The Occupation of Iraqi Hearts and Minds

Jawz II

Oh Dear
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
6,671
Location
Arizona Bay
I read this article a while ago, but its really good, so here you go (Im gonna post the first bit, you can click the link for the whole thing):

Spoiler :

The face of the occupation

The Occupation of Iraqi Hearts and Minds
A Dig led by Nir Rosen

Editor’s note: Truthdig contributor Nir Rosen, an American reporter who has lived for the last three years in Iraq and who can pass as Middle Eastern, describes what it’s like to live under the boot of a culturally callous—and sometimes criminal—occupying force in Iraq. “The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people, and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media.”



Three years into an occupation of Iraq replete with so-called milestones, turning points and individual events hailed as “sea changes” that would “break the back” of the insurgency, a different type of incident received an intense, if ephemeral, amount of attention. A local human rights worker and aspiring journalist in the western Iraqi town of Haditha filmed the aftermath of the massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians. The video made its way to an Iraqi working for Time magazine, and the story was finally publicized months later. The Haditha massacre was compared to the Vietnam War’s My Lai massacre, and like the well-publicized and embarrassing Abu Ghraib scandal two years earlier, the attention it received made it seem as if it were a horrible aberration perpetrated by a few bad apples who might have overreacted to the stress they endured as occupiers.

In reality both Abu Ghraib and Haditha were merely more extreme versions of the day-to-day workings of the American occupation in Iraq, and what makes them unique is not so much how bad they were, or how embarrassing, but the fact that they made their way to the media and were publicized despite attempts to cover them up. Focusing on Abu Ghraib and Haditha distracts us from the daily, little Abu Ghraibs and small-scale Hadithas that have made up the occupation. The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people, and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media.

Americans, led to believe that their soldiers and Marines would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people, have no idea what the occupation is really like from the perspective of Iraqis who endure it. Although I am American, born and raised in New York City, I came closer to experiencing what it might feel like to be Iraqi than many of my colleagues. I often say that the secret to my success in Iraq as a journalist is my melanin advantage. I inherited my Iranian father’s Middle Eastern features, which allowed me to go unnoticed in Iraq, blend into crowds, march in demonstrations, sit in mosques, walk through Falluja’s worst neighborhoods.

I also benefited from being able to speak Arabic—in particular its Iraqi dialect, which I hastily learned in Baghdad upon my arrival and continued to develop throughout my time in Iraq.

My skin color and language skills allowed me to relate to the American occupier in a different way, for he looked at me as if I were just another haji, the “gook” of the war in Iraq. I first realized my advantage in April 2003, when I was sitting with a group of American soldiers and another soldier walked up and wondered what this haji (me) had done to get arrested by them. Later that summer I walked in the direction of an American tank and heard one soldier say about me, “That’s the biggest . .. .. .. .in’ Iraqi (pronounced eye-raki) I ever saw.” A soldier by the gun said, “I don’t care how big he is, if he doesn’t stop movin’ I’m gonna shoot him.”

I was lucky enough to have an American passport in my pocket, which I promptly took out and waved, shouting: “Don’t shoot! I’m an American!” It was my first encounter with hostile American checkpoints but hardly my last, and I grew to fear the unpredictable American military, which could kill me for looking like an Iraqi male of fighting age. Countless Iraqis were not lucky enough to speak American English or carry a U.S. passport, and often entire families were killed in their cars when they approached American checkpoints.

In 2004 the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that by September 2004 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the American occupation and said that most of them had died violently, mostly in American airstrikes. Although this figure was challenged by many, especially partisans of the war, it seems perfectly plausible to me based on what I have seen in Iraq, having spent most of the postwar period there. What I never understood was why more journalists did not focus on this, choosing instead to look for the “good news” and go along with the official story.

My first direct encounter with American Marines was from the Iraqi side. In late April 2003, I was attending the Friday prayers in a Sunni bastion in Baghdad. Thousands of people were praying and the devout flooded out of the mosque and laid their prayer rugs on the street and the square in front of it. A Marine patrol rounded a corner and walked right into hundreds of people praying on the street and listening to the sermon, even approaching the separate section for women. Dozens of men rose and put their shoes on, forming a virtual wall to block the armed Marines, who seemed unaware of the danger. The Marines did not understand Arabic. “Irjau!” “Go back!” the demonstrators screamed, and some waved their fists, shouting “America is the enemy of God!” as they were restrained by a few cooler-headed men from within their ranks. I ran to advise the Marines that Friday prayers was not a good time to show up fully armed. The men sensed this and asked me to tell their lieutenant, who appeared oblivious to the public relations catastrophe he might be provoking. He told me: “That’s why we’ve got the guns.”

A nervous soldier asked me to go explain the situation to the bespectacled staff sergeant, who had been attempting to calm the situation by telling the demonstrators, who did not speak English, that the U.S. patrol meant no harm. He finally lost his temper when an Iraqi told him gently, “You must go.” “I have the weapons,” the sergeant said. “You back off.”
 
Truthdig.com ?

The writer of the article, and "director" this "dig":

Nir Rosen is a fellow at the New America Foundation and a free-lance writer. His book on postwar Iraq, "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq" was published by Free Press in May 2006.

The story begins:

Editor’s note: Truthdig contributor Nir Rosen, an American reporter who has lived for the last three years in Iraq and who can pass as Middle Eastern, describes what it’s like to live under the boot of a culturally callous—and sometimes criminal—occupying force in Iraq. “The occupation has been one vast extended crime against the Iraqi people, and most of it has occurred unnoticed by the American people and the media.”

Nevertheless, I found the article to be both heartwarming and optimistic.



Some of the cartoons on the site are really funny: http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/

I also recommend a perusal of the home page: http://www.truthdig.com/
 
Nevertheless?

What does any of that have to do with anything? In case you didn't know hundreds of thousands iraqis have been killed in the past 6 years, thats not a crime?

At least you read the whole thing. Obviously you were the only one here. :D
 
Maybe it's hundreds of thousands if you include everyone who died of old age - AND their pets!

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

(A disputed cite, with a high count)

Puts Iraqi civilian deaths from violence since the occupation (ANY violence - not just US) at 78k.
 
Maybe it's hundreds of thousands if you include everyone who died of old age - AND their pets!
Yes, probably. Maybe it's also hundreds of thousands if you DON'T include silly deaths like that!

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

(A disputed cite, with a high count)

Puts Iraqi civilian deaths from violence since the occupation (ANY violence - not just US) at 78k.
:crazyeye: No, it does not.
Iraq Body Count restricts its published database to documented (not inferred, extrapolated or otherwise estimated) deaths of civilians from post-invasion violence in Iraq
(Italics in original. Hence, this doesn't "put" the figure, as it's not an estimate - it's a subset.)
We have always recognised and made explicit that our media-derived database
cannot be a complete record of civilians killed in violence, and have called for
properly supported counts since the beginning of our own project. What
IBC continues to provide is an irrefutable baseline of certain and undeniable
deaths based on the solidity of our sources and the conservativeness of our
methodology.
This methodology being:
IBC collects, archives, analyses and systematically extracts details from every available, distinct report for all identified incidents and individuals killed. This means that except for a small minority of deaths whose database entries are tagged as “Provisional,” all inclusions are derived from a minimum of two independent data sources

Confirmed deaths from two independent sources only lead to a "high count" or "dispute" if you're desperate to keep the figure as low as possible. Which, apparently, some are.

Wikipedia said:
Casualties of the Iraq War
Systematic underreporting by U.S.
An April 2005 article by The Independent[69] reports:

"A week before she was killed by a suicide bomber, humanitarian worker Marla Ruzicka forced military commanders to admit they did keep records of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces. ... in an essay Ms Ruzicka wrote a week before her death on Saturday and published yesterday, the 28-year-old revealed that a Brigadier General told her it was 'standard operating procedure' for US troops to file a report when they shoot a non-combatant. She obtained figures for the number of civilians killed in Baghdad between 28 February and 5 April [2005], and discovered that 29 had been killed in firefights involving US forces and insurgents. This was four times the number of Iraqi police killed."

The December 2006 report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) found that the United States has filtered out reports of violence in order to disguise its policy failings in Iraq.[70] A December 7, 2006 McClatchy Newspapers article[70] reports that the ISG found that U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence on one day in July 2006, yet "a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light more than 1,100 acts of violence." The article further reports:

"The finding confirmed a Sept. 8 McClatchy Newspapers report that U.S. officials excluded scores of people killed in car bombings and mortar attacks from tabulations measuring the results of a drive to reduce violence in Baghdad. By excluding that data, U.S. officials were able to boast that deaths from sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital had declined by more than 52 percent between July and August, McClatchy newspapers reported."

From the ISG report itself: "A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."[70]

<insert random flame here>
 
Is conspiracy theory ALWAYS the answer?

Even Wikipedia could have done better than this. Please, am I expected to take the word of some left-wing hack newspaper (The Independant) who, as a primary source, cites hearsay from a now dead humanitarian worker? That's a DAMN convienient source - completely uncounterable.

Their other (non-primary) source is the Iraq Study Group. Am I to take the "United States Institute of Peace" as an unbiased source? Let's look at their methods:

The Iraq Study Group spent 4 days in Iraq in August/September.
There were 9 plenary meetings of the ISG.
The Iraq Study Group consulted with 136 people in and out of government before September 19, and 170 people total as it prepared its report.
http://www.usip.org/isg/

Seriously, the Independant inventing a dead humanitarian worker with top-secret information that was divulged to her after she (by herself) pressed the US military into admiting this to her (and giving her documents!), and using this "mystery" source as an introduction to a fluff piece meant to prop up the ISG report is hardly journalism. They do not even have the documents that she was supposedly given. I guess we are to assume that after she strong-armed the US into giving her these documents, they had her killed and destroyed the documents?

Either give me a real source with hard numbers (no now-dead humanitarian workers who strong-armed the US government into giving them secret information), or forget about "hundreds of thousands" BS.

80k does not = hundreds of thousands.

<insert random conspiracy theorist flame here>
 
Lancet.

Ten characters.
 
Badfacts?

/even more characters
 
Is conspiracy theory ALWAYS the answer?

Conspiracy theory? Are you drunk? the ISG was a bipartisan group doing the study for the Us congress.

From your link:

"USIP facilitated the bipartisan ISG at the urging of Congress."

Go look up the members of the ISG and read their report before you criticize them. Are you seeing a pattern of conspiracy theorists (hippies) doing their best to bring the US of A everywhere?

Congrats, youre a conspiracy theorist. :D
 
Top Bottom