ago. Before I left one Iraqi who I knew had tears in his eyes as he thanked me and by brothers for what we did in Iraq.

He can’t give enough praise for President Bush and enough hate for Saddam.

That’s all I have for now.
Thanks for your time.
SPC Brady Powell

What do you think? Comments from service men and women, and veterans of the war in Iraq, are invited. Send to contact@militaryproject.org. Name, I.D., withheld on request. Replies confidential.

“YOU American Leave Now And Let Us Solve Our Problems In Our Own Way”
“It Will Never Be Worse Than The Current Situation”

Don’t believe that this dictator killed people in his 35 years of control more than what was killed in 3 years of freedom and democracy under the US controls.

June 25, 2006 A Citizen Of Mosul, Moslawi.blogspot.com [Excerpt]

YOU American if you can’t control the security situation, leave now and let us solve our problems in our own way.
It will never be worse than the current situation.

Three years of occupation and despite the daily statements of the US official about the progress in the security, the condition progress from bad to worse.

Every day is worse than the previous.

Can any body imagine how the US super power together with the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police and the allied forces from so many sources are all failed to control the chaos in this country.

This country was controlled in peace and security by the power of single Dictator.

Don’t believe that this dictator killed people in his 35 years of control more than what was killed in 3 years of freedom and democracy under the US controls.

Handcuffed Together

From: Mike Hastie
To: GI Special
Sent: June 27, 2006
Subject: Handcuffed Together

I joined the military to serve my country.
I had no idea I would go to Vietnam and
serve the devil.

If the voices of the dead could speak,
they would rattle off the names of their
executioners.

Nixon-Bush

Agnew-Cheney

McNamara-Rumsfeld

Kissinger-Rice

All handcuffed together in the shape of a pyramid.

Now the engraved names on the Wall have meaning.
As they all whisper the same last word…
Justice.

Mike Hastie
Vietnam Veteran
June 27, 2006

Photo from the I-R-A-Q (I Remember Another Quagmire) portfolio of Mike Hastie, US Army Medic, Vietnam 1970-71. (For more of his outstanding work, contact at: (hastiemike@earthlink.net) T)

“We Speak As American Soldiers” “We Have Been In The Army Long Enough To Know That We Are Not The Only GIs Who Feel As We Do”
“Under No Circumstances Will We Board Ship For Vietnam”

Peace History June 26-July 2 By Carl Bunin [Excerpt]

June 30, 1966

The first GIs, known as The Fort Hood Three—a trio of U.S. Army privates, James Johnson, Dennis Mora, and David Samas — refused to be sent to Vietnam. All were members of the 2nd Armored Division stationed at Fort Hood, Texas.

The three were from working-class families, and they denounced the war as “immoral, illegal and unjust.” They were arrested, court-martialed and imprisoned. The Pentagon reported 503,926 “incidents of desertion” between 1966 and 1971.

JOINT STATEMENT BY FORT HOOD THREE

The following statement was read to over 40 cameramen, reporters, and antiwar fighters at a press conference in New York on June 30th. The statement was prepared jointly and read by Pvt. Dennis Mora.

************************************

We are Pfc. James Johnson, Pvt. David Samas, and Pvt. Dennis Mora, three soldiers formerly stationed at Fort Hood, Texas in the same company of the 142 Signal Battalion, 2nd Armored Division. We have received orders to report on the 13th of July at Oakland Army Terminal in California for final processing and shipment to Vietnam.

We have decided to take a stand against this war, which we consider immoral, illegal and unjust.

We are initiating today, through our attorneys, Stanley Faulkner of New York and Mrs. Selma Samols of Washington, D.C. an action in the courts to enjoin the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army from sending us to Vietnam.

We intend to report as ordered to the Oakland Army Terminal, but under no circumstances will we board ship for Vietnam. We are prepared to face Court Martial if necessary.

We represent in our backgrounds a cross section of the Army and of America. James Johnson is a Negro, David Samas is of Lithuanian and Italian parents, Dennis Mora is a Puerto Rican.

We speak as American soldiers. We have been in the army long enough to know that we are not the only G.l.’s who feel as we do. Large numbers of men in the service either do not understand this war or are against it.

When we entered the army Vietnam was for us only a newspaper box score of G.l.’s and Viet Cong killed or wounded. We were all against it in one way or another, but we were willing to “go along with the program,” believing that we would not be sent to Vietnam.

We were told from the very first day of our induction that we were headed for Vietnam. During basic training it was repeated often by sergeants and officers, and soon it became another meaningless threat that was used to make us take our training seriously.

But later on Vietnam became a fact of life when some one you knew wondered how he could break the news to his girl, wife, or family that he was being sent there.

After he solved that problem, he had to find a reason that would satisfy him. The reasons were many-”Somebody’s got to do it,” “When your number’s up, your number’s up … .. The pay is good,” and “You’ve got to stop them someplace” were phrases heard in the barracks and mess hall, and used by soldiers to encourage each other to accept the war as their own.

Besides, what could be done about it anyway? Orders are orders.

As we saw more and more of this, the war became the one thing we talked about most and the one point we all agreed upon. No one wanted to go and more than that, there was no reason for anyone to go.

The Viet Cong obviously had the moral and physical support of most of the peasantry who were fighting for their independence. We were told that you couldn’t tell them apart-that they looked like any other skinny peasant.

Our man or our men in Saigon has and have always been brutal dictators, since Diem first violated the 1954 Geneva promise of free elections in 1956.

The Buddhist and military revolt in all the major cities proves that the people of the cities also want an end to Ky and U.S. support for him.

The Saigon Army has become the advisor to American G.l.’s who have to take over the fighting.

No one used the word “winning” anymore because in Vietnam it has no meaning.

Our officers just talk about five and ten more years of war with at least ? million of our boys thrown into the grinder. We have been told that many times we may face a Vietnamese woman or child and that we will have to kill them. We will never go there-to do that for Ky.

We know that Negroes and Puerto Ricans are being drafted and end up in the worst of the fighting all out of proportion to their numbers in the population; and we have first hand knowledge that these are the ones who have been deprived of decent education and jobs at home.

The three of us, while stationed together, talked a lot and found we thought alike on one over-riding issue-the war in Vietnam must be stopped. It was all talk and we had no intentions of getting into trouble by making waves at that stage.

Once back in Texas we were told that we were on levy to Vietnam. All we had discussed and thought about now was real. It was time for us to quit talking and decide. Go to Vietnam and ignore the truth or stand and fight for what we know is right.

We have made our decision. We will not be a part of this unjust, immoral, and illegal war. We want no part of a war of extermination. We oppose the criminal waste of American lives and resources. We refuse to go to Vietnam!!

Do you have a friend or relative in the service? Forward this E-MAIL along, or send us the address if you wish and we’ll send it regularly. Whether in Iraq or stuck on a base in the USA, this is extra important for your service friend, too often cut off from access to encouraging news of growing resistance to the war, at home and inside the armed services. Send requests to address up top.

Atrocities:
“This Is What Occupation Is;
This Is What Occupation Does”

June 26, 2006 Gary Younge, The Guardian [Excerpt]

To treat even these few incidents as isolated chapters is to miss the broader, enduring narrative. For these are not the unfathomable offshoots of this war but the entirely foreseeable corollaries of it.

This is what occupation is; this is what occupation does.

There is nothing specifically American about it. Any nation that occupies another by force will meet resistance.

For that resistance to be effective, it must have deep roots in local communities where opposition to the occupation is widespread.

Unable to distinguish between insurgent and civilian, occupiers will regard all civilians as potential insurgents and all territory as enemy territory. “Saying who’s a civilian or a ‘muj’ in Iraq, you really can’t,” one marine under investigation told the New York Times recently. “This town did not want us there at all.”

Under these circumstances, dead women, children and disabled people are the price you pay for being invaded.

OCCUPATION REPORT

Welcome To Liberated Iraq:
50,000 Dead Only A Partial Count

Proportionately, it is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide in the last three years.

25 June 2006 By Louise Roug and Doug Smith, Baghdad

At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies, a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.

The toll, which is mostly of civilians but probably also includes some security forces and insurgents, is daunting:

Proportionately, it is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide in the last three years.

In the same period, at least 2,520 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.

Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks.

The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount.

In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad.

In the three years since Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled, the Bush administration has rarely offered civilian death tolls.

Last year, President Bush said he believed that “30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis.”

Big Oil Says Thanks But No Thanks:
Iraq Too Dangerous For Us

Jun 27, 2006 By STEVE QUINN AP Business Writer, (AP)

Iraq’s instability has kept foreign oil companies from investing in reconstruction, compounding what officials see as a litany of woes confronting the country’s once-dominant oil sector from corruption to poorly maintained fields.

Only when Iraq’s newly formed government guarantees a safer environment will the billions of dollars needed begin to flow, analysts and officials say.

“It’s too soon to make a judgment on how close we are. … I suspect we could be a few years away,” Shell Oil Co. President John Hofmeister recently told The Associated Press.

From April 2003 to October 2005, there were more than 280 attacks on Iraq’s energy infrastructure, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Jim Placke, senior associate for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said more progress is essential.

“Until that situation becomes much-improved from where it is today, you won’t see any activity,” he said.

U.S. OCCUPATION RECRUITING DRIVE IN HIGH GEAR;
RECRUITING FOR THE ARMED RESISTANCE THAT IS

Foreign fighters from the U.S. armed forces occupying an Iraqi citizens home in Ramadi, June 19, 2006. (AP Photo/Jacob Silberberg)

There’s nothing quite like invading somebody else’s country and busting into their houses by force to arouse an intense desire to kill you in the patriotic, self-respecting civilians who live there.

But your commanders know that, don’t they? Don’t they?

“In the States, if police burst into your house, kicking down doors and swearing at you, you would call your lawyer and file a lawsuit,” said Wood, 42, from Iowa, who did not accompany Halladay’s Charlie Company, from his battalion, on Thursday’s raid. “Here, there are no lawyers. Their resources are limited, so they plant IEDs (improvised explosive devices) instead.”

OCCUPATION ISN’T LIBERATION
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

DANGER: POLITICIANS AT WORK

[Thanks to PB, who sent this in.]

Bush Regime Caught Spying On More Americans;
Informers Used & Emails Intercepted

26 June 2006 By Michael Rogers, PageOne.com [Excerpts]

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Department of Defense has released documents that show wider surveillance of student organizations than previously reported, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has reported.

The new FOIA request yielded information about an undercover investigation by the Pentagon on activities into student groups protesting the war at State University of New York at Albany (SUNY Albany), William Paterson University in New Jersey, Southern Connecticut State University and the University of California at Berkeley, reports SLDN.

The documents released by the Pentagon on the SUNY Albany protests gave a description of planned activities. “Source received an email from (redacted by DoD) stating a protest was planned against military recruiters at SUNY Albany on 21 April 05. The text of the email is as follows:,” said a report filed with the Department of Defense.

The documents released today indicate that e-mails sent by various student groups were intercepted and monitored by the government and that the government collected reports from seemingly undercover agents who attended at least one student protest at Southern Connecticut State University.

None of the reports in the documentation, however, indicated any terrorist activity by the students who were monitored.

In another released document under the Department’s TALON monitoring program is a paraphrasing of an email regarding a planned protest, also at SUNY Albany:

Also included in the report was monitoring of activities at William Patterson College of New Jersey. The report indicated that a protest would take place at the school on April 1, 2005:

“Federal government agencies have no business peeping through the keyholes of Americans who choose to exercise their first amendment rights,” said Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director C. Dixon Osburn, in the SLDN Statement.

“Americans are guaranteed a fundamental right to free speech and free expression, and our country’s leaders should never be allowed to undermine those freedoms. Surveillance of private citizens must stop,” he added.

The Documents included monitoring of emails from other schools as well.

CLASS WAR REPORTS

Fuck The Working Poor:
Congress And The Corporations Need More Money

[Thanks to Katherine G.Y., The Military Project, who sent this in.]

June 20, 2006 Jared Bernstein, Tompaine.com [Excerpts]

Remember, unlike most other government programs, the wage floor is not adjusted for inflation. Since the last increase in 1997 alone, inflation has eroded 25 percent of the minimum wage’s value.

During the 1950s and the 1960s, the minimum wage was typically about half the average wage of workers in nonsupervisory positions. Today, the minimum wage has fallen to 31 percent of the average wage earned by other workers—its lowest share since economists began tracking it in 1947.

So what about the usual pushback against the increase: that it will hurt low-wage workers, whose employers would have to fire them when the wage mandate priced them out of the labor market?

Not to be snarky, but this concern doesn’t seem to come up when Congress mandates their own pay hikes; since the last minimum wage increase in 1997, to $5.15, they’ve raise their pay by about $32,000. Just last week, the House gave itself a $3,300 raise.

That “disemployment” argument would be plausible, were it not for the fact that tons of careful research has disproved it.

The federal minimum wage has been raised 19 times by Congress since its introduction in 1938. Twenty-one states, covering about half of the national workforce, have minimum wages above that of the Federal level.

In other words, more than any economic policy, we’ve had hundreds of “pseudo-experiments”—rare in economics—that allow us to test the impact of wage mandates on various outcomes. These experiments allow us to compare before and after, or, even better, compare nearby places that face similar economic conditions but have different minimum wage laws.

So what have these studies found? Here’s the way economics Nobelist Robert Solow summarized the findings:

The main thing about this research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small.

I know the opposition forces have their own studies and arguments and even Nobel Laureates.

But the point is that any policymaker not in the pocket of those moneyed interests opposed to an increase could absolutely support it with confidence that the policy would have its intended purpose of providing a small boost to the living standards of the least advantaged workers among us.

So what gives?

Well, they’ve been busy passing $70 billion worth of new tax cuts, mostly by extending earlier Bush cuts on dividends and capital gains.

These cuts reduce millionaire’s tax payments by $43,000, middle-income payment by $20, and low-income payments by $0. Oh, and they got awfully close to repealing the estate tax, a gift to the Paris Hiltons of the world that would have cost $1 trillion over 10 years.

OCCUPATION ISN’T LIBERATION
BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

NEED SOME TRUTH? CHECK OUT TRAVELING SOLDIER

Telling the truth – about the occupation or the criminals running the government in Washington – is the first reason for Traveling Soldier. But we want to do more than tell the truth; we want to report on the resistance – whether it’s in the streets of Baghdad, New York, or inside the armed forces. Our goal is for Traveling Soldier to become the thread that ties working-class people inside the armed services together. We want this newsletter to be a weapon to help you organize resistance within the armed forces. If you like what you’ve read, we hope that you’ll join with us in building a network of active duty organizers.  www.traveling-soldier.org/  And join with Iraq War vets in the call to end the occupation and bring our troops home now! www.ivaw.net

All GI Special issues achieved at website
www.militaryproject.org/
The following have also posted issues; there may be others:

gi-special.iraq-news.de
www.notinourname.net/gi-special/
www.williambowles.info/gispecial
www.traprockpeace.org/gi_special/
www.albasrah.net/maqalat/english/gi-special.htm
www.uruknet.info/

GI Special distributes and posts to our website copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law since it is being distributed without charge or profit for educational purposes to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational purposes, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.  GI Special has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor is GI Special endorsed or sponsored by the originators. This attributed work is provided a non-profit basis to facilitate understanding, research, education, and the advancement of human rights and social justice Go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml for more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 

If printed out, this newsletter is your personal property and cannot legally be confiscated from you. “Possession of unauthorized material may not be prohibited.” DoD Directive 1325.6 Section 3.5.1.2