Growing Crisis In Basra	pg. 2-3		Murder at 160K	pg. 27
CBS Reports Truth By Mistake	pg. 4-6		"Simon-Says" Reporting	pg. 28
U.S. Strikes Iran	pg. 7-9		"Their Liberation is in the Hands of God"	pg. 29-30
Collateral Damage	pg. 10-12		POW Coverage Shows Bias In Favor of Beauty	pg. 31
War Crimes	pg. 13		U.S. Directly and Indirectly Targets Civilians	pg. 32-34
EMP Weapons	pg. 14		The Shu'ale Market Bombing: Case Closed	pg. 35
Food and Politics at Safwan	pg. 15		Checkpoint Shooting Galleries	pg. 36-37
"Even in Civilian Areas They Will Be Hit"	pg. 16-17		A Besieged Basra	pg. 38-41
Flint-locks and Sedans	pg. 18		Kurdish Victims of Liberation	pg. 42-43
Signs of an Expanding War	pg. 19-20		Dissent in the Ranks	pg. 44-45
Killing and Burying the Innocent	pg. 21		Cluster Bombs in Iraq	pg. 46-47
Iraqi Artillery Targets...Whom?	pg. 22-23		Pentagon's Version of "Stop the Press"	pg. 48-50
CNN Subtly Alters POW Coverage	pg. 24		Welcome to the Liberation	pg. 51-55
Seven Stray Missiles, Two Unhappy Allies	pg. 25-26

 

          There is a storm brewing in southern Iraq, much worse than the sand storms currently harassing U.S. and British troops trying to advance on Baghdad.  The civilian population in Basra, over one million Iraqis, is without water, adequate food, or adequate medical care.  The UN and NGO relief agencies are warning a large-scale humanitarian crisis is brewing.  The results and reasons need to be addressed, for some aspects of both are going unreported, although these facts were initially reported before succumbing to the propaganda machine.
           Iraqis in Basra began an "uprising" on March 25.  The first reports, from British Royal Marines operating in and around Basra, claimed the residents were not only directing their rebellion at the Iraqi military units in the city, but at the allied forces as well.  This was first mentioned on CNN news March 25, then soon reported on CBS that same day.  But only once.
           Since those initial reports, neither CNN nor CBS repeated the reports.  The updates have all mentioned only that the Basra citizens are rebelling against the Iraqi military forces.  Presto, the alarming notion that Iraqis might not want us occupying their country vanishes, leaving only the convenient pro-American "uprising" in its place.  These guys are spinning like Olympic ice-skaters.
          During Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's daily briefing to the media on March 25, he was questioned about reports from military personnel in Basra and journalists in that city, claiming the "uprising" targeted not only Iraqi units but allied units as well.  Rumsfeld dismissed the idea it was even possible for Iraqis to harbor ill feelings for U.S. and British forces.  The Iraqis were "oppressed," he said repeatedly, and we are "liberating" them, so they would not fire on allied forces, it could never happen.
          There are a number of obvious reasons the Iraqis in Basra might be opposed to the presence of U.S. and British soldiers, but let's focus on the immediate reasons here.  As mentioned earlier, a humanitarian crisis is looming in Basra.  Interviews with U.S. troops in the city and statements by Ari Fletcher and Donald Rumsfeld blame the major problem, lack of water, on the Hussein regime.  The now-accepted version of events is that the Iraqi government ordered water to Basra be shut off.  Rumsfeld in particular pointed to this as further evidence of Saddam Hussein's lack of care for Iraqi citizens.
          Unfortunately, there is a bit of evidence that undercuts this theory.  According to reports on March 22 on both CNN and CBS, U.S. bombings in and around Basra destroyed the water treatment and electrical facilities in the city.  These reports noted at the time that lack of water and electricity might soon create a serious problem for the Iraqis living in Basra.  The U.S. commanders on the scene approved these reports, as CBS constantly reminds viewers.
          Incidentally, CBS's embedded reporter in Basra is John Roberts, the same reporter who broke the (now silenced) story on March 21 confirming the previous use of napalm by U.S. forces on the road to Basra, right as the southern oil fields in Iraq caught fire (this story also showed up in the Herald).  It was also Roberts who filed the report about U.S. destruction of Basra's water treatment facilities and electricity.  He also reported on March 25 that no relief agencies were massing supplies at the Iraqi border because none could get through, pointing to the large contingent of U.S. soldiers guarding access across the border, and continuing that it would not be "days, but weeks" before any relief assistance would be allowed in.
          Not that such reporting is setting the standard at CBS, since these flashes of truth are quickly silenced (sometimes by the end of the day, as with the "uprising" reports).  However, such moments of honesty are important, especially since independent reporting from Iraq started out slim, and is likely to decline now that U.S. and British troops have fired on and killed some of the best non-embedded reporters.  Access to facts in this war are already in short supply, so we must keep our eyes and ears peeled for tid-bits like those popping up on CBS and CNN.
          The real facts on Basra are that the U.S. military destroyed the water and electrical services, creating a humanitarian crisis with little relief in sight, then lied and let the media help cover it up.  Then, with fighting continuing between allied troops and Iraqis loyal to Hussein's regime, the citizens began an "uprising" against both sets of forces, facts again twisted by the U.S. military and media.  While it might seem that the U.S. will have a hard time covering up facts about fighting with Basra citizens, it will actually be easy.

           An important piece of information showed up on CBS during its ongoing coverage of the war in Iraq.  John Roberts, the "embedded" reporter traveling with the 3rd Calvary Division, reported by videophone on Friday, March 21, that during the fighting near Basra, artillery fire was heavy, and the U.S. military used napalm to stifle some Iraqi resistance.
           This is important because of the Basra oil fields.  Keep in mind that retreating Iraqis reportedly set some of the oil wells alight.  However, if history offers any instruction, it is that we should be skeptical of U.S. claims of Iraqi sabotage.
           During the first Gulf War, the U.S. accused Iraq of igniting hundreds of oil fires.  However, a review of media reports, Pentagon statements, and eyewitness accounts inform us that another cause for the fires was likely.
          The U.S. air assault on Iraq began on January 17,1991.  By January 22, according to a Nuclear Defense Agency report, Iran was experiencing oily black rain on a regular basis, or exactly one month before President Bush accused Iraq of setting oil wells afire.  This black rain in Iran started five days after the first U.S. bombings in Basra.
          By the end of the first day of U.S. bombing, smoke from burning oil wells could be seen all over Iraq, as the U.S. targeted refineries and oil storage facilities for attack.  The assistant director of the Basra refinery told the Harvard International Study Team, during interviews in August-September of 1991, that U.S. bombs had ignited the oil fields.
          Rear Admiral Mike Cornell is quoted in the February 13, 1991, San Jose Mercury News as saying, "…there's the possibility that some of our strikes may have had some collateral damage to start a fire."  The Department of Energy issued a memorandum, leaked by the Livermore National Laboratory, ordering DOE facilities and contractors to "…discontinue any further discussion of war-related research and issues…the impacts of fires/oil spills in the Middle East…", an official mentioning of oil fires (and official orders not to talk about them) which occurred on January 25, eight days after the air war began.
          Scientific American reported in its May 1991 issue that images from the Landsat-5 and NOAA-11 satellites confirmed allied bombing of Iraqi oil refineries and storage facilities.  These photos revealed plumes of smoke hundreds of kilometers long all over Iraq.  On March 25, 1992, oil consultant and author O.J. Vialls (who had continuing contacts with firefighting teams working in Kuwait) wrote that "in a minimum of 66 known cases" U.S. bombs had blown the wellheads from oil wells in Kuwait and ignited them.  This is further confirmed by U.S. firefighters quoted in Life magazine's June 1991 issue, when these firefighters reported finding unexploded U.S. bombs "everywhere", "We've seen hundreds," etc.
          Finally, most relevant to the events in Basra reported on CBS, on February 16, 1991, U.S. Marine Harrier aircraft were filmed as crewmembers loaded napalm pods onto the wings of AV88s.  The pilots, asked by media journalists, confirmed they were using napalm during bombing missions.  Napalm, producing a 5,500-degree fire, is capable of white-heating small bore oil pipes coming from wellheads, rupturing the metal due to pressure from the ignited oil.  Simply blowing up the wellheads, as the Iraqis were accused of doing, wouldn't likely set the wells on fire, since it does not create the intense heat needed.  In fact, blowing wellheads is actually a method used to put out oil well fires.
          The evidence, therefore, all seems to point to U.S. guilt in igniting the oil fires in the first Gulf War.  Since then, however, the U.S. government and media have reported Iraqi blowing of oil wells as a historical fact.  Now, we have once again the claim of Iraqi sabotage of oil wells, also reported as fact by the U.S. government and media.  The media were, interestingly, careful when first reporting the new fires to state that no U.S. bombing had occurred in the Basra region prior to the fires.

          On March 21, Tehran reported that three U.S. missiles hit sites in Iran.  One of the sites, a government building, was roughly 39 miles inside Iran.  There are a few explanations for this, none of which is positive.
           So far, the U.S. says it doesn't know if it has any reason to apologize.  The Bush administration made no statements even suggesting regret if the story turns out to be true.  This might suggest that the missile strikes, if true, were not accidents.
          Since one of the missiles struck an Iranian government building, Iran might be feeling a bit uneasy about the cold response from the U.S. government.  Nothing has been reported yet regarding what the other two missiles might have hit, so it is still hard to assess.  Keep in mind, however, that only a week earlier, it was learned that Iran's nuclear program is much more advanced than anyone thought.
           The missiles used by the U.S. are "smart" weapons, supposedly "pin-point" accurate.  Are the odds very high that three of these weapons could miss there targets so badly, one by at least 39 miles (if the intended Iraqi target was right beside the Iran-Iraq border), and all accidentally hitting the same country?  Moreover, all three struck on the same day.
           Let's try to imagine how it looks to Iran.  Suppose Cuba referred to the U.S. and Mexico as part of an "Axis of Evil", and then invaded Mexico.  Imagine if Cuba had high-tech missiles guided by global positioning systems and lasers, allowing "surgical strikes" against only military targets.
          Assuming for a moment that the U.S. would allow any such absurd scenario, or that Cuba could accomplish something like this, how might the U.S. respond if three Cuban "smart" bombs hit the U.S., one destroying a federal building in Texas?  Even worse, what if Castro went on television and proclaimed he wasn't sure if Cuba had any reason to apologize?
           Of course, it is easy to imagine the U.S. reaction to such an event.  The real point is, does it sound the least bit feasible that three missiles guided by satellites could all veer so badly off course that they could sail into the wrong nation and blow up government buildings by accident, all without the U.S. military being aware?
          It has been several days, and the U.S. says it is still unable to verify the story.  This is, quite obviously, a lie.  If the U.S. possessed any evidence the story were untrue, this evidence would have immediately come out.  There should, by the way, be no doubt as to whether any evidence exists.  GPS technology allows the military to determine where these missiles fall, the trajectory of the weapons is tracked all the way to the target, and many nosecones contain cameras.
          There is no doubt evidence, but it likely shows that Iran is telling the truth.  The question could be asked, why would Iran make the claim if it were false, since the truth is easily ascertainable?
If the missile strike was intentional, why would the U.S. do it?  There are several answers to this question.
          First, it may have been a slap at Iran, to provoke a response.  Or perhaps it was a "surgical strike" against government targets for any one of many possible reasons (linked to the nuclear issue, spying, supplying Iraq with intelligence, etc.).  Maybe it was a warning, in case Iran was considering action to help Iraq (there are some Iranian volunteers fighting alongside Iraqi soldiers).  Iran might have even been considering following Turkey's lead, planning to cross the border and seize territory from Kurds.
          There are a number of potential reasons the U.S. might choose to strike Iran.  Indeed, there is a strong possibility that, once Iraq is out of the way, Iran will be the next nation invaded by U.S. forces (as a guess, let's say sometime in 2004, before the fall elections).  Whatever reasons we could come up with, no doubt the Bush administration is way ahead of us in compiling a list.

           During a March 22 CNN interview with an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel flying bombing missions in Iraq, the reporter asked the pilot if he saw the enemy troops he bombed.  He replied that he did not see the people he killed.  This example provides us an opportunity to address the manner in which military personnel are trained, and the ways in which they kill.
           The airstrikes on Baghdad are carried out with missiles launched from Naval vessels hundreds of miles away, and bombs dropped by pilots flying high above their targets.  The "enemy" is a building, a target, not a human being.  Except for the first night in which only about three-dozen missiles were launched, the U.S. military has dropped roughly one thousand bombs and missiles on Baghdad every day.  Read "on Baghdad" as "on people in Baghdad."
          Granted, some of the strikes have been against "military and leadership targets," the "organizations charged with internal security," or "command and control targets," terms which almost imply people are being blown up with the buildings, but still refer to dehumanized, faceless entities.  In most cases, the only name ever mentioned is "Saddam Hussein," which may as well read "Adolf Hitler" or "Charles Manson," now that he has been properly relegated to the role of evil-incarnate.
           Pilots are different from ground troops, in terms of their perception of their enemy.  When pilots bomb actual troop placements, even when these soldiers are relatively visible from above, the pilot sees them usually from a considerable distance and at a few hundred miles per hour. They are a blur, and bombs are dropped so fast, the pilots and their aircraft are far off once the human beings below are blown to bits.
           Moreover, there is a detachment from the act beyond simply physical proximity.  When speaking of pilots blowing up people, it is typically described vaguely as "bombing," not "people dropping bombs on other people."  "Missiles rained down," or "bombs fell on Iraq," as if some bizarre weather anomaly occurred.  It is a "bombing campaign" in which "bombs hit their targets," the targets being "military sites" or "Iraqi leadership."
          For sure, sometimes it may be expedient to use terms like "bombing" to avoid the literary acrobatics or wordiness required to always note the human element whenever discussing air attacks.  It isn't these infrequent uses, but the constant and systematic evocation of these phrases, that is dangerous and offensive.
          Conversely, ground warfare is not usually described as a "shooting campaign" in which "bullets hit their targets."  That is because soldiers hold guns in their hands, point them at a person they have to see, and watch that person fall over dead.  There is no point in trying too hard to detach them from their acts.  Besides, unlike "bombing campaigns", mass civilian casualties are not an inherent fact of ground fighting (although it still occurs, just not as an implicit factor of the fighting).
          Instead, these troops are subjected to a more intense indoctrination than pilots, "brain-washing" as we call it when other nations do the same thing.  The enemy must be severely dehumanized, while the ideals of "fighting for freedom" and "to defend your country" are held up as the noblest pursuits.  Where pilots are afforded the luxury of detachment, soldiers must be trained to look at people, kill them, and not mind too much.
           These differences cannot be mentioned, of course, for several problems arise if they are looked at too closely.  For example, when speaking about civilian casualties caused by U.S. bombing, it is correct (within mainstream media and other "polite company") to note that civilian deaths are regrettable, but must be expected and accepted during war.  It is interesting that such common sentiments are usually directed towards civilian deaths attributable to "bombings."
          Imagine this same standard being applied to ground warfare:  U.S. soldiers, in order to shoot enemy soldiers hiding in a building full of civilians, simply shoot everyone in the building.  Indeed, this happens.  Read pretty much any news report about Israeli military action, and it is bound to include a note about soldiers firing at children for throwing rocks (or some such dastardly Palestinian provocation necessitating a civilian massacre).  Of course, the Israeli example is not the norm, since Israel is allowed much more latitude than other nations when it comes to state terrorism and war crimes.

          The news coverage of the war in Iraq has broadcast images of Iraqi soldiers surrendering.  One scene, shown repeatedly by CBS news on March 22, treated viewers to a picture of hundreds of Iraqi soldiers sitting on the desert sand while U.S. soldiers stand guard close by.  A single Iraqi stands and, with visible humility, appears to request permission to clean his face and hands in a small pool of water on the ground.  He finishes quickly, stealing nervous glances at the American troops watching him with rifles in-hand, then returns to his place among the other Iraqi prisoners.
           This is only one of several scenes of Iraqis either surrendering or as prisoners of U.S. troops.  These images are broadcast on U.S. television for all to see, with the typical journalistic voice-overs milking the prisoners for all the propaganda they're worth.
           Interestingly, we are told, quite correctly, by President Bush and others in his administration what we should think of this process of "parading" troops in front of television cameras.  It is a violation of the Geneva Convention, a war crime.  Of course, this description was actually used in reference to Iraqi televison broadcasting images of U.S. POWs on March 23, but it is nonetheless an adequate guide for viewers of U.S. news programs as well.
           Were it not for the long history of such ridiculous hypocrisy, one might be dumbfounded that CNN can refer to the Geneva Convention's restrictions on filming POWs, while keeping a straight face.  This was a running commentary for much of the day that the story of U.S. prisoners first broke, with CNN even turning to "expert analysts" for their interpretation of the events.  As expected, the talking heads informed the journalists that, yes, Iraq was indeed violating the rules of warfare.  On CBS, the March 23 edition of 60 minutes chimed in, showing the footage of U.S. POWs, announcing it as "a war crime," mere minutes before replaying all the CBS footage of Iraqi POWS.
           It is somewhat surprising to hear the envocation of war crimes and the Geneva Convention, since the introduction of these topics could work against the Pentagon and the media, in the event someone actually points out these same war crimes are being committed by CNN, CBS, and the U.S. military, not to mention the illegal nature of the war in the first place.  Then there are all those prisoners from Afghanistan "paraded" across American television screens, culminating in an entire 60 Minutes episode.  Apparently, the media and government are confident the acceptable norms of society will be upheld, and nobody will be impolite enough to notice such inconvenient facts.
           Without doubt, the use of prisoners for propaganda is tasteless, definitely a violation of the Geneva Convention.  However, it must be remembered that the Convention did not just refer to behavior of states hostile to the U.S.  Despite its military and economic power, the U.S. is, in fact, also bound by these same rules, at least in theory.
          Then again, to be "bound" by them suggests some measure of both responsible behavior by the nation in question, and a determination by other states to hold all nations accountable, even the powerful ones.  So perhaps it is incorrect to say the U.S. is "bound" by the Geneva Convention, after all.

           During all the talk about the bombing campaign in Iraq, a little-noticed admission came out of the Pentagon.  The first official confirmation of the existence of E-bombs occurred shortly after the air war against Iraq began.  The term "E-bombs" refers to weapons that emit an electromagnetic pulse to disable the electrical systems of a city (or town, etc.).
          Electromagnetic pulses are emitted by nuclear weapons, making everything electrical inoperable.  It must be hoped these new E-bombs produce the pulse in a way that has nothing to do with the way a nuclear bomb obtains the results.  The U.S. has denied  possessing EMP technology, and the rather casual way this was revealed is at odds with the implications of such weapons.
          The first confirmation of the use of the E-bomb was March 25 in Iraq, reported by several network news outlets (including CNN).  The importance of this development should not be underestimated.  EMP technology has been rumored to exist for several years but there has never been solid evidence or a formal admission by the Pentagon that even research was occurring.  Now, suddenly, we have the E-bomb.
          The balance of military power, if there was any question about U.S. dominance in that area, is so significantly tilted in favor of the U.S. as to render the nuclear arsenals of other nations obsolete, if EMP weapons exist on a scale larger than the E-bomb.  If this technology is now limited to the E-bomb, it will very quickly lead to the forms making the U.S. unchallengeable.
          The use of the weapon against Iraq, and the casual handling of the information, is no doubt intended to send the signal world-wide:  Yes, we now have usable EMP weapons, and nothing can get through to us.  If nuclear missiles were fired at the U.S., an EMP weapon detonating at high altitude would disable them, if the EMP devices were employed in time.  To insure missiles could be intercepted, however, it would be necessary to build a defense system to protect the U.S.---a "strategic defense" sort of initiative, one might say, and one almost impregnable if it were partly space-based.
          The U.S., with EMP technology, can wage warfare against any nation in the world without fear of any significant reprisal.  Before confronting enemy troops, EMP weapons can be employed, rendering tanks and troop carriers (which use electrical starters), communications, planes, radar and anti-aircraft, artillery and missiles, essentially all modern equipment unusable.  An enemy's forces would be defenseless.  Of course, this is more effective when confronting a modern military, and EMP technology would not have been much help in Afghanistan.
          This, however, is the point.  This technology increases as a threat depending on the industrial level of the society it is directed at.  So, to Russia or China, for example, it is quite unnerving.  The nations with the most ability to resist U.S. hegemony are those that are the most technologically and economically advanced, the ones most threatened by U.S. EMP technology.  Other nations, like Iraq or Iran for example, are weak enough by comparison that the U.S. can rely on "conventional" means to enforce its will.
          The most alarming development of all concerns nuclear deterrence.  If there is no realistic nuclear threat against the U.S., it certainly makes it easier for the U.S. to make use of its nuclear weapons.  This is apparent with the publicly stated "new" strategic planning for developing and using tactical nuclear arms.  It is not a coincidence that this rethinking of U.S. nuclear policy comes as the U.S. has field-ready EMP weapons.

           Humanitarian relief finally made it into at least one of the suffering cities of Southern Iraq on March 26, as trucks from Kuwait delivered food to the Iraqis in the small city of Safwan, located just north of the Iraq-Kuwait border.  As citizens stood waiting for relief aid, large numbers of young men professed their hatred of the U.S. invasion, vowing support for the Hussein government.  Anti-American slogans could be seen painted on the sides of buildings in the city.
           When the trucks full of food pulled in, the crowd turned into a mob, as people pushed and fought for boxes, some footage showing young men pulling items out of the hands of smaller boys.  U.S. soldiers were plentiful, but did not interfere (which is not to imply they should have, but perhaps some semblance of a plan should have been in place to distribute the aid).  While women with children carried small, torn boxes on their heads, men with pushcarts left, five or six boxes of food stacked on their carts.
           A CBS reporter asked a nearby U.S. soldier, "Isn't there a better way to do this?"  The soldier watched the crowd for a moment, then smiled and said, "Probably."  The scene truly was a near-riot, members of the crowd climbing into the trucks, some being pushed back out, but some actually helping pass boxes out to other citizens.
           CBS chose to focus on the fact that, as they put it, the Iraqis were "swearing their lives to Saddam" while ungratefully waiting for U.S. aid (momentarily ignoring the fact the relief aid was from Kuwaiti organizations).  No doubt, a few of the Iraqis hadn't gotten over the fact that their nation was under attack by the U.S., or that the reason they were starving was partly due to U.N. sanctions and this war.  CBS further commented, "when the food arrived, the politics stopped."  What a news scoop:  starving people want food, despite anger at illegal invasion of their country.
           The distribution of aid in Safwan might be the last aid seen for several days, however.  On the same day the food was delivered, new fighting broke out in Umm Qasr, and Britain claimed 70-100 Iraqi military vehicles began heading towards the port city from Basra, while fighting also continued in that city.  While CNN reporters admitted this information was "sketchy," and the numbers may turn out to be significantly smaller, the fact is Iraqi forces continue to defend the south.  The U.S. and British control of southern Iraq is still not firmly established, and until it is, humanitarian relief will be limited.  A cynical person might even suggest that the U.S. is using aid relief as leverage against the Iraqi population, to force the citizens to capitulate to the U.S. occupation or be starved.
           If events in Safwan turn out to be an omen of sentiments throughout Iraq, we can expect to see further exasperation at the "ungrateful" attitude of Iraqi citizens, as expressed by CBS.  It should lead Americans to consider the arrogance it takes to demand gratitude for crippling and occupying other people's countries.  It should, but it probably won't.

           The words were ominous.  Retired General John Shepard, speaking on CNN March 27, repeated the official word from the Pentagon.  "As military targets emerge, even in civilian areas, they will be hit."  It is the most straightforward indication that the U.S. will "avoid civilian casualties" only as long as the civilians do not get in the way of bombs.
          Almost as if to put a fine point on it, moments later CNN broadcast live images from Baghdad of the massive U.S. strike on the Al Salaam Presidential Palace, and the International Communication Center.  Both are within civilian population centers.
           Nick Robertson, CNN's reporter in Baghdad, came on the air to announce that the Al Salaam Palace had been hit repeatedly before, but the ordnance dropped on it was not large enough to actually destroy it.  He said, however, that even those "small" bombs shattered windows in the civilian residential area less than a quarter of a mile away.
          His point was clear:  if minor ordnance blew out windows, the bombings taking place on March 27—which appeared on screen as huge fireballs—clearly must be causing severe damage to the civilian centers nearby.
          Reuters News Service confirmed that, yes, both the Al Salaam Palace and International Communication Center were the targets under attack.  The Pentagon confirmed late in the day that 4,500 pound "bunker-buster" bombs were used in the attacks (particularly important since, as noted above, previous attacks with ordnance half this size shattered windows of nearby residential homes).
           Of course, even as these reports were coming in, and as Robertson made his comments about the obvious destruction visited upon civilians, both John Shepard and the CNN anchor at the studio took great pains to place the blame for civilian casualties squarely on Saddam Hussein.  "Iraqis…are putting civilians in areas where there's likely to be a coalition hit…to increase civilian casualties…to make it difficult for coalition forces to hit these military targets," said the anchor.
          Not difficult enough, obviously.  Notice, these statements were literally made seconds after assertions of the Pentagon position of bombing sites even in civilian areas.
          It is an amazing feat of propaganda to, in almost the same breath, say the U.S. military will blow up civilian areas, and that when civilians die it is the enemy's fault.  Of course Iraq is to blame, if they are so unaccommodating as to place things we want to destroy too close to innocent people.  There can be no question about our desire to drop high explosives wherever we wish, even if children are sleeping directly below.
          The Shallal market, in the Al Sha'ab District of Baghdad, was hit March 26, killing 15 people.  Almost every window on the street was broken, a diner and the apartments above it were destroyed, and an auto repair shop was also destroyed.  Burning cars surrounded the bomb's crater.
          The Pentagon said it could not have been a U.S. bomb or missile strike, since the nearest "military target" was 300 yards away.  They claimed the destruction could have been from an Iraqi missile or anti-aircraft fire that landed in the middle of the crowded market.
          Again, Hussein did it, not one of the nearly 1,500 U.S. bombs and missiles dropped on Baghdad every day, some within 300 yards of the market.  By March 27, the media had pretty much ceased mentioning that market attack.  On March 28, however, fresh reports of another stray U.S. bomb, this time hitting the Shu'ale market, started coming in, with initial figures claiming at least 50 dead and as many injured.
          As CNN put it, this has not been "confirmed by coalition forces," merely by the civilians blown up, so we can already see the propaganda game in progress:  report, deny, blame Iraqis, ignore.  Repeat as necessary.
          This is just a continuation of the same truth-twisting that is all-too-common in the U.S. military and media.  When Iraqi civilians die from U.S. attacks, it is Hussein's fault.  When Iraqi civilians don't rise up jubilantly to welcome their "liberators," it is because they are still afraid of Hussein.

           Further evidence of Iraqi feelings about their "liberation" emerged March 27.  Embedded CBS reporter Jim Axlerod, reporting from Kifl (75 miles south of Baghdad) told of stiff resistance from Iraqis, and not all military troops.  According to Axlerod's report, the entire small town was a battle zone, and people he refered to as "irregular militias" fought the U.S. troops with whatever they could find.
          These "irregular militias" were dressed in plain clothes, using flint-lock rifles or pistols.  They attacked U.S. tanks with sedans, no strategy or hope of success, merely anger and fierce determination to resist rather than succumb.
           By the Pentagon's definition, anyone who resists U.S. or British troops is a "irregular militia member," a determination extended to Iraqi civilians in Basra when their "uprising" extends to resistance against coalition forces.  Iraqis wearing plain clothes, firing flint-lock rifles from sedans while attacking a tank, are not soldiers.  They are not a militia.
          They are civilians resisting occupation.
          As Axlerod noted, once the fighting was done, and the Iraqi resistance was either dead or captured…well, that accounted for everyone in the town.  Certainly, some of the city's residents likely fled as U.S. forces approached, but the nearest place to go would be Baghdad, not exactly the best place to "flee" to.  Besides, the town was not a major objective, so it would be surprising for all the residents to leave—the main reason U.S. troops moved into the town is because they came under attack.
           The point is, from the guns and methods of attack, it would appear that some residence did stay behind in Kifl.  They wore dirty, ragged clothing, fired flint-lock rifles or pistols, drove suicidally at tanks, and died resisting "liberation."
           Another CBS reporter, John Roberts, also gave a telling report on March 27 (Roberts has shown a nagging tendency to slip "facts" into his reports).  He was with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, north of Nasiriyah, where he says the Marines are having a tough time telling who is the enemy and who isn't.  He suggested Iraqi sentiments are not all "rosey."
          The report showed a child as young as five-years-old grabbing hold of a Marine's jacket and begging him to "stop throwing things" at the Iraqis.  The child, while obviously scared and injured, was also apparently very angry as well.
           Winning Iraqi "hearts and minds" will be difficult, as long as the U.S. is bombing and shooting them.

           First came Iranian volunteers.  Then U.S. missiles struck sites in Iran, one a government building.  Next was an  attack by U.S. Apache helicopters on Syrian civilians in three busses at 160 K Station, next to a bridge.  The Apaches first blew the bridge, then bombed the busses as civilians tried to flee, returning yet again to bomb them as they awaited help, killing 16 in all and wounding 19 more.
          Finally, on March 28, the newest signs of the threat of an expanding war reached the airwaves.  Syria has been officially accused by the Pentagon of shipping military supplies to Iraqi forces, including night-vision goggles.  During the daily press briefing from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he made it clear that the U.S. viewed  this as  "hostile acts" (of course, "errant" U.S. bombs hitting Iran or a bus load of Syrians are not "hostile" acts).
          He warned the U.S. would respond if the activity did not cease.  He also directed threatening comments at Iran, concerning its support for those volunteers fighting in Iraq, saying those troops pose "a threat to coalition forces."
           These events should not be underestimated, regarding their impact on the war in Iraq.  Fighters crossing into Iraq from Iran, followed by U.S. missile strikes in Iran, are serious business, despite the fact that it has faded from the media's radar.  Likewise, Syrian military support for Iraq, followed by threats from the U.S., signals that events could quickly get out of hand.
          This is not to mention another long-forgotten issue, that is Turkey's threat to send forces into northern Iraq to "stabilize" that region.  Picture Turkish troops invading from the north, U.S. military strikes directed at Syria, and further U.S. strikes inside Iran, while the U.S. expands its troop deployment by another 50,000 soldiers this month, and 100,000 more in April (as the Pentagon announced on March 27), to a total of 400,000 U.S. soldiers in the region.
           While it is far from certain the war will expand into Syria and Iran as simultaneous war rages in Iraq, the possibility nonetheless does exist.  Should such a broadening occur, this war will very quickly have become a U.S.-Middle East war.  400,000 U.S. troops does seem to send a less-than-subtle signal about what the U.S. intends to do, or at least is threatening to do if "provoked."  In fact, since Iran constitutes the same "threat" as Iraq, using the Bush regime's definitions of the word, there is no reason to believe a U.S. invasion of Iran is not in the near future. While the U.S. probably would prefer to mop-up in Iraq before leaping next door to Iran, to time the next war to coincide with elections, they may be reconsidering their options.
           The war against Iraq has, regardless of Rumsfeld's chest-thumping denials, gone a bit off-course, with the Iraqis actually being so rude as to resist occupation.  Public support for the war seems to be holding above 50%, but it is quickly slipping with every U.S. soldier killed or captured.  The Bush government might realize that, once this war ends, it may be difficult to convince U.S. citizens to belly-up to the bar for another round of "kill the Arabs."  Therefore, they could think that their best option is to instigate a war with Iran under the pretense of fighting the war against Iraq.  It is easier to expand an existing war, than start a brand new one after peace is achieved.
           So, we may be seeing the first signs of an intension to broaden this war substantially, with the rhetoric and charges, the strikes outside of Iraq, and the addition of a force that nearly doubles the U.S. deployment.  Some would argue that the Pentagon prefers to finish this war before starting another one, and would not want to complicate its mission.  This is no necessarily true, for a few reasons.  First, the U.S. has a history of stepping into new wars before old ones are finished (the U.S. had forces in Korea at the end of WWII, and had forces in Vietnam as the Korean War ended, etc).  Second, Rumsfeld specifically warned Syria and Iran that the U.S. would respond if "hostile acts" continued.

           March 28 was a bad day for "winning hearts and minds."  The first bad news came when a U.S. bomb exploded in the Shu'ale market in Baghdad, killing at least 50 people and injuring 50 more.  John Burns of The New York Times reported that he counted at least ten to fifteen dead children.  As when the same thing happened just days before, the Pentagon "could not confirm" U.S. bombs were responsible.  Then, the Associated Press reported U.S. airstrikes hit the al-A'azamiya telephone exchange, destroying that building and also "a dozen shops, homes and apartment buildings nearby."
          Later in the day came the CBS reports, by John Roberts, that Marines on the road north of Nasiriyah had opened fire on civilian farmers, "mistaking them for Iraqi militia fighters."  At least three innocent civilians were killed, and scenes of weeping family members surrounded by Marines did little to enhance the image of Americans as "liberators."  The Marines took the bodies to a local mosque for burial, and even helped family members dig the graves.  It was a horrible scene when the family members thanked the Marines for their help.  Some will argue that this showed the humanity of the Marines, their sympathy for the Iraqi people.
          Certainly, it was very nice of them to help bury the people just murdered by U.S. Marines.  Certainly, it showed great sympathy for the plight of the people being blown up and gunned down.
 Perhaps this is a bit harsh.  It is true that the trigger-happy U.S. soldiers operating in the sections of Iraq from Basra to Baghdad are probably scared out of their wits.  They come under surprise guerilla-type attacks, unsure of who is friend and who is foe.  The Bush regime and the military commanders have reinforced the impression that roaming bandits are sneaking around in crowds of civilians, waiting to leap out and open fire on U.S. soldiers, most of whom have not seen combat before.
          So, the paranoia of troops along the road from Nasiriyah to Baghdad is understandable.  Does it justify gunning down civilians just to make sure they aren't Iraqi soldiers? No, absolutely not.  And we must not forget these civilian casualties, like those from errant missiles or bombs, are caused by people.  It is quite reasonable to say "the U.S. bombed," or "the U.S. attacked."  But besides happening within the context of U.S. policy, it should always be remembered that those Iraqis being killed are killed by individual U.S. soldiers.
           The Marines who opened fire on that car filled with civilians were not under attack.  They simply shot the Iraqis because the civilians fit a very vague profile of potential militants who might ambush the Marines.  What profile?  They were Iraqi.  Those Marines made a choice to murder those people, plain and simple.  Saying, "Things happen in war," is hardly an excuse.  Nobody bought it when Nazis said it; nobody would accept it if the Iraqis who gassed Kurds said it; nobody would accept it from Slobodan Milosevic.  Yet, whenever American soldiers are responsible for killing civilians, it is simply called a "tragedy," a "terrible mistake."  Obviously, the standards to which we hold Iraqi soldiers, Serbian soldiers, and Nazi soldiers cannot apply to U.S. soldiers or those who command them.
           The fact is, U.S. Marines had no reason to open fire on those Iraqi farmers.  They just did it.  That is murder.  It will not, however, be treated as such.  All across the U.S., people are saying, "we must support our troops."  Should that include making excuses for them when they commit murder?  Are we obligated to ignore targeting civilians when the U.S. does it, while condemning the Iraqis for it?  Of course we are.  It is the height of treason, it is unpatriotic, un-American, to criticize "our boys." Yes, things do happen during war.  Some of those things are called "war crimes."

           The claims were meant to be shocking.  On March 28, British troops outside the southern Iraqi city of Basra reported that Iraqi artillery was targeting Iraqi civilians attempting to leave Basra.  The British say they returned fire to protect the fleeing civilians, but the Iraqis had to return to the city because of the shelling.  All major media outlets are reporting this story as if it is uncontested truth.  However, careful attention to the reported facts and a careful viewing of footage from the scene tells a different story.
           First of all, the scenes of civilians fleeing Basra shows a line of people moving down the road, towards British soldiers, tanks, and artillery outside the city.  Those forces straddle the road traveled by the civilians.  The sound of artillery is heard, but none is seen falling between the U.K. troops and the city.  No artillery is ever seen falling on the Iraqis moving down the road.  The artillery seems closer to them as they get closer to the British troops…because the Iraqi artillery is clearly targeting the British lines, not the civilians.
          Throughout the whole episode, not a single piece of artillery is visible landing amongst or close to the civilians on the road from Basra to the position of the British troops.  In fact, the British are shown firing artillery "to protect the fleeing Iraqis," but when footage is shown of this, the "fleeing Iraqis" are quite clearly far down the road closer to Basra, and they are moving towards the British positions.
          In other words, it appears that the British were already firing into Basra, exchanging artillery fire with the Iraqi troops inside the city, when the civilians started down the road out of Basra.  Then, as they got too close to the British, the artillery fire from the city was close to the civilians as well, and some of the Iraqi artillery was hitting just beyond the U.K. lines, so the road was unsafe.  This seems to be why the Iraqis returned to the city.
           All of this can be ascertained by watching the footage from both CNN and CBS, both of whom had full coverage of the incident from the beginning of the civilians' attempts to leave, until their return.  By watching where the civilians are on screen, and watching the artillery fire, the sequence of events is evident despite the fact that both broadcasts showed the footage out of order, to better fit the "voice-over."
          A neat little trick, so long as nobody watches too closely.  Besides this footage, however, there are a few points that also help clarify what really happened.
           Consider this claim for a moment:  Iraqi civilians try to leave, soldiers inside the city fire at them as they are right beside British troops, so the civilians shrug, leave the British troops, and return to the city full of people who just fired at them.  Is there an ounce of sense in this?  If the Iraqis fled the city and got all the way to the "liberating soldiers," why would they choose to return to the city full of people who just tried to kill them?  This does not sound reasonable.
           It makes much more sense that the civilians left while artillery was being fired back and forth, and upon reaching the British position, they determined it would be unsafe to continue their trek, so they returned to the city.  Certainly, it is possible that the Iraqi troops would fire at civilians, if we accept the U.S.-British claim that the presence of civilians in Basra is limiting coalition strikes on that city.  Iraqi troops might feel it safer to keep as many civilians as possible in Basra, to deter a stronger allied attack.
          This would be easier to accept, if we could trust U.S.-British claims that they are avoiding targeting civilian areas, and if we believe them when they make assertions about Iraqi "atrocities."  The problem is, we can't trust them.

           The second week of the U.S. war against Iraq began with a telling shift of policy in U.S. media coverage of the war.  On March 29, CNN reported that two Fedayeen militia members turned themselves in to coalition troops at Umm Qasr.  During the report, the CNN correspondent noted that the Iraqis' faces were not being shown because, "they are POWs."
           An interesting reversal of policy.  Until this point, CNN and other U.S. media outlets consistently showed scenes of Iraqi prisoners, even as they and the Bush administration angrily denounced Iraq for showing U.S. POWs on television.  However, the more the issue was covered by the media, the more the obvious contradictions and hypocrisy stood out.
          It became rather absurd, as the rhetoric against Iraq heated up, and the phrase "war crimes" popped up more frequently, to keep criticizing Iraq while the U.S. paraded Iraqi POWs all over television and the front page of newspapers.  The evocation of the term "war crimes" might have particularly troubled the news outlets, since the phrase started being employed against the Iraqi media rather than just the government.
           Is CNN tacitly acknowledging that previous broadcasting of Iraqi POWs violated the Geneva Convention?  It is doubtful such an admission will be forthcoming.  Rather, the standard formula will be applied:  stop showing the Iraqis; proclaim clearly that this is because they are POWs; and increase the denunciation of Iraq, while noting the U.S. media's laudable behavior.  No mention must be made of previous media coverage.  If it is mentioned, it will simply be called a "mistake," or different because the Iraqis were not being "humiliated"; but the practice will nonetheless cease, and eventually will not be referenced again, except regarding Iraq's "deplorable behavior."
           Of course, it is quite right to avoid showing POWs on television.  The practice is in violation of the Geneva Convention.  It is incorrect, though, to assume the restrictions apply only to U.S. enemies, so CNN's decision to stop its own violations of the Convention is certainly the correct policy to follow.
          The problem is, it will not be viewed with such honesty.  Instead, expect to see proclamations of how the U.S. media is treating Iraqi POWs legally, while Iraq continues committing war crimes with U.S. POWs.  The question of U.S. media footage of POWs prior to March 29 will not be brought up.  Moreover, it is highly likely that after the war, Iraqis will be prosecuted as "war criminals" for showing coalition POWs in the media.  Will warrants also be issued for CNN?  Don’t bet on it.  Remember, they aren't showing Iraqi POWs.  Just don't remember too far back…

           The Pentagon announced on March 29 that seven missiles had gone off course, due to mechanical failures, but claimed none detonated.  Further, the Pentagon says some of those missiles landed in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.  As a result, the U.S. has suspended cruise missile flights over their territories.
           The three missiles that struck Iran on March 21 were not mentioned as part of this "dumb squadron" of U.S. bombs.  Whether that is due to a true lack of "confirmation" by the Pentagon, or the fact that those strikes were no accident, cannot as yet be determined.
           In the event, the Pentagon pointed out the seven missiles represent less than one-percent of all missile flights, apparently considering this an acceptable error-rate.  Surely, 99-percent "success" must be deemed adequate.  Of course, this depends on how one defines "acceptable," and "success."
          Perhaps we would get a differing view on the "acceptability" of seven errant missiles, were we to ask the opinions of the people standing under them when they fell.  To refer back for just a moment, does Iran look at the missiles that blew up a government building (among other sites) and say, "Yes, but 99-percent of the U.S. missiles hit their targets.  This is acceptable"?  It is doubtful.
           We might further conclude that Saudi Arabia and Turkey haven't quite expressed a view of "acceptance," either, or the Pentagon probably would not be suspending missile over-flights.  Likewise, within Iraq itself, the civilians at the Shallal and Shu'ale markets in Baghdad could be expected to deny the "acceptability" of U.S. missiles missing their intended targets and exploding in civilian centers, even if only one-percent do so.  After all, one-percent of 700 is 7, and that is per day.  Even half of a percent is still 3.5-per-day.
           What about "success?" As the Pentagon made clear, they feel a 99-percent accuracy rate is a "success."  This definition might be objectionable to those who are inclined to consider "collateral damage" (as the Pentagon calls dead civilians) in the equation.  If the U.S. wishes to destroy a military site, with a purported goal of "liberating" Iraqis, can the necessary killing of innocent people be ignored?
          "Necessary" is used here because, as the size and nature of the ordnance used makes obvious, there is absolutely no way to avoid killing civilians when thousands of these weapons are dropped each day in a city filled with millions of innocent people.
           Was the missile strike on the al-A'azamiya telephone exchange a "success," despite the fact twelve shops, apartment buildings, and homes were also destroyed (facts reported by the Associated Press)?  This bomb hit its target, so it is one of the 99-percent, presumably.  How should we interpret this definition of "success" and "accuracy"?
           Beyond such questions, we might be inclined to ask whether we should believe the Pentagon's claim of only one-percent failure.  After all, to date they still insist the missile strikes that hit the Baghdad markets may have been caused by Iraq, not the U.S.
          U.S. Brigadier General Vince Brooks (Deputy Director of Operations for Central Command) did admit on March 27 that coalition bombs may have been responsible; but in the following days, and after the second missile strike in a market area, the Pentagon has increasingly moved towards the "Iraq did it" defense.
          Regarding Iran, the Pentagon never admitted guilt, and eventually just forgot the whole issue.  With a record of denial and redirection, it cannot be assumed that the Pentagon's word on "accuracy" and "success" can be taken at face value.
           Suppose we do accept the 99-percent figure, however.  What must still be considered is that, while that figure sounds impressive, it is relative to the actual number of missiles used.

           The U.S. military does not seem contented with murdering only Iraqi civilians, and have apparently started looking elsewhere for additional targets.  They found some, on March 26, at the 160 K roadside rest stop.  On this day, three buses filled with Syrian civilians approached an intersection at the rest stop, where gasoline, food, and other travel supplies are sold.  Ahead of them was a bridge, and behind them…was a U.S. Apache helicopter.  It was 5:30 pm, still daylight, so there can be no doubt the pilots could see their targets and the rest stop area.
          Still, a missile was fired and struck the road directly in front of the buses.  The buses screeched to a halt, and passengers began jumping out frantically.  Again, the helicopter could easily see these were civilians, in civilian vehicles, at a civilian rest stop full of shops.  Yet, the Apache pilot fired again, this time blasting the first bus directly, killing 17 civilians and injuring many more.
          The other buses crashed into the rear of the first bus, injuring more people.  As the casualties were pulled from the buses, the helicopter pilot did not try to help, nor did the pilot call for help for the civilians.  The Syrians called for assistance, and several hours later rescue buses arrived to carry them into Baghdad.  The injured were transferred to the Al Kindi Hospital.  As the civilians left the scene of the attack, they watched the Apache fire more missiles into the wrecked buses, incinerating them.
          Such is the nature of this "just war"; such is the nature of the "honorable" U.S. soldier.  Much is said here in the U.S. about "supporting the troops," even if one opposes the war.  It is obvious, however, that the civilians being murdered by U.S. troops are the ones who need our "support."  War protestors make too much effort, it would seem, to stress that opponents of this war are not "protesting against the soldiers."  Well, somebody needs to protest against them, because they are killers.
          The cases of civilian casualties are mounting, and despite claims that Iraqi troops use innocent people as "human shields," not a single case of civilian casualties has resulted from such activity.  The civilians are dying because they are being directly targeted, murdered, by U.S. soldiers.  These are war crimes, and anybody with a shred of integrity will admit this.  While there may be room for "debate" about several issues or aspects of this war, certain things (such as documented facts, for example) are beyond debate.
          We know for a fact Iraqi civilians are being killed by U.S. troops; we know for a fact that these soldiers have on several occasions killed civilians in situations where the identification of the Iraqis as noncombatants could clearly be determined; and we know for a fact that murdering civilians is a war crime.  Facts.  Disgusting, damnable, murderous facts.
          Case after case of civilians being directly fired upon by U.S. forces is mounting.  Time after time, the U.S. government denies these incidents, or blames the Iraqi government for the casualties.  The media, in every instance, either fails to report the murders, or repeats the government lies and attribution of guilt to Saddam Hussein.  There seems to be too much fear of being critical of "our troops" while the war is going on, even among those who oppose this war.
          However, "our troops" are turning more and more into nothing but killers of the innocent, while the Pentagon and U.S. media continue to remind us of the "murderous nature" of Hussein's government.  Well, a "murderous nature" has certainly become evident, but it rests most visibly within a regime far from Baghdad.

           "A woman was hanged after she waved at coalition soldiers," Bush said.  Iraqis are fighting because they are threatened, say U.S. military commanders.  Iraqis who refuse are executed, their families are killed, we are told.  An Iraqi civilian's tongue was cut out, and he was left to bleed to death in the center of Baghdad, says another story.
          These are the tales of terror being broadcast by the U.S. media, backed up with the irrefutable evidence that…well, the President said so.  Or military commanders, unnamed in most cases, said so.  Somebody said so, and the media is reporting it.
           Just how much faith should we have in the accuracy of these stories?  Some of them, such as the repeated claims that Iraqi troops are hiding in hospitals and using human shields (a phrase conveniently co-opted from the peace movement and given a sinister spin), seem at least based on the accounts of multiple witnesses, most of them admittedly U.S. or U.K. soldiers.  Nevertheless, there is some frame of reference—a corporal at Basra said it March 27, on CBS, or a Marine at Nasiriyah said it on March 28, to The Washington Post, for example.  This doesn’t make it true, just more credible than "Bush says so."
           The media reports these accusations without mentioning they are unsubstantiated or unconfirmed, terms that always follow any proclamation of Iraqi civilian deaths and injuries.  In those instances, the phrase "it is claimed" or "Iraq claims" preceded the reported deaths, and it "has not been confirmed" by the U.S. military, nor is it ever likely to be confirmed.  Bush, on the other hand, is quoted without a "Bush claims," or a follow-up "Iraq has not confirmed this."
          So many accusations are being passed on by the media without any proof, yet reported as undeniable fact, that the public likely believes there is no question about the reliability of the information.
          While it is true that demonization of the enemy, and false accusations of atrocities, are standard fare during war, this is not 1941.  The media now has the ability to verify information, to seek evidence of the purported atrocities, so it is not necessary to "take the government's word for it."
          Some argue that wartime calls for subservience of the media to "the cause".  This is such an absurd claim, it warrants no response, except to point out we are a democracy, not a nationalist military-state.
           With embedded reporters, a huge international media establishment, satellite images, internet, and endless other means of mass-communication, the media can inform us better than ever before, with little to limit their capacity to get to the truth.  To the extent they fail, it is largely by design.
          In most cases, the facts are out there, but the U.S. media is uninterested in inconvenient facts, self-censorship considered a virtue.  As long as this remains true, "Bush says" will continue to be the final word in accuracy.

           John Roberts, the CBS reporter embedded with U.S. Marines in Iraq, reported on the March 28 death of civilians after their car was shot with anti-tank shells by Marines north of Nasiriya.  Prior to the incident, Roberts noted a minivan nearby, riddled with bullet holes, and said it was "unclear" whether the van—right by the U.S. Marine lines—was stuck by Iraqi or coalition troops.  The sheepishness of the Marines standing by the van was a clue as to who was responsible, as was the subsequent incident.
           The area north of Nasiriya is a constant pain for the U.S. military, with Iraqi attacks on coalition forces occurring every day.  The Marines interviewed by Roberts said they were jumpy from the constant attacks, and as one young soldier put it, "If we see a vehicle…behaving in a threatening way…we protect ourselves."
          This comment came after the Marines blasted the car full of civilians, killing at least three of them.  Then, while this same Marine stood beside the grieving family members left alive, he said, "Saddam sends civilians down this road."
           Once again, we are reminded that whenever civilians are killed or injured, it is Hussein's fault.  Even when Marines open fire on a civilian car that is "behaving in a threatening way" (by virtue of it being on the road near the Marines), still the guilt lies with Saddam, not the U.S. troops.
           As CNN reported March 30, U.S. troops at checkpoints now have authority to "shoot on sight" any vehicle that does not stop on command.  Three taxicab drivers where killed March 29 for approaching checkpoints, none of them having weapons or explosives.  This is all in response to an attack March 29 in which four U.S. soldiers were killed by a bomb in a taxicab.
           There is a clear pattern, one that existed before the March 29 attack.  U.S. soldiers, nervous because Iraq is putting up a fight and actually inflicting casualties on coalition forces, are increasingly likely to forget the whole "liberation" part of their mission and just shoot when they feel "threatened."  As the young Marine interviewed by John Roberts put it, they are protecting themselves, even if that means shooting civilians just in case they are hostile.
          By attempting to limit U.S. casualties, the military is willing to allow civilian deaths.  While nobody is suggesting soldiers not protect themselves when actually in danger, the fact is the U.S. invaded Iraq, and as an invading occupation force they should not be allowed to kill anyone they want just to avoid risks.
          If the U.S. wants to wage illegal warfare and forcibly "liberate" Iraqi civilians, those same civilians should not be expected to bear the burden of protecting military forces.  The idea is obscene.  The U.S. should accept the risks and casualties that come with war, not ask innocent people to die just so President Bush's poll ratings don't drop.
           For all the talk of Iraqi war crimes, it is incredible that CBS has footage of U.S. troops killing civilians who did nothing but try to flee Baghdad.  The Marines were not fired on, they were in no danger, and if they suspected the car was possibly a threat, they should have taken cover.  The suggestion that the U.S. military has a right to blow up or shoot anyone and anything it gets scared of, on camera and by their own admission, is a claim worthy of Nazi Germany.
          A war crime occurred and was broadcast on CBS news, then broadcast again on a March 29 episode of the news program 48 hours.  This is not speculation; it is not an "unconfirmed report."  We saw it, CBS reporters saw it, and the Marines admitted it.  Where are the cries of "war crimes" now?
           Some people will express sympathy for those Marines, saying it was an unintentional strike, a "terrible tragedy," and surely this is true.  It was a tragedy, for the Iraqis.
          Are we to excuse soldiers who open fire on civilians, just because they were scared?  When was this new standard for forgiving war crimes put in place?  Does it apply to Iraq's military behavior as well?  The answers can be imagined.

           It is troubling to watch the recent U.S. media coverage of American POWs.  There is a long-standing bias in news reporting that has recently seemed more pronounced, due to several events.  On a March 29 episode of CBS's news program 48 Hours, an entire segment was devoted to the plight of U.S. Army Private Jessica Lynch, taken prisoner in Iraq along with many others in her supply column.
          We learned that Jessica is 19 years old, a "pretty, slim" blonde from Palestine, West Virginia.  She joined the Army to save money for college.  She wrote a letter back home, asking an elementary school class to be her pen pals while she served in Iraq.  Her family and friends were interviewed, and CBS made it clear how "tragic" it is for such a popular, pretty girl to now be a POW.
           Consider also the plight of Amy Smart, the 15-year-old white, blonde, pretty girl who was kidnapped from her home in Utah.  48 Hours devoted two separate episodes to the story, one of them after the girl was found.  Consider the story of JonBenet Ramsey, the little girl (white, blond, pretty) who was found murdered in the basement of her home.  That story dominated headlines and news reports for months, and still gets an occasional headline.
           Now think back to the story of a young black girl who was abducted, or murdered.  Remember the non-blonde, unattractive kids who got kidnapped last year?  Probably not, since they didn't get any news coverage.  To warrant sympathy and media reports, one must apparently be pretty, white, and (preferably) blonde.  Worse still, the media always points out how "tragic" it is for "pretty" people to suffer, as if the loss of another attractive person is so much more troubling for society.
           Referring back to the CBS coverage of the POWs, this tendency to highlight the suffering of lovely blondes was only accentuated by the inclusion of a few words about Shoshana Johnson, another female POW taken along with Jessica Lynch.  "A few words" is to be taken literally.  A clip of the footage of Johnson being interrogated was quickly shown, her name was mentioned, and a sentence was said about her "fear" being clearly visible.  The end, now back to Jessica.
          Where is Johnson from?  We don't know.  How old is she?  No idea.  Did CBS, did anyone, say "what a tragedy", did they say she was "pretty" or "popular"?  Not a word, not a syllable.  What about Lori Ann Piestewa, the Hopi Indian woman who is MIA?  She didn't even merit a single sentence.
           When Amy Smart was abducted, did the media use the public interest in the story to help focus attention on the other thousands of children missing?  Did news commentators say, "By the way, if you haven't seen the pretty white girl, maybe you've seen one of these less-attractive or less-white children"?  Sure, some words about child abduction in general were said, but no faces graced the television screens or newspapers except the white-and-blonde ones.
           None of this is to suggest the girls in question do not merit mention.  It is indeed tragic for anyone to be abducted, murdered, or held prisoner.  The point is not to downplay these girls' suffering, it is to show how the media obsesses over the stories when attractive white people are involved, and shows little or no interest in the "tragedies" that don't involve blonde white girls.  It is not more tragic when beautiful females are victims, but it is certainly tragic that the media treats it that way.

           The evidence is mounting that U.S. military strikes in Iraq target civilians, either by directly attacking them, or by attacking sites where the U.S. knows civilians will almost certainly be indirectly injured or killed.  Anyone who is remotely familiar with past U.S. military operations will hardly find this news surprising.
          However, in a war in which "liberation" and "pin-point" targeting are catch-phrases, and where the enemy is daily accused of placing civilians in harms way, the U.S. behavior takes on added significance.
           To speak of specific instances of direct targeting of civilians, there are several examples.  On March 26, U.S. B-52 pilots used cluster bombs (a banned weapon) in a bombing raid on an Iraqi farm.  Four of the 25 family members were killed, all of their six houses were destroyed, and their animals were also killed.  The survivors were being treated at Al Kindi Hospital, with some in critical condition.
          The U.S. consistently denies the use of cluster bombs, as well as napalm (also banned); but the denials are ridiculous in light of journalists' photographs of these weapons being loaded onto U.S. aircraft, admissions by pilots that they are using napalm and cluster bombs, and reports by news crews at the scene of the attacks which quote U.S. officers in charge as confirming the use of these weapons.
          This is not to mention the evidence offered by eyewitness testimony from the victims of such bombings, and the blatant signs left by these weapons (such as the multiple pock-mark holes left on roads and vehicles by cluster-bombs, the scorching and smells left by napalm, the remains of unexploded cluster bombs, etc.).
          Yet another example is the killing of Syrian civilians by U.S. forces.  Three buses filled with Syrians traveling through Iraq were attacked at the 160 K Station.  U.S. Apache helicopters blew up a bridge in front of the buses, and when the vehicles stopped, the helicopters proceeded to bomb them.  The Syrians were climbing out of the buses, so the Apache crews could see they were unarmed civilians.
          While the Syrians sat awaiting help, the helicopters decided to attack again, bombing the buses a second time.  According to survivors, 16 civilians died and another 19 were injured in the attack.
          The U.S. confirms the attack, and issued an icy apology for the loss of life, the same day the Pentagon accused Syria of aiding Iraq, and Rumsfeld threatened that Syria "will be held responsible" by the U.S.
          Perhaps the murder of innocent civilians was one way the U.S. intends to hold Syria "responsible."  To date, Syria has not threatened that the U.S. will be held responsible for targeting and murdering Syrian civilians.
          On March 28, U.S. Marines north of Nasiriyah opened fire on a car full of Iraqi farmers, hitting it with anti-tank shells despite the fact the Marines were not under fire.  Three civilians died.  The Marines admitted they were not under direct threat, but attempted to justify the killings by saying they had been under constant attack from Iraqi "irregular militias in civilian clothing", so they would "protect" themselves first, and ask questions later.
          This was all filmed by CBS reporters (John Roberts and his crew).  One young Marine even suggested the civilian deaths were actually the fault of…that's right, Saddam Hussein, who "sends civilians down this road," according to the soldier, as if that were the real crime, not the murder of innocent farmers.

           The "mystery" is over.  Facts have emerged regarding one of the most infamous cases of civilian casualties in the U.S. war against Iraq, and these facts leave no doubt about what occurred in a small, poor neighborhood in Baghdad where so many Iraqis lost their lives to "liberation."
          On March 28, a U.S. missile manufactured at a Raytheon plant in McKinney, Texas, exploded in the Shu'ale market in Baghdad, killing over 60 civilians.  Fragments of the missile, inspected by reporter Robert Fisk of the Independent, contained the identification numbers necessary to track the missile's origins, and this was done by Cahal Milmo (another reporter for the Independent).
          The ID numbers on the missile were 30003-704ASB7492, followed by MFR 96214 09.  The first numbers, 3003, refers to the Naval Air Systems Command, which procures weapons for the U.S. Navy.  MFR 96214 is the identification number for the Raytheon plant that manufactured the weapon.
          Raytheon manufactures HARM missiles and Paveway laser-guided bombs, as well as Patriot and Tomahawk missiles.  Because so many civilians were injured in the attack by fragments of aluminum, it is most likely that a HARM missile was used in the market attack.  Further, the Pentagon now confirms that an EA-6B Prowler jet fired one or more HARM missiles over Baghdad on March 28, although the official Pentagon line is still that the cause of the market attack is "undetermined" and most likely from a stray Iraqi anti-aircraft missile, denials the U.S. media are quite happy to repeat while they ignore the new evidence.
          We now know the truth about the origins of the bomb that struck the Shu'ale market.  If we know, then the Pentagon knows, as do the U.S. media.  In a supposedly free society, we should not have spend endless hours in pursuit of elusive truths denied us by our own government and media, who act in collusion to mislead the public.
          With the facts at hand, the case is easily closed on the Shu'ale bombing, as with so many countless other bombings and killings in this war.  What remains to be seen, however, is how much more evidence will be needed before the public realizes that, regarding the quality and nature of our government and media, the case was also closed, a long time ago.

           "You just fucking killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"  These were the angry words of U.S. Army Captain Ronny Johnson, at a checkpoint outside Najaf on March 31, according to Washington Post reporter William Branigin.  An embedded reporter with the 3rd Infantry Division, Branigin witnessed the killing of 10 Iraqi civilians (women and children) by U.S. Army forces, when the Iraqis' four-wheel-drive vehicle approached a checkpoint on Highway 9 near Karbala.
          Captain Johnson ordered troops to fire a warning shot as the vehicle approached, and when no troops responded he ordered a 7.62 machine-gun round fired into the vehicle's radiator.   Again, his platoon simply did not respond.  He finally yelled into the radio, "Stop him, Red 1, stop him!"
          At this, 25mm cannons roared from one or more Bradleys, right into the passenger sections of the vehicle.  After surveying the scene through his binoculars, Captain Johnson screamed his fateful sentence at the platoon leader.
          Reading any other mainstream newspaper, or watching any of the television news broadcasts, we would learn none of this.  Instead, we would hear that a vehicle approached the checkpoint, failed to head warning shots (some of which were fired into its radiator), and then soldiers opened fire, killing seven people.
          Further, we would learn that, as with every dastardly deed in this war, the real fault lies with Saddam Hussein.  No, he wasn't driving, but as a U.S. soldier at the scene told CNN, "Incidents like this are the fault of the regime."  His sentiment was echoed by Navy Captain Frank Thorp, spokesperson for U.S. CENTCOM, who likewise blamed "the regime," also saying that the 3rd Infantry Division troops had acted correctly in firing on the vehicle.
          CNN appeared to agree, saying that the military's Rules of Engagement allow such shootings, adding that it's "a judgment call…we don't know what may have happened…there are many unknowns."
          In case anyone wonders what the Rules of Engagement are in situations like this, the fact is the rules have become quite liberalized since a suicide bombing at a checkpoint killed four Marines.  The new rules, according to Lieutenant Colonel Scott E. Rutter, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, are, "Five seconds.  They have five seconds to turn around and get out of here.  If they're there in five seconds, they're dead."
          Apparently, it has not occurred to anyone that perhaps placing "Stop" signs before the checkpoints, or signs reading "Turn Back—Army Checkpoint Ahead", or maybe blocking the road with sandbags, would be a little safer than counting to five and murdering people. Why not block roads with empty cars, which could be moved easily to open the road when necessary?
          On April 1, the day after the Najaf shootings, U.S. Marines in the southern town of Shatra killed a civilian and seriously injured another as the Iraqis' truck drove towards a military checkpoint, according to a Reuters reporter at the scene.
          In another incident like the one at Najaf, U.S. Marines south of Baghdad also opened fire on vehicles at a checkpoint on April 5, killing seven or more civilians (including three children).  An embedded ABC News journalist with the Marine unit reported that a car sped through the checkpoint and was fired on by the U.S. troops, followed by a truck driving through the roadblock that was fired upon.  Behind the truck were the two civilian cars, and the Marines opened fire on them as well.
          John Roberts of CBS was with U.S. Marines on April 8, when the soldiers opened fire on a minivan.  Footage showed the van riddled with bullet holes, leaving two dead, one gut-shot, and yet another injured.

           Basra has been a city under siege.  Likewise, facts about what is really happening in the southern Iraqi town have also been surrounded and attacked as mercilessly as the citizens of Basra.  There were reports on March 22 that water and electrical facilities in Basra had been cut off.  On March 25 came reports of an uprising against the Ba'ath party.  March 28 brought reports of Iraqi forces firing artillery at civilians attempting to flee the city.
          When no uprising succeeded in stopping Iraqi forces from maintaining their hold on the city, we heard reports that the Fedayeen and Ba'ath party fighters were forcing people to remain in Basra and resist, that these "death squads" (as Bush administration and Pentagon officials demand the forces be called) killed anyone who didn't fight, or threatened to murder their families.  We were told the Iraqi fighters used civilians as "human shields," that they were using schools and hospitals for shelter.
          Military officials claim U.K. forces are showing great restraint, to avoid civilian casualties.  The British troops, they claim, are only striking at the "death squads" terrorizing the Basra residents.  These residents, we are told, will welcome British and U.S. forces as liberators once the city is placed under coalition control.
          On April 6, U.K. forces appeared to make their move on Basra, and by April 8 they claimed the last pockets of resistance were being "mopped up."  The Pentagon and U.S. media assured us that the Iraqis in Basra happily greeted coalition forces, and that all would soon be well in the city.
          Now, let's look beyond the propaganda.  On March 22, water and electrical facilities in Basra were indeed shut off.  However, claims that Hussein's government "turned off" the spigots are totally false.  Both CNN and CBS reported on March 22 that U.S. bombing around Basra had struck the Wafa al-Qaed water treatment plant, and knocked out high-tension electric cables, cutting power to the city.
          CBS went so far as to point out that its reports were approved by U.S. military commanders at the scene.  The CBS report came from embedded journalist John Roberts, a reporter whose name will come up again.
          By the end of the day, however, reports about the U.S. bombings disappeared from the mainstream media, replaced by assertions that "the Iraqi regime" was responsible, casually mentioning that no U.S. bombs had fallen near Basra.  In fact, on March 21, John Roberts of CBS reported that the U.S. 3rd Calvary Division approaching Basra used napalm and artillery to strike Iraqi sites near Safwan (the same place and the same day that oil wells erupted in flames), just miles from Basra.
          A U.S. Colonel confirmed the use of napalm to a reporter for the Herald, but this was later denied by a Navy Lieutenant Colonel in Washington (who surely is more informed about the battle than the soldiers who actually fought).
          On March 25, Roberts also filed a report noting that U.S. soldiers guarding the Kuwaiti-Iraq border would allow no food or water supplies to move towards Basra, so relief agencies were not even moving supplies towards the border.  He went on to say that it would not be "days, but weeks" before any food or water was allowed to proceed to the city.
          What do we know of the results of U.S. destruction of the water and electrical facilities?  International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) spokesperson Antonella Notari says people are drinking water with sewage in it, and engineers from ICRC say only 50-percent of the Basra citizens have water from the back-up generators, which they describe as merely a "stopgap measure."  Iraqis can be seen filling up containers with water from the polluted Shatt-al-Arab River, in an al-Jazeera tape filmed in Baghdad.
          The WHO is concerned that diarrhea and cholera, measles, and respiratory infections may break out among the population.  UNICEF says up to 100,000 children under five years old are at "immediate risk" of disease from lack of clean water.

           Of all the oppressed groups in Iraq, perhaps the Kurds received the most coverage before the war, as the Bush administration and U.S. press spoke of high-minded ideals of liberation and freedom for Iraqi citizens.  How, then, have the Kurds fared in this war against Iraq?  Not as well as might be expected.
           First came the threats from Turkey that troops were preparing to invade northern Iraq, ostensibly to "stabilize" the area and prevent Kurds from declaring an autonomous state or seizing the oil fields in Kirkuk.  The U.S. seemingly alleviated the situation and kept the Turkish forces out, but only by promising Kurds would be kept under control and a Kurdish state prevented.
           Then, on March 23, came the first U.S. strikes on Kurdish citizens.  At 12:30 am, a U.S. laser-guided missile exploded in a dormitory in the northern town of Khormal, killing between 30 and 45 people and injuring many others.  Khormal is home to the Islamic group Komala, and the town is next to the mountain town of Halabja, where another Islamic group, Ansar al-Islam, has their headquarters.
          On the weekend of March 21-23, the U.S. launched a massive air strike on Ansar al-Islam, with over 70 missiles exploding in the northern region.  However, four of those missiles landed in Khormal, and Kurdish officials claim 150 or more people were killed over that weekend in northern Iraq.
           Komala is not linked to Ansar al-Islam, and it has remained questionable whether the strike on Khormal was accidental or intentional.  U.S. forces have been working with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and PUK regional Prime Minister Barham Salih said, "Obviously civilian casualties are a major concern to us…[b]ut we have told these guys to stay away from Ansar.  They have nobody to blame but themselves."
          He says Komala failed to distinguish itself enough from Ansar, so the attack was "the price" they paid.  Another PUK official was more blunt in comments that appeared in the Globe and Mail.  Speaking supposedly off-the-record, this official said, "There is no distinction between the Islamic parties.  The best thing is to eliminate them."
           Whereas the members of Khormal have previously been opponents of the Iraqi government, the anger over the U.S. attack has created much bitterness.  The nephew of one Kurdish victim told The Guardian's Luke Harding, "We don't understand.  Why did America do this?"
          He went on to add, "This makes us love Saddam Hussein rather than America."  Yet another resident of Khormal told Harding, "The U.S. has committed an injustice."  Sheikh Mohsim, the Komala leader, said, "We deplore this decision to attack us since we have been against the [Saddam Hussein] regime, not America."  As the nephew mentioned earlier said, when asked whom he preferred now, "We prefer Saddam."
           Then came more Kurdish deaths. On April 7, American F-15s accidentally bombed a convoy of Kurdish and U.S. forces, killing as many as 17 people.  BBC reporter John Simpson, who was not only a witness to the attack but a victim (he suffered ruptured ear drums and shrapnel wounds, and his translator was killed), described the attack as a "disaster", saying, "This is like a scene from hell."  The incident was presumably an accident, but it is just one more example of Kurdish suffering at the hands of the U.S.
           Those familiar with Iraqi history will recall that the gassing of Kurds, which the current Bush administration condemns so loudly, was overlooked by the Reagan/Bush administration, and the Army War College actually placed blame for the gassing on Iran (a claim that, while enjoying renewed attention from war opponents prior to the ongoing invasion, was unfounded and merely an attempt by the Reagan administration to justify its support for Saddam Hussein).  When former President Bush began the move towards war with Iraq in the late 1980's, the gassings were suddenly attributed to Hussein.

          Strong voices are being raised in protest against U.S. actions in Iraq that do not emanate from the anti-war movement.  These new complaints come from perhaps an unlikely source:  Britain.  True, the public in that nation has been largely against this war from the start, but the sentiment is spreading.
          Between March 29 and April 5, four reports came out containing significant information about changing attitudes in Britain.  First, on March 29, the BBC issued a directive to its journalists that, due to the quantity of false reports issuing from the Pentagon, all military sources must be attributed clearly.
    The Guardian reported that news chiefs at the BBC are increasingly concerned about repeated cases of their reports turning out to be untrue, including reports on March 23 that U.K. forces had secured the port of Umm Qasr (fighting continues long after the British military said it was taken), a March 25 report of uprisings in Basra (no rebellion took place), and March 26 reports of over 100 tanks leaving Basra (only 3 actually left).
          Other stories, such as claims that a chemical weapons factory was found in An Najaf, and reports of Iraqi responsibility for missile attacks in Baghdad, also proved to be false.  The Guardian quoted a senior BBC source as saying, "We're getting more truth out of Baghdad than the Pentagon at the moment."
          Besides the BBC, the U.K. military has also been a source of negative sentiments directed at the U.S.  handling of the war.  On March 31, two separate reports indicating this dissent appeared in the Guardian.  Three British soldiers were ordered home because of their objection to civilian deaths at the hands of American soldiers.  The U.K. troops, from the 16 Air Assault Brigade in southern Iraq, are subject to court martial and have sought legal advice.
          Also on March 31, the Guardian reported statements from British troops who were mistakenly bombed by U.S. pilots.  Two were injured and one killed when their convoy was attacked by an American A-10 Thunderbolt.  The report quoted Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, commander of the lead U.K. vehicle, recovering in bed aboard the RFA Argus in the Persian Gulf, as saying, "I can command my vehicle…[w]hat I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."
          He went on to state that a Union Jack (British Flag) is clearly visible on the back of the reconnaissance Scimitars (the military vehicle the British engineers were riding in), a symbol one-and-a-half foot wide.  "For him to fire his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics.  How he could not see that Union Jack I don't know."
          Other statements by the U.K. troops called the actions of the U.S. pilot "incompetence and negligence," and some even wanted to see the pilot prosecuted for manslaughter.  When the A-10 circled around and attacked, firing not once but twice, the first two Scimitars erupted in flames (these vehicles were filled with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, grenades, and diesel fuel), according to the Guardian.  LCoH Gerrard is also quoted as claiming, "[A] boy of about 12 years old…was no more than 20 meters away when the Yank opened up."  He added, "He had absolutely no regard for human life.  I believe he was a cowboy."
          Other British troops agreed.  Noting that all the vehicles were marked as "Coalition", Trooper Chris Finney said, "I don't know why he shot a second time, he was that close."  The Guardian also quoted Trooper Joe Woodgate, who stated, "It was the most irresponsible thing in the world.  They didn't know what was going on."
          Damning as all of this is, the criticisms don't stop there.  In yet another report from the Guardian, on April 1, senior British officers are quoted as being highly critical of the methods used by U.S. forces to deal with civilians.  In particular, the paper says these officers were "appalled" by reports of U.S. Marines' killing of Iraqis near Nassiriya at the end of March.  One source was quoted as saying, "You can see why the Iraqis are not welcoming us with open arms."

           The use of cluster munitions by U.S. forces in Iraq has been confirmed by eyewitness accounts from journalists and civilians, as well as footage of cluster bombs being used.  The Pentagon has finally admitted the use of these weapons, but still denies cluster bombs are responsible for massive civilian casualties in Iraq, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
           Cluster bombs are filled with smaller explosive sub-munitions, which are released from the primary container over a target area, where they spread out and explode.  Cluster munitions can be used in bombs, missiles, or artillery shells.  Some cluster weapons, like certain Sensor-Fused Weapons, may contain as few as 10 sub-munitions (each of which, in turn, contains four smaller warheads that are released), while other Sensor-Fused Weapons may have over 200 sub-munitions.
          The M26 warhead contains 644 sub-munitions, called M77 (also known as "dual-purpose grenades").  M483A1 and M864 artillery shells contain 88 and 72 sub-munitions (dual-purpose grenades), respectively.  The areas cluster bombs cover can be quite large, with the M26 scattering bomblets over an area of between 120,000 to 240,000 square meters.
          Besides the obvious damage such weapons can do when they are used, there is another danger that is perhaps more deadly.  Cluster munitions have a high failure rate, so many of the sub-munitions do not detonate.  Instead, they land on the ground, where they stay scattered until someone (usually a civilian) steps on them or attempts to pick them up.  The sub-munitions in the M26 warhead have a failure rate of 16-percent, according to the Department of Defense report to Congress in February 2000.
          The M483A1 and M864 sub-munitions have a failure rate of 14-percent.  According to Colin King, a British bomb disposal officer who served in the Gulf War, and author of Jane's Explosive Ordnance Disposal guide, cluster munitions have an overall failure rate of between 10 and 15-percent.
          Video footage of fighting in Iraq shows the Army 3rd Infantry Division using Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), artillery systems that use only cluster munitions.  They fire the M26 warhead.  In other footage, The 1st Battalion of the 39th Field Artillery Regiment has 18 or more MLRS.  In other footage, the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion is supported by Marine artillery units, who fired 155mm projectiles identified as either M483A1 or M864 artillery shells.
          A reporter embedded with the Marines said that hundreds of grenades were being fired at Iraqi forces.  These tapes have been viewed by Human Rights Watch, and the use of cluster munitions confirmed.
          On March 28, a helicopter attack by Army 101st Airborne Division was supported by 18 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) fired against Iraqi air defense units.  ATACMS carry 300 or 950 M74 sub-munitions.  The Washington Post reported this the following day.
          The most graphic example of cluster bombs wreaking havoc on Iraqi civilians, however, occurred March 29 through April 1 in what Pepe Escobar of The Asian Times described as "uninterrupted, furious American bombing."  The target:  Hilla, a city south of Baghdad.  The victims:  almost every single one a civilian.
                    Hilla, once called Babylon, is surrounded by small villages.  The whole area was attacked, in air assaults that lasted several days.  Hilla's hospital received hundreds of casualties.  Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross, confirms at least 460 wounded and several dozen dead, all of them "farmers, women and children."  Journalists counted at least 60 or more dead.
          Robert Fisk of the Independent says there are 61 dead, and he notes that these are "only those who were brought to the hospital" either already dead or injured.  Nobody knows yet how many more are buried in rubble, or who had no one to bring their bodies in, or who were injured but did not go to the hospital and died later.

           The U.S. invasion of Iraq took an ominous turn on April 8 (or, more precisely, yet another ominous turn).  In three separate incidents, the American military attacked journalists in Baghdad, killing three of them and injuring many others.  Worse still, at least two of the attacks appear to have been deliberate, and the third highly suspect.
           At just after 7:35 in the morning, al-Jazeera's chief correspondent in Baghdad stood on the roof of the news station's headquarters in that city, reporting on a battle nearby.  The reporter, Tariq Ayoub, was with cameraman Zouhair al-Iraqi and another colleague, Maher Abdullah.  They saw a U.S. jet diving towards the building, so low they "actually heard the rocket being launched," said Mr. Abdullah.  Actually, two missiles hit the building.  At least one of the missiles struck the building's electrical generator and exploded, killing reporter Ayoub and wounding the cameraman.
           A few background bits of information make it clear this attack was intentional, despite the empty assertions by Pentagon and Bush administration officials that they would never target journalists.  First is the fact that in the invasion of Afghanistan, in 2001, the al-Jazeera office in the capital city of Kabul was blasted by a U.S. cruise missile, and the U.S. never even tried to explain the incident.
          The second inconvenient fact is that, in February of this year al-Jazeera made sure the Pentagon had the coordinates for the Baghdad office.  They were given guarantees it would not be attacked.  Even more importantly, the very day before the attack, Nabil Khouri of the U.S. State Department actually went to the al-Jazeera building and reiterated the guarantee that al-Jazeera would not be attacked.
           Reinforcing the appearance that the attack was deliberate, minutes later a second attack occurred, less than a mile away, at the headquarters of the news station Abu Dhabi TV, leaving up to 30 journalists trapped under debris after an artillery strike.  Like al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi TV provided the coordinates of its building to the Pentagon.  Both networks have been criticized for their coverage of the war, for showing footage of civilian casualties and broadcasting images of U.S. POWs.
           The attacks did not stop there, however.  About four hours later, before noon, journalists at the Palestine hotel were at work broadcasting images from Baghdad.  Some stood outside on balconies, in clear view of U.S. forces.  Many of them were filming American tanks in the area, including cameraman Taras Protsyuk from the Ukraine working for Reuters, and a France 3 news crew.
          A U.S. M1A1 tank was on the Jamhuriya Bridge nearby, and the French crew was filming it.  Sky Television correspondent David Chater, on his way out to a balcony, saw the tank as well.  The Independent's Robert Fisk was outside the hotel, driving down a road that ran between the Palestine Hotel and the Jamhuriya bridge, where the M1A1 sat.
           Suddenly, Mr. Chater saw the tank barrel moving, pointing at the hotel.  The France 3 crew filmed as the tank fired, catching the image of the burst of fire from the barrel.  Mr. Fisk heard the blast from the tank.  The shell crashed into the 15th floor, where the Ukrainian Mr. Protsyuk, David Chater, Reuters staff member Paul Pasquale and reporter Samia Nakhoul, and at least one more journalist were at that moment.
          On the 16th floor, Jose Couso of Telecinco (Tele 5) was also severely injured, as was a Fuji TV cameraman.  Charter says that after the shell hit, there was much chaos and panic, "French journalists screaming, 'Get a doctor, get a doctor.'"  He said everyone started putting on flak jackets.
           Taras Protsyuk died soon after the attack, and Jose Couso died 30 minutes after one of his legs was amputated.  Several other reporters were wounded.
           The videotapes and photographs of the event show clearly that the M1A1 tank fired the shot that struck the hotel.  Of great importance is the fact that on none of these films is there any sound of gunfire prior to the tank's shot, and Robert Fisk insists that as he passed between the hotel and the bridge, there was no incoming fire at the U.S. tanks.  CBS's Lara Logan reported that there was no Iraq fire from the hotel or even close to the hotel.

           Here is the face of liberation, American-style.  This is the truth behind CNN's running commercial for the U.S. military and President Bush's reelection campaign.  The U.S. invasion of Iraq has accomplished only one thing, and that is the widespread destruction of Iraqi society and the murder of huge numbers of civilians.  No weapons of mass destruction.  No liberation, only occupation (in spite of the constant lies told every day by the U.S. government about "turning over power to the Iraqi people").  Following are some facts about what happened to the oft-mentioned "Iraqi people."
           Stories of the cluster bombing of Hilla are recounted above, as are tales of the checkpoint murders and the conditions in Basra, the Shu'ale missile strike and the attack on Syrian buses, the multiple attacks on Kurds and bombings of the press buildings.  This would all be more than enough horror for a three-week war; however, there are still many other examples of the destruction and death spread across Iraq.  Far too many.
           Mark Phillips of CBS reporting from Basra treated us to scenes of a civilian building that was bombed on March 31 in Basra.  There was extensive damage, and images of bloodied civilians.  "There was nothing military here…why was it hit?" cried out an angry Iraqi man in a crowd that gathered around the bomb site.  Footage at the hospital showed rooms packed with injured civilians, with no bed space left as new casualties came in.  This was all the result of massive U.K. strikes with artillery and tanks, as the British used their expertise at benign crowd control to win more hearts and minds.
           The Mansur residential neighborhood of Baghdad was targeted by U.S. airstrikes on March 28, to coincide with the traditional Muslim prayer hour on Fridays.  Three buildings were demolished in the assault.  The next day, airstrikes in Najif killed dozens of people and wounded over 100.  Among the dead were two surgeons and an ambulance driver, all three killed when a missile struck their emergency vehicle.
           Cathy Breen is a member of the Iraqi Peace Team.  Her report on April 1 described her visit to al-Amiin, a heavily populated residential area south of Iraq, where three civilians (the oldest 18 years old, the youngest only seven) died after a bomb struck the neighborhood on March 31.  Many other Iraqis were wounded, including a five-year-old with severe abdominal injuries.  The type of explosion and damage she describes seems to suggest cluster munitions, although this may not be the case.  Breen says seven homes were hit after the bomb "exploded in the air and scattered," leaving "pockmarks" on walls of surrounding homes and metal fragments all over the area.  She also photographed pieces of the bomb, one of which had the inscription JX2N8902, MADE IN USA, 8642.
           UNICEF issued a statement on April 2, warning that small, unexploded U.S. BLU 97 bomblets are the exact same yellow color as the food packets being handed out by U.S. and U.K. forces in Iraq.  These bomblets spread out over large areas, and large numbers of them do not detonate.  Instead, they lie on the ground until an Iraqi (usually a child) mistakes them for the food packets and tries to pick them up.  The bombs then explode, killing or severely maiming the civilians.
           On April 3, Samia Nakhoul of Reuters (incidentally, one of the reporters on the 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel when U.S. forces attacked journalists there) filed a report from a Baghdad hospital after an air attack hit Radwaniyeh, close to the airport, on April 2.  Six adults and 12 children were hit in the attack.  The report begins with a description of an eight-year-old girl whose face and body are covered in lacerations from shrapnel, one of her eyes missing.  She cried out for her mother, who was in critical condition with one of the girl's brothers.  Her other brother, four-years-old, was killed.  Two sisters and the father were at another hospital, severely injured.
           Nakhoul's report notes that, according to Doctor Ahmed Abdel Amir, children make up such a large percentage (over half) of Iraq's population, they likewise constitute a large number of casualties.  A seven-year-old boy hit in the abdomen by shrapnel from a missile that struck near his home, a six-year-old with his guts visible because a missile exploded close to his house (two others were killed).  These children scream in pain, tremble and grasp their mothers when the sounds of explosions echo outside.  They don't eat, they don't sleep, they simply cry and fear.