 |
|
Add to My Group
|
May 29, 2006 at 23:00:00
by Robert Parry Page 1 of 5 page(s) |
|
|
George W. Bush will offer some bromides about how the punishment shows that the United States honors the rule of law and how the punishment is further proof of America’s civilized behavior when compared with the enemy’s barbarity. It’s also likely the U.S. news media won’t place too much blame on Bush.
But the common thread from the bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003 through Abu Ghraib to Haditha is that Bush cavalierly sent young Americans into a complex and frightening conflict with false and alarmist rhetoric ringing in their ears.
Through clever juxtaposition, Bush’s speeches linked Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and later blurred the distinctions between Iraq’s home-grown insurgency and the relatively small number of al-Qaeda terrorists operating in Iraq.
Again and again, in 2002-2003, Bush rhetorically fused the names Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden, as Bush rushed the United States into war. Then, in fall 2005 – around the time of the alleged Haditha atrocity on Nov. 19, 2005 – Bush was framing the Iraq conflict as a war to stop terrorists from creating “a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia,” which would threaten the American mainland.
Though these claims lacked credible intelligence – Hussein and bin-Laden were bitter enemies and al-Qaeda remains a fringe player in the Muslim world – Bush’s messages apparently sank in with impressionable young soldiers and Marines trying to understand why they needed to kill Iraqis. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Latest Iraq War Lies.”]
As a result of Bush’s incessant propaganda, a poll of 944 U.S. military personnel in Iraq – taken in January and February 2006 – found that 85 percent believed the U.S. mission in Iraq was mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks.” Seventy-seven percent said a chief war goal was “to stop Saddam from protecting al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
Bush had not only misled the American public, but he had confused the American troops assigned to carry out the complicated occupation of Iraq, a nation with a history, language and culture foreign to the vast majority of U.S. soldiers. By exaggerating the threat that Iraq posed to the United States, Bush also set the conditions for atrocities.
Milosevic Precedent
While every soldier is responsible for his or her own actions in a war, it is the duty of the top levels of the chain of command – including the Commander in Chief – to take every possible precaution to ensure that troops on the ground do not commit war crimes.
Indeed, commanders and politicians who lay the groundwork for abuses often are held responsible along with the actual perpetrators. The late Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial at the Hague not for direct participation in the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the 1990s, but for aiding and abetting the crimes.
Milosevic’s violent rhetoric and deceptive propaganda were two factors cited in his indictment. One count alleged that the fiery Serb leader “controlled, manipulated or otherwise utilized Serbian state-run media to spread exaggerated and false messages of ethnically based attacks by Bosnian Muslims and Croats against Serb people intended to create an atmosphere of fear and hatred among Serbs.”
In Bush’s Iraq case, his legal responsibility is parallel though the facts are far from identical. The Yugoslavian conflict was essentially a sectarian civil war which involved ethnic cleansing and massacres.
Bush’s Iraq invasion violated international law and longstanding principles, including the Nuremberg ban on aggressive war and a similar prohibition in the United Nations Charter to which the United States was a founding signatory.
In 2002, however, claiming a unilateral American right to invade any country that may pose a threat to U.S. security in the future, Bush took the law into his own hands. He brushed aside requests from allies, even from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to get clearance from the U.N. Security Council before launching the invasion.
Bush and his neoconservative advisers judged that U.S. military preeminence in the post-Cold War world put them beyond the reach of international law – and that public acclaim for a successful conquest of Iraq would silence any remaining critics.
http://www.consortiumnews.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
As Bush sowed in Iraq...
As Bush sowed in Iraq, so he shall reap... by larryinaz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at 3:45:31 PM  (0+)
|
|
wow another GWB attack piece
Funny how you fail to mention the tens of thousands of French civilians killed by carpet bombing raids staged by US and British air forces during WWII in the advance to Germany Shall we seek condemnation for FDR and Churchill and Eisenhauer, etc.? Or how about Clinton, since he's still alive? He ordered bombing of Serbia based on "lies" about how many croatians died due to "genocidal" attacks? Those civilians were by your logic killed contrary to international law. /Remember Saddam supported terrorists, that is indisputable. They just happened to not be the same ones as behind 9/11. by Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at 5:53:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Looking for a Marine Lt Calley [sic]
As it stands now only enlisted soldiers have been tried, convicted & jailed for carrying out the premptive war policies of W, his handlers & sychophants & committing war crimes & crimes against humanity in Iraq. I wonder who the company grade Marine officer is & how that officer will be or was selected to be the patsy for W & the scapegoat for the sins of W, et al. The courts martial of that officer will be as much of a kangaroo court & farce as Lt Calley's trial was. I wonder if the designated patsy & scapegoat will do the time in Portsmouth Naval Prison or in Kansas. As that noted commentator Lawrence Berra [sic] said, "de ja vue all over again" re Viet Nam vs Iraq. by larry278 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 9:32:36 AM (0+)
|
|
Will we see more atrocity trials
The issue of atrocity trials is very complex and textured as this article and the previous three responses show. I would like to adress the matter of honor and how it relates to the Iraqi invasion. I will consider the mainstream opinion, the dissident opinion and the question the military opinion. MAINSTREAM Opinion- The second contributor takes what I would consider the low road approach and seems to state that atrocity is an inevitable outcome of war, so why get after Bush. From teaching and from decades of talking with Americans about politics, I would say that this individual's viewpoint is probably the dominant view in America today: war inevitably results in atrocities and the Arabs attacked us first so they deserve whatever the USMC does to them. DISSIDENT Opinion- I find it beyond my powers of expression to write the contempt that I feel for this position. Many opposed to war realize as the second contributor did that atrocities are an inevitable consequence of war and are unwilling for that very reason, to accept war except under the most dire circumstances. Although we are willing to fight for national survival, we are unwilling prosecution of war as national expediency. In my judgement that is the problem with the Iraq War. Questioning the military= The military may believe that they are defending us with their invasion of Iraq, but unless they are able to provide some evidence of the Arabs' logistical capacity to strike the US or its allies, I will continue to reject the claim that there is any national security or defense rationale for this war. If the Arabs can't attack us, we have no justification to attack them. Despite Bush and Cheney's repeated assertions to the contrary our intelligence never gave indication that any Arab government had or was gaining capacity to attack America or Europe or even our Gulf area allies. The typical soldierly response, "if I weren't fighting in this war to defend America, why would I do it," just isn't good enough anymore. Besides the unsatisfactory response of answering a question with a question, the gravity of killing other people is just too serious to be justified by hypothetical threats. THIS IS A MATTER OF HONOR. If there are any soldiers or Marines reading this, I would like to know whether you have any sense of the destructiveness of what you are doing. Please feel free to respond to me personally. My e-mail adress is listed at the end, and I will provide the caveat that if you are overseas, Alberto Gonzales will be very interested in how you respond to me. The article above hints at how difficult it may be for some of you, in the sense that the gross disparity of capability between the USMC and the insurgents somehow chips some of the honor off you victories. My question: how can you go to the far side of the world, fight people in THEIR OWN STREETS and retain any claim on honor? Robert Chapman Pach12@twcny.rr.com by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Saturday, Jun 3, 2006 at 7:57:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Wow Robert Chapman like others does not get it.
At the time those ten of thousands of deaths were NOT considered atrocities of war. When Clinton bombed Eastern Europe , we did not have UN calls for atrocity trials. Yet when something happens under a guy they abhor, the cries ring out. This shows what you and others really are and the values you support. As for Contempt and Honor, I seriously doubt you understand what those words mean. And I suspect I personally know hundreds of US military officers who agree with me. by Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 28, 2006 at 5:09:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Wow Robert Chapman like others does not get it.
At the time those ten of thousands of deaths were NOT considered atrocities of war. When Clinton bombed Eastern Europe , we did not have UN calls for atrocity trials. Yet when something happens under a guy they abhor, the cries ring out. This shows what you and others really are and the values you support. As for Contempt and Honor, I seriously doubt you understand what those words mean. And I suspect I personally know hundreds of US military officers who agree with me. by Vulture (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 28, 2006 at 5:17:59 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
