Showing posts with label airstrikes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label airstrikes. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2011

Time for peace negotiations in Libya - country wide airstrikes and an offensive on Tripoli will kill civilians, not protect them

The bombing in Libya was justified under UN Resolution 1973 in targeting tanks and artillery which were shelling Benghazi. It is not justified if it continues to bomb the entire country long after anti-aircraft batteries have been destroyed, nor is it justified in targeting non-military targets (such as Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli) nor in supporting rebel assaults on towns or cities held by Gaddafi’s forces, as this will kill as many civilians through “collateral damage” from bombing as would be killed by artillery and tank shelling. The repeated bombing of Tripoli which has taken place despite the fact there is no fighting on the ground is not authorised by the UN resolution for the same reason – it is likely to be killing civilians, not protecting them (1) – (5).

Cameron and Sarkozy have made a great deal of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorising the use of “all necessary means” (i.e military force), while largely ignoring the “to protect civilians” part of the same sentence.This has a lot to do with the very poor poll ratings and high unemployment both politicians have in their own countries. Cameron would dearly like to repeat Margaret Thatcher’s Falklands ‘patriotic war’ bounce back by moving the media’s focus to foreign policy.

This explains his government’s claim that attempting a re-run of Reagan’s 1986 attempt to assassinate Gaddafi by airstrike (actually managing to killed a very young girl – Gaddafi’s adopted daughter - along with dozens of other people and hit the Austrian, Swiss and French embassies) would be within the remit of the UN resolution to “protect civilians” as Gaddafi has ordered the killing of unarmed protesters (6) – (8). It would not, because, as with the 1986 strike, it would be likely to kill civilians in large numbers itself. It already seems to have been attempted in an air-strike on an “administrative building” or “Gaddafi compound” in Tripoli (9). The likelihood is that, as in 1986, civilians will have been killed. (Some people claim that the girl killed in the 1986 strikes was only posthumously adopted as Gaddafi’s “daughter” for propaganda purposes. Even they admit that the strikes killed civilians including children though. The same people – the badly mis-named ‘Accuracy in Media’ also use the neo-con rag ‘The Weekly Standard’ as a source on Iraqi WMDs though. The Weekly Standard is so unable to separate what it wants to believe from rational thought that it once simultaneously claimed both that former CIA head George Tenet was a proven liar and that a book he wrote proved Saddam had WMDs and links to Al Qa’ida – a considerable feat of doublethink) (10) – (13).

British Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey and others have even suggested the possibility if deploying ground troops, claiming that if it wasn’t “a large deployment” it wouldn’t breach the Resolution. In fact the resolution clearly states that it involves “excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory” from “all necessary means”. Those suggesting the “necessity” for ground troops also ignore the fact that even the rebels say they would fight them “with more force than we are using against Gaddafi” if they are deployed - in order to avoid being occupied like Iraq or Afghanistan (14) – (15).

Not sending in ground troops will prevent an Iraq 2003 style war (though it still risks a long civil war if fighting continues – and even if Gaddafi is overthrown), but that still leaves the possibility of an Iraq 1991 – 2002 style air war in which tens of thousands of civilians are killed directly by bombing and hundreds of thousands killed by the indirect effects of it (e.g damage to water and sewage systems) (16) – (17).

Suggestions reported by Al Jazeera from some NATO governments that their takeover of the air campaign in Libya could involve preventing either side assaulting towns held by the other are welcome and – unlike some current strikes – would be enforcing the UN resolution by preventing civilian casualties, not going beyond it in a war of regime change.

These suggestions presumably come from the Turkish government, since the French and British have been following the opposite course – trying to “break the stalemate’ by supporting rebel offensives on Gaddafi held towns or those containing the forces of both sides (18).

While we know Gaddafi is a dictator and would very likely have killed or disappeared much of the population of Benghazi if he’d captured it, we know very little of the rebels, their past, their aims, who they are and who is funding and backing them. Gaddafi has the support of at the least a large minority of the population in the West and there is no guarantee that the rebels taking Tripoli would kill less people than Gaddafi would have if he’d taken Benghazi – especially if it involves air strikes.

We know from Kosovo, from Afghanistan and from Iraq that US and NATO air strikes are as likely to kill civilians as anyone else’s air or artillery strikes are. Given that the US military’s default line on air strikes killing civilians in Afghanistan being blanket denial (followed, months later, by admitting to killing half the number of civilians they actually did), the claims by NATO governments not to have killed any civilians in airstrikes in Libya are likely to be equally hollow (19) – (21).

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates claim that Gaddafi’s forces are killing civilians then moving their bodies about to pretend they were killed by air strikes is as ridiculous as his similar (and comprehensively disproven) claims on air strikes in Afghanistan and the Taliban in 2009.

The best outcome for avoiding civilian deaths would be a negotiated peace with an agreement that Benghazi and other rebel held towns will become a de facto autonomous zone like the Kurdish North in Iraq after the 1991 war and no fly zone, while Gaddafi will be left control of the rest. Both sides could agree not to attack the other and a UN air force (preferably including Turkish and Russian planes so both sides can trust it) will patrol it and order any  armed forces moving towards towns held by the other side to turn back or be bombed.

As long as fighting continues hundreds of thousands of stranded migrant workers and people in disputed cities will also continue to suffer from lack of food, water and medicines and many wounded who could have been saved if treated, will die. A ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid in has to be a priority.

Peace negotiations could involve negotiating Gaddafi standing down and going into exile, before further negotiations on a transition to democracy without further fighting and loss of lives


(1) = UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011), http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement

(2) = Channel 4 News 21 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: Gaddafi’s air defences ‘knocked out’’,http://www.channel4.com/news/libya-gaddafi-base-hit-in-second-night-of-allied-bombing

(3) = Reuters 28 Mar 2011 ‘Aided by air strikes, Libya's rebels push west’, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110325/tts-uk-libya-ca02f96.html

(4) = MSNBC 21 Mar 2011 ‘Blasts, anti-aircraft fire rock Tripoli’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42189217/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

(5) = Sky News 22 Mar 2011 ‘Explosions Rock Tripoli For Third Night’,http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Libya-Gaddafi-Compound-In-Tripoli-Hit-By-Missile-In-Second-Night-Of-Allied-Airstrikes/Article/201103315956752?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15956752_Libya%3A_Gaddafi_Compound_In_Tripoli_Hit_By_Missile_In_Second_Night_Of_Allied_Airstrikes

(6) = Guardian 22 Mar 2011 ‘Is Muammar Gaddafi a target? PM and military split over war aims’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/muammar-gaddafi-david-cameron-libya

(7) = Bovard, James (2003) ‘Terrorism and Tyranny’, Palgrave-MacMillan, NY,2003, Chapter 2, pages 24-26

(8) = Geoff Simons (2003) ‘Libya and the West’ Center for Libyan Studies, Oxford, UK, 2003,Chapter 7, pages 131-134 of hardback edition

(9) = See (3) and (4) above

(10) = Accuracy in Media 22 Feb 2011 ‘NBC’s Mitchell Regurgitates Gaddafi Lies’,http://www.aim.org/aim-column/nbc%E2%80%99s-mitchell-regurgitates-gaddafi-lies/

(11) = Accuracy in Media 28 Feb 2006 ‘Where are the WMD?’, http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/where-are-the-wmd-2/

(12) = Weekly Standard 29 April 2007 ‘"George Tenet's Imaginary Encounter... With Richard Perle. by William Kristol"’, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/593daqmw.asp

(13) = Weekly Standard 01 May 2007 ‘"More Than Enough Evidence" What George Tenet really says about Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. by Thomas Joscelyn"’, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

(14) = Guardian News Blog 22 Mar 2011 ‘Libya: air strikes continue live updates’, 11.09 am, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/22/libya-no-fly-zone-air-strikes-live-updates#block-17My colleague Sam Jones writes that armed forces minister Nick Harvey has refused to rule out the deployment of British ground troops in Libya. But he did stress that there was a huge difference between a limited intervention and a full-scale occupation force, which is banned under the terms of the UN mandate. Asked whether British ground troops could be deployed in a defensive role to protect civilians, the armed forces minister did not discount the possibility, although he said he did not believe that any deployment would be on a "significant scale". He told BBC1's Breakfast programme: "I don't think we would at this stage rule anything in or rule anything out but I agree with the distinction that you draw between landing an occupying force and the use of anybody on the ground."

(15) = See (1) above

(16) = Bennis , Phyllis & Moushabeck  , Michael (Editors) (1992)  ‘Beyond the Storm’  ; Canongate Press , London , 1992, p326 – 355

(17) = Lee , Ian (1991) ‘Continuing Health Costs of the Gulf War’, Medical Educational Trust , London , 1991

(18) = See (3) above

(19) = HRW 26 Oct 2001 ‘Under Orders : War Crimes in Kosovo’, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2001/10/26/under-orders-war-crimes-kosovo

(20) = BBC News 01 Jan 1999 ‘Nato's bombing blunders’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/340966.stm

(21) = Phillip Knightley (2000) ‘The First Casualty’, Prion Books Limited, London, 2000, Chapter 20 is on the Kosovo war and propaganda and NATO war crimes in it in general; pages 516-517, on bombing of Chinese and Indian embassies in Belgrade by NATO after they’d criticised NATO’s air war – and given NATO the addresses of their embassies at it’s request, supposedly to ensure they wouldn’t be hit

Gates recycles disproven Afghan war air strike propaganda for bombing of Libya

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has claimed that in Libya “The truth of the matter is we have trouble coming up with proof of any civilian casualties that we have been responsible for…But we do have a lot of intelligence reporting about Qaddafi taking the bodies of the people he's killed and putting them at the sites where we've attacked.” (1)

There’s just one slight problem with this ridiculous propaganda – Gates used exactly the same propaganda line in 2009 after repeated US air strikes killed around 70 civilians in the Bala Baluk area of Farah Province in Afghanistan.

In 2009 it was reported that “A claim by American officials, which was repeated by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates yesterday in Kabul, that the Taliban might have killed people with grenades because they did not pay an opium tax is not supported by any eyewitnesses and is disproved by pictures of deep bomb craters, one of which is filled with water.” (2)

Gates’ story was also found to be untrue by investigations on the ground by the International Committee of the Red Cross, by Human Rights Watch and by the Afghan Human Rights Commission and Gates was later forced to admit it was untrue. A US military cover up “investigation” that concluded only 25 to 30 civilians were killed used such stringent methodology as counting a grave in which a mother and child were buried as one person (3) – (6).

So claims that no air strikes in Libya have killed any civilians are unlikely to be any more true than in Afghanistan and if you want “the truth of the matter”, don’t take the word of Robert Gates or the US military any more than Gaddafi or his spokesmen.


(1) = CBS 27 Mar 2011 ‘Gates: Qaddafi losing ground in Libya’,http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047619.shtml

(2) = Independent 08 May 2009 ‘Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity’,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html

(3) = ICRC 06 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: ICRC confirms dozens killed in air strikes’,http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/afghanistan-news-060509.htm

(4) = Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission 26 May 2009 ‘Press release:Balabolook incident’,http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/Eng_pages/Press_releases_eng/2009/pre_rel_balabluk_eng_26may2009.pdf

(5) = Human Rights Watch 14 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: US Should Act to End Bombing Tragedies  : Civilian Death Toll in May 3 Airstrikes Shows Previous Measures Inadequate’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies

(6) = Dispatches – Afghanistan’s Dirty War, Channel 4 News (UK) 12 Jun 2009, Afghanistan's Dirty War, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/afghanistans-dirty-war-watch-clips

Monday, February 28, 2011

Libya : Most Libyans don't want any foreign military intervention - and that includes the vast majority of Gaddafi's opponents


Something those people calling for military intervention in Libya (and condemning the UN and Obama for not ordering it) should hear, is that even most of Gaddafi's opponents in Libya don't want any foreign military intervention in their country - and even many exiles are against it

For instance an NPR reporter in Bengazhi found

NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro said …Protesters also made clear that they do not welcome foreign intervention in Libya…….“They don't want to be rescued, they don't want any military intervention,” Garcia-Navarro reported from Benghazi. “They have done this themselves, they say, and they will get rid of Moammar Gadhafi finally themselves, as well.” (1)

Mahmoud Al Nakou, a Libyan exile in London, wrote

Despite the heavy sacrifice they are offering every day, Libyans utterly reject any foreign intervention, even for their defence and protection. From the outset, Gaddafi warned his overthrow would make Libya the same horrific, chaotic arena that Iraq and Afghanistan are today. But the people are adamant that this revolution is theirs alone. (2)

Al Jazeera reports that

Opposition protesters in eastern Libya have formed a national council, pledging to help free areas of the country still under Muammar Gaddafi's rule. Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the new National Libyan Council that was launched in the city of Benghazi on Sunday, said …..

…“We will help liberate other Libyan cities, in particular Tripoli through our national army, our armed forces, of which part have announced their support for the people," Ghoga said.

Ghoga said the newly formed council was not contacting foreign governments and did not want them to intervene.

His comments came after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington was "reaching out" to opposition groups in the east.and was prepared to offer "any kind of assistance" to Libyans seeking to overthrow the regime. (3)

No doubt opinion is divided and there will be a minority in favour of it, but it’s clear the vast majority of Gaddafi’s opponents don’t want any foreign militaries in their country and after the bloodbaths and systematic torture in Afghanistan and Iraq and Western governments’ ulterior motive in Libya – disputes with Gaddafi over oil profits, who could blame them?

Even resigned Libyan Justice Minister Abdel Jalil (another member of the ‘National Council’ of the revolution), who seems to be the Libyan version of Curveball, a defector who tells Western governments whatever lies they want to hear to get their favour, said he was against foreign military intervention in a TV interview with Al Jazeera.

UPDATE: Mustafa Abdel Jalil has replied to questions on a no fly zone and foreign military intervention by saying “What we want is an air embargo to stop Gaddafi bringing in mercenaries.” but that “Any intervention will be confronted with more force than we are using against Gaddafi.” , which sounds like the Council do want a no-fly zone but don't want foreign troops on the ground, assuming Jalil speaks for the whole Council(4).

UPDATE 5th March : Since the 1st of March some rebels in Benghazi have been calling for both a no-fly zone and air-strikes against Gaddafi's forces, but only if this is a UN authorised operation (5). It seems unlikely the Russian or Chinese governments will approve either on the UN Security Council unless Gaddafi starts using his air-force against civilians (as previous reports said he was). The Libyan airforce has switched to targeting arms and ammunition dumps to stop them falling into rebel hands - although there are also reports of water pipelines to rebel held cities being targeted, which - if they succeeded in hitting and cutting them (which they don't seem to have so far) could kill a lot of civilians and rebels through shortages of clean water (as they have in Iraq from 1991 to present). The Iraqi no-fly zones were never UN authorised, though the Bosnian no fly zone was.(6) - (8)

There is no reason why humanitarian flights of food, water, aid and to help transport migrant workers trapped on the Libyan/Egyptian and Libyan/Tunisian borders home should not be increased though, with military escorts if necessary. No-one could deny the need for these flights and many lives are already being saved by relatively small scale humanitarian flights by the British government and others (9)


(1) = NPR (US National Public Radio) 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libyan Rebels Close In On Tripoli’,http://www.npr.org/2011/02/27/134101354/libya-rebels-control-closest-city-to-capital

(2) = guardian.co.uk 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libya: neither tribal nor Islamist’ by Mahmoud Al Nakou,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/27/libya-democracy-freedom-extremists-gaddafi

(3) = Al Jazeera 27 Feb 2011 ‘Libya opposition launches council’,http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011227175955221853.html

(4) = Sky News 28 Feb 2011 'Libya: Rebels 'May Use Force To Take Tripoli'', http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201102115942113

(5) = Washington Post 05 Mar 2011 'As Gaddafi holds on, some Libyans seek foreign intervention', http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106963.html

(6) = BBC 01 Mar 2011 'Libya ammunition dump avoids air attack' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12614632

(7) = CNN News Stream transcript 03 Mar 2011 'Fight for Libya Heating Up; Crimes Against Humanity in Libya; Mubarak Corruption Allegations', http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/03/nwsm.01.html

(8) = NYT 28 Feb 2011 'Qaddafi’s Forces Hit Back at Rebels',http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/world/africa/01unrest.html

(9) = guardian.co.uk 02 Mar 2011 'Libya: Britain sends planes to help with mass airlift of refugees', http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/02/libya-britain-sends-planes-refugees

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Have NATO airstrikes killed fewer civilians in Afghanistan under Obama? And have they fallen under McChrystal?

Contents Links





Any figures likely far lower than real total

When looking at the figures on civilian deaths in Afghanistan it’s important to remember that there is no independent and reliable source of figures that has sufficient resources and security to investigate and record all killings of civilians, especially in a country as large and mountainous as Afghanistan – so any figures are likely to be significantly lower than the real totals.

The two main bodies giving figures are UNAMA and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). Of the two only UNAMA gives monthly and annual totals for the whole country (and only from 2007 on), while the AIHRC does in-depth interviews of Afghans and NATO forces for some cases. The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor of the Simon Fraser University in Australia warns that that “figures released by these agencies likely represent a substantial undercount”.

(Also note that the sources i provide don’t even cover every airstrike that’s been reported in the media between the Azizabad airstrikes in August 2008 and the present.)

Back to contents links/ top of page

The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor of the Simon Fraser University in Australia, ‘Civilian Casualties’, http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/civilian.html


 


No entirely independent source for figures, only UN produces monthly and annual totals

As the US and its ally the Afghan government are both UN members – and the US is the most powerful member of the UN, even UNAMA figures may be subject to some downward pressure from the US government. This may even be more the case under Obama – who is keen to show civilian deaths caused by NATO in Afghanistan are falling – than under Bush. There has been a fall in the number of civilian casualties from air strikes reported by NATO and the Afghan government according to the media. This may show a genuine fall, as in the past the Karzai

The AIHRC is not as independent as its name might suggest given that its members were all appointed by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President installed by the US. It’s chairperson is a woman – Dr. Sima Samar - who has received death threats from both the Taliban and fundamentalist warlords allied to NATO and would not be allowed to be in any public position if not for NATO governments’ pressure. (I’m completely in favour of women being in public life and Dr. Samar is both brave and the right kind of person to have on the commission)  She and her fellow commissioners were appointed by President Karzai, who was appointed by President Bush. She has said she hopes NATO troops will “stay to finish the job you have started”. So if the AIHRC has a bias it’s therefore likely to be more pro-NATO than anti-NATO, though it frequently disputes both Afghan government figures (sometimes saying they’re too high) and NATO claims and figures (saying they’re too low), showing a high degree of independence in practice.

 In some cases Amnesty International have talked to village elders to get the names and numbers of civilians killed in an airstrike, or Human Rights Watch have carried out investigations, or International Red Cross staff on the ground have been able to give rough estimates of the scale of civilian deaths, but, though the resulting figures are often higher than UNAMA or AIHRC or afghan government ones when they do investigate an incident,  none of these three sources attempt to provide comprehensive figures for civilian deaths in Afghanistan. There is also the Afghan Rights Monitor group, which seems to be genuinely independent of the Afghan government, unlike the AIHRC. ARM figures, like Amnesty figures, are sometimes much higher than AIHRC or UNAMA figures – leading to arguments with UNAMA.

Since Azizabad President Karzai has also set up a commission specifically to investigate airstrikes and this provided figures on the Kunduz strike in October.

In general NATO figures for civilian casualties caused by their airstrikes are the lowest (and least credible given their terrible record of deliberately reducing the true figures in their “investigations”).

However frequently no two sources agree on the number of casualties (especially the case in the Kunduz airstrikes). UNAMA figures are a bit higher than NATO’s. Afghan government figures tend to be very high, at least in high profile cases where large numbers of civilians have been killed, due to public pressure for the true figures. AIHRC and investigations by Amnesty International give the  most credible figures as they are usually based on interviews with survivors and village elders and use the best methodology.

Back to contents links/ top of page

Sources

The Afghanistan Conflict Monitor of the Simon Fraser University in Australia, ‘Civilian Casualties’, http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/civilian.html

Independent 25 Jun 2002 ‘Afghanistan loses female minister in row over sharia law’,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistan-loses-female-minister-in-row-over-sharia-law-646366.html

Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Commissioners, Dr. Sima Samar,

http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/Eng_pages/Commissioners/Dr_samar.htm

UN News Service 17 Feb 2009 ‘Number of Afghan civilian deaths in 2008 highest since Taliban ouster, says UN’, <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29918&Cr=Afghan&Cr1=civilian+rights

UNOG/UNAMA 31 Jul 2009 ‘AFGHANISTAN: CIVILIAN CASUALTIES KEEP ON RISING, SAYS UN REPORT’, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/0A22BB5BFE041B76C125760400343AE3?OpenDocument


 


 

Mis-quoting Human Rights Watch

In July 2008 a Human Rights Watch researcher was quoted as follows in the New York Times

‘“In their deliberate targeting, the Air Force has all but eliminated civilian casualties in Afghanistan,” said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst with Human Rights Watch...The greater risk of civilian casualties, Mr. Garlasco said, comes in unplanned targeting, when American and allied troops come under attack unexpectedly and call for airstrikes...In an attempt to help troops on the ground caught up in the fight, there have been situations where they have killed civilians.’”

If that is the case (and it may well be as Garlasco is a former US soldier and experienced HRW investigator) it didn’t stop NATO airstrikes killing large number of civilians in what must have been unplanned attacks over and over again – at Azizabad, Farrah, Kunduz and many other places.

Many people half-quoted or mis-quoted Garlasco to give the impression he was saying NATO had almost entirely ended killings of civilians in air strikes in Afghanistan. He hadn’t. He’d just specified which kinds of airstrikes were killing most civilians.


NYT 23 Jul 2008 ‘Civilian Risks Curbing Strikes in Afghan War’,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/world/asia/23military.html?ex=1374552000&en=432eead6b7d6fae9&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg (page 1 only except for subscribers) ,


read the full version at http://warvictims.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/afghanistan-civilian-risks-curbing-strikes-in-afghan-war/#more-754


Back to contents links/ top of page



 


Azizabad airstrikes, August 2008 – Why NATO figures are unreliable, based on deliberately flawed methodology

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission found that the US military have consistently tried to deny the true number of civilians killed by air strikes in Afghanistan by using deliberately flawed counting methods.

In the worst incident of 2008 under Bush, at Azizabad,  US airstrikes after fighting between Taliban and NATO ground forces near Azizabad in Afghanistan killed at least 76 civilians according to a subsequent AIHRC investigation – and 95 according to the Afghan government.

As the issue wouldn’t go way the US military’s figure rose from 7 to  26 civilians killed, still conflicting with UN, Afghan government , AIHRC and Human Rights Watch investigations which showed at least 97 civilians were killed.

In another typically dishonest US military “investigation” a General Callan provided a final US military figure of 33 civilians dead, based on such innovative methodology as counting burials of a whole family in one grave as one civilian casualty (which was false as it’s common to bury families together and in airstrikes often a few lumps of flesh are all that’s left of the bodies) and counting all adult males as Taliban (the same definition of ‘enemy combatant’ used by General Mladic and the Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica).

Back to contents links/ top of page

Sources

AFP 26 Aug 2008 ‘US-led force says 5 Afghan civilians killed in strikes’,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/26/2347302.htm

PBS 27 Aug 2008 ‘U.N. Says 90 Civilians Killed in Afghan Airstrike’, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/asia/july-dec08/afghan_08-27.html

Washington Post 29 Aug 2008 ‘Pentagon Reports U.S. Airstrike Killed 5 Afghan Civilians, Not 90’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802203.html

AP 02 Sep 2009 ‘US probe finds fewer Afghan deaths than UN claimed’, http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1A1-D92UJ9FO0.html

Human Rights Watch 08 Sep 2008 ‘“Troops in Contact” - Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan’, http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/08/troops-contact-0

Human Rights Watch 14 Jan  2009 ‘Letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on US Airstrikes in Azizabad, Afghanistan’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/14/letter-secretary-defense-robert-gates-us-airstrikes-azizabad-afghanistan

HRW 15 Jan 2009 ‘Afghanistan: US Investigation of Airstrike Deaths ‘Deeply Flawed’,

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/15/afghanistan-us-investigation-airstrike-deaths-deeply-flawed



Farah Airstrikes, May 2009 : Propaganda continued under Obama

The Azizabad airstrikes were followed in August 2009 by airstrikes in the province of Farah.

Red Cross staff on the ground reported the strikes continued for 14 hours and had killed dozens of civilians. They and Afghan survivors said that civilians had fled miles from the scene of the fighting, only to be followed and bombed by US planes, apparently believing them to be fleeing Taliban.  The US military initially denied any significant civilian casualties. Then Defence Secretary Robert Gates and the Pentagon came out with an imaginative tale in which the Taliban had gone from house to house throwing grenades in to kill civilians – and had then pretended US airstrikes had killed them – and carried the same bodies from one village to another to make it look like there were more than there really were. Seeing that this story wasn’t being bought, they later admitted it wasn’t true.

The US military’s investigation found 20 to 35 civilians had been killed, but as usual this was an unbelievably low figure compared to those provided by more neutral bodies. The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission’s investigation gave a figure of 97 civilians killed – 21 women, 65 children and 11 adult men , along with 25 to 30 insurgents.

Back to contents links/ top of page

Sources

Independent 06 May 2009 ‘Afghans riot over air-strike atrocity’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html

Independent 06 May 2009 ‘'Dozens die' in Afghan air strikes says Red Cross’,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/dozens-die-in-afghan-air-strikes-says-red-cross-1679930.html

ICRC News Release 06 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: ICRC confirms dozens killed in air strikes’, http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/afghanistan-news-060509!OpenDocument

Independent 08 May 2009 ‘US denies 147 Afghan civilians killed’,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-denies-147-afghan-civilians-killed-1681620.html

IOS 10 May 2009 ‘Patrick Cockburn: Who killed 120 civilians? The US says it's not a story’, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-who-killed-120-civilians-the-us-says-its-not-a-story-1682310.html

Human Rights Watch 14 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: US Should Act to End Bombing Tragedies  :


Civilian Death Toll in May 3 Airstrikes Shows Previous Measures Inadequate’,

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies

Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission 26 May 2009 ‘Press release:Balabolook incident’, http://www.aihrc.org.af/English/Eng_pages/Press_releases_eng/2009/pre_rel_balabluk_eng_26may2009.pdf

Voice Of America 26 May 2009 ‘Rights Group: 97 Afghan Civilians Killed in US Strikes’, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-05/2009-05-26-voa41.cfm?CFID=295738253&CFTOKEN=56801835&jsessionid=00303d86380170fdca4e267160304e615c5a

Reuters 19 Jun 2009 ‘U.S. says Afghan air strikes killed 26 civilians’, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55I5Q920090619?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Reuters 19 Jun 2009 ‘U.S. says Afghan air strikes killed 26 civilians’, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55I5Q920090619?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Dispatches – Afghanistan’s Dirty War, Channel 4 News (UK) 12 Jun 2009, Afghanistan's Dirty War, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/afghanistans-dirty-war-watch-clips

Back to contents links/ top of page


 


After Farah : Have things changed under McChrystal? ; Kunduz and after

After Azizabad Obama appointed a new military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. From now on there would supposedly be a new strategy, airstrikes would be used as little as possible and the number of civilians killed by them would be reduced as a result.

Yet many other NATO airstrikes have also killed civilians since Farah, the worst case so far being a German airstrike on petrol tankers hijacked by the Taliban near Kunduz in September 2009. The Taliban couldn’t use all the fuel themselves, so took what they could transport and told villagers they could take as much as they wanted. A German NATO officer meanwhile called in airstrikes, fearing the Taliban might use the tankers for suicide bombings against NATO forces. General McChrystal, seeing wounded civilians arrive in a hospital, admitted some civilians might have been killed, but unusually gave no figure. President Karzai’s air strike commission gave a figure of 30 civilians killed and 69 Taliban, but said 20 of the Taliban were “unarmed”, bringing the meaning of “Taliban” in its statement into question. Were they Taliban-sympathising civilians or Taliban who had put their weapons down? The Afghan Rights Monitor gave a figure of 60-70 civilians killed, while Afghan village elders gave Amnesty International a list of 83 civilians they said had been killed in the Kunduz strikes.

 Unless the US military has turned over an unprecedented new leaf it will be continuing to deny the real numbers killed – and for the months since Azizabad pretty much the only figures available are NATO and Afghan government ones (with the exception of other sources for the Kunduz strikes).

On NATO and recent Afghan government figures Kunduz might look like an isolated incident. During June 2009, beginning almost a month after McChrystal took command, only 10 civilians were killed by NATO airstrikes in major offensives on Taliban held territory; and only 8  in July during similar circumstances . The NATO and Afghan government figures for August were very low too. However  given the record of deceit in US military and NATO figures on civilian deaths and the immense pressure the US government can put on Karzai’s government it would be a very trusting, naive or blindly “patriotic” person who took these figures as the real ones without any investigation of them by more reliable sources.

If for instance you look at the US military’s initial claims for Azizabad – 5 civilian deaths – with the AIHRC investigation finding at least 76 or the Afghan government figure of 95 that puts the NATO figure at around one fifteenth to one twentieth of more reliable sources. If you compare their final figure of 33 – its under half of the AIHRC figure and just over a third of the Afghan government one – and they are unlikely to concede such a high proportion of the real figure in cases which have received much less publicity.

Media reports of AIHRC figures mean the total for September 2009 alone must be at least 78 in at least two incidents, which brings the monthly average to higher than the UNAMA figures for January to June 2009 of 200 civilians (or 33 per month) killed by airstrikes in Afghanistan. If we take into account that AIHRC figures would probably be higher than the UNAMA ones the totals per month of civilians killed in airstrikes might be about the same for the months of 2009 before McChrystal took command and the months since he did (assuming the Obama administration has not put pressure on UNAMA to lower the figures).

Alternatively if we reason that Afghan government figures used to be higher than NATO ones the fact that they now agree might indicate that civilian deaths from airstrikes genuinely have fallen

It  might be possible to dismiss incidents like the Azizabad, Farah and Kunduz strikes as “freak accidents” if it wasn’t for the fact that they have happened just as frequently as they did under Bush for 7 years – and  are merely the worst instances of a common event. For instance on 20th May – mere weeks after Azizabad – the US military was admitted to having killed at least 8 more civilians in a separate airstrike on “Taliban” who turned out not to be. About a fortnight after the strikes on the tankers at Kunduz a group of 6 farmers was killed by another NATO airstrike. For a fuller list of reports on air strikes in Afghanistan see the Afghan Conflict Monitor’s civilian casualties page.

So AP headlines like ‘Western airstrikes kill fewer civilians’ become a bit dubious when you read the rest of the article – which says the sources for the claim were NATO and its allies in the Afghan government – one of the sides in the war (27). It’s true that the Afghan government has given higher figures than NATO for civilian casualties of air strikes in the past, at least where the number of dead was big enough to cause widespread anger among Afghans, but it may be under greater pressure to be “on message” now that the Obama administration has indicated it would prefer to replace Karzai. It's also worth noting that that AP headline was from 10th August 2009. Less than a month later the Kunduz air-strikes happened.

Conclusion

Professor Marc Herold sees the increase in NATO casualties as an indication that the bad publicity and loss of more Afghan public support caused by the high rate of civilians being killed by airstrikes has forced the US military into relying on fighting on the ground and avoiding airstrikes. This is possible, but then there was a 78% increase in NATO casualties in Afghanistan after the first wave of NATO reinforcements under Obama and Brown when we know for certain that airstrikes were killing more civilians than in the same months of the previous year. The cause seems to have been NATO offensives carried out with the new forces available leading to more fighting and more civilian and military casualties. Since we have no figures on civilian casualties since Azizabad other than NATO and Afghan government ones there is no way as yet to tell if NATO are killing less civilians in airstrikes since Azizabad or not. The unprecedented agreement between NATO and the Karzai government on these figures may be due to falling casualties from airstrikes, or it may be due to increased political pressure from the US government on Karzai.

Whichever interpretation you take there is no doubt that the total number of civilian casualties from all causes (not just NATO airstrikes) in Afghanistan rose steadily in 2007 to 2008 under Bush and has continued to rise for the first 6 months of 2009 under Obama compared to the first 6 months of 2008 under Bush (and ditto for the first 10 months of each year). NATO casualties in the first 3 months under Obama, after reinforcements were sent, also rose 78% compared to the last 3 months of 2008. So so far under Obama civilian casualties continue to increase, probably due to more troops being present leading to more fighting. It's true that the proportion of civilian casualties caused by NATO and Afghan government forces has fallen and the proportion killed by their enemies has risen, but civilians are still dying in greater numbers.


Back to contents links/ top of page


Sources for 'After Farah';'Have things changed under McChrystal; after Kunduz - and - Conclusion

General/Conclusion


Afghanistan Conflict Monitor (Simon Fraser University, Australia) – Airstrikes,


http://www.afghanconflictmonitor.org/airstrikes/

UN News Service 17 Feb 2009 ‘Number of Afghan civilian deaths in 2008 highest since Taliban ouster, says UN’, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29918&Cr=Afghan&Cr1=civilian+rights


 

UNAMA 31 Jul 2009 ‘AFGHANISTAN: CIVILIAN CASUALTIES KEEP ON RISING, SAYS UN REPORT’, http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/0A22BB5BFE041B76C125760400343AE3?OpenDocument


 

AP/MSNBC 10 Aug 2009 ‘Western airstrikes kill fewer Afghan civilians’, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32362324/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, Human Rights Unit ‘ Afghanistan : Mid Year Bulletin on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 2009’, http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf


 

UNoCHA IRIN 12 Nov 2009 'AFGHANISTAN: Over 2,000 civilians killed in first 10 months of 2009',
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=87003

Guardian 11 Jun 2009 ‘Insurgents are back in force in Afghanistan – and British troops are bearing the brunt’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/11/afghanistan-taliban-helmand-uk-troops

Between Azizabad and Farah


= Guardian.co.uk 11 Jul 2008 ‘US air strike wiped out Afghan wedding party, inquiry finds’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/11/afghanistan.usa

NYT 21 Jul 2008 ‘U.S. and NATO Forces Kill 13 Afghans in Strikes Said to Be Mistakes’,


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/world/asia/21afghan.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin


(9 Afghan police officers killed according to NATO after hit by airstrike when mistaken for Taliban; NATO says 4 civilians killed, 4 wounded by NATO mortar fire, deaths of 3 others “not confirmed” according to NATO)


Sources : After Farah, before Kunduz

Andronkis International - AKI (Rome, Italy) 20 May 2009 ‘Afghanistan: NATO airstrike kills civilians in south’, http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.3337058473


AKI 5 Aug 2009 ‘Afghanistan: NATO disputes civilian casualties’,http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=3.0.3624008552

AP/MSNBC 10 Aug 2009 ‘Western airstrikes kill fewer Afghan civilians’, , http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32362324/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/


United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, Human Rights Unit ‘ Afghanistan : Mid Year Bulletin on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 2009’, http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/human%20rights/09july31-UNAMA-HUMAN-RIGHTS-CIVILIAN-CASUALTIES-Mid-Year-2009-Bulletin.pdf


Sources : Kunduz


Reuters 04 Sep 2009 ‘After Afghan strike, charred flesh and burning rage’, http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58356F20090904 (survivors of airstrike on fuel tankers say many of dead civilians)


NYT 04 Sep 2009 ‘NATO Strike Magnifies Divide on Afghan War’, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html


Al Jazeera 05 Sep 2009 ‘Scores dead in Nato raid on Kunduz’, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/09/200994465561117.html


LA Times 05 Sep 2009 ‘Afghan officials say NATO airstrike killed mostly civilians, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-violence5-2009sep05,0,166919.story (US military claim most of those killed by bombing hijacked fuel tankers were Taliban)


CNN 07 Sep 2009 ‘U.S. general sure Afghan civilians wounded in airstrike’, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/afghanistan.airstrike.probe/index.html


Guardian 11 Sep 2009 ‘Victims' families tell their stories following Nato airstrike in Afghanistan’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/11/afghanistan-airstrike-victims-stories


Al Jazeera 05 Sep 2009 ‘Scores dead in Nato raid on Kunduz’, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/09/200994465561117.html


LA Times 05 Sep 2009 ‘Afghan officials say NATO airstrike killed mostly civilians, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-violence5-2009sep05,0,166919.story (US military claim most of those killed by bombing hijacked fuel tankers were Taliban)


CNN 07 Sep 2009 ‘U.S. general sure Afghan civilians wounded in airstrike’, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/06/afghanistan.airstrike.probe/index.html


Voice of America 07 Sep 2009 ‘Afghan Rights Group Says Mostly Civilians Killed in NATO Airstrike’, http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-07-voa24.cfm


VOA 13 Sep 2009 ‘Afghan Commission Says 30 Civilians Killed in NATO Strike’, http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-13-voa13.cfm


After Kunduz


Globe and Mail (Canada) 29 Sep 2009 ‘Airstrike killed farmers, Afghans say’,


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/airstrike-killed-farmers-afghans-say/article1303346/


NYT 01 Oct 2009 ‘Afghans Say Airstrike Kills 8, Mostly Civilians’,


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/asia/02kabul.html


Afghan tribal elders said Thursday that eight people, at least five of them civilians, were killed in an airstrike in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday.’


 


CNN 01 Oct 2009 ‘NATO: Airstrike killed Afghan women, children’, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/01/afghanistan.nato.airstrike/


(UN says 1,500 civilians killed in Afghanistan Jan-Aug 2009)




Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Groundhog Day of Fear Of Nuclear Iran (PART I)

Obama’s policy on Iran could lead to disasters even worse than Bush’s – The Solution is to see that Iranians are jusitifiably as afraid of Israel and the US as Israelis and Americans are of Iran

“In desiring to defend it’s liberty each side tried to become strong enough to oppress the other...in trying to escape fear men begin to make others fearful and inflict the injury they seek to avoid on others, as if there was no choice except to harm or be harmed.” Machiavelli “The Discourses”(quoted in ‘Occupational hazards’ by Rory Stewart)

PART 1: Groundhog day of Fear; Propaganda ; Misdirection and Misquotation ; Terrorism ;Hypocrisy


Groundhog Day of Fear of Iran

Reading the latest statements on Iran’s nuclear programme is a bit like being Bill Murray’s character in the film “Groundhog Day”. First supposedly “active WMD programmes” and a potential “mushroom cloud over New York” coming from Iraq, then Bush claiming the same on Iran, now Obama on Iran. Of course everything is completely different this time; at least in that q and n are different letters of the alphabet.

Dozens of times before the US and Israeli governments have claimed they have solid evidence proving Iran has an active nuclear programme, just as they did with Iraq’s “active” WMD programmes. Their claims have been proven wrong over and over again.

The US and Israeli governments and intelligence agencies have been claiming that Iran was about to produce a nuclear weapon within years, months or days since the early 1990s. In 1992 then CIA officer Robert Gates (now US Defence Secretary) said Iran could have nuclear weapons in “three, four or five years”. Five years later it hadn’t. In 1995 senior Israeli government officials were reported in the American press saying Iran would have a nuclear weapon within 5 years (1). In 2000, it still hadn’t. In 2006 the Bush administration claimed Iran could have a nuclear weapon within 16 days (2). Three years later it still doesn’t.

To be fair Obama is making more effort to build an international coalition and to give Iran a chance to negotiate.

The problem is that by also threatening sanctions and if those don’t end Iran’s supposed nuclear weapons programme, leaving the option of “pre-emptive military strikes” open, it could lead to a disaster even worse than the Iraq war – and create the results it’s meant to prevent : an even more extreme, nuclear armed Iranian government; or terrorists getting hold of nuclear materials in the chaotic aftermath of a “regime change” in which huge numbers of people die (3).

Obama says that “"With respect to the military, I've always said that we do not rule out any options when it comes to US security interests, but I will also re-emphasize that my preferred course of action is to resolve this in a diplomatic fashion. It's up to the Iranians to respond.” (4)

While Obama may well be more honest than the Bush administration and the threats of war are repeated less often and offers of negotiation more often, the basic meaning isn’t much different to Bush on Iraq, when he said that “I hope this Iraq situation will be resolved peacefully. One of my New Year's resolutions is to work to deal with these situations in a way so that they're resolved peacefully. But thus far it appears that on first look that Saddam Hussein hadn't heard the message.” (5)



WMD propaganda on Iraq and Iran

The supposedly indisputable evidence this time amounts to some satellite images with some vague images with huge arrows pointing to them from boxes marked “tunnel entrance” (6).



If you thought anyone could make something similar and label anything as supposedly being anything using photo-shop, you’d be right.

If you thought you’d seen something similar before the Iraq war, you’d be right.

Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented ‘conclusive evidence’ of Iraqi chemical weapons plants and “mobile chemical weapons labs” to the UN in February 2002(7).





The trouble was that when the world’s foremost chemical and biological weapons experts saw the images and visited Iraq to view the sites they came to the conclusion that the “mobile biological weapons labs” were actually trucks carrying mobile weather balloons used to judge wind speed and direction for artillery fire. This was confirmed later by the CIA (8). One of the experts was Dr. David Kelly, who would later be found dead in a “suicide” that paramedics, friends and doctors said almost certainly wasn’t (9) – (12). Powell’s “Iraqi source” code-named “curve-ball” similarly “committed suicide” in a Libyan prison shortly after Human Rights Watch staff found and interviewed him on how he was tortured into telling CIA operatives that Iraq had WMD programmes (13), (14).

Powell would later claim that he was furious to have later found out that the evidence he presented to the UN was false. Yet it wasn’t only UN weapons inspectors who correctly dismissed the claims. Powell he had access to the State Department’s own intelligence reviews on Iraq, which disputed every one of the claims made in the speech well before it was made. Powell also privately told colleagues no WMD would be found in Iraq (15) – (17).

So much for conclusive evidence of an Iranian nuclear programme; Iran may or may not have a secret nuclear weapons programme, but don’t look for reliable information on it coming from the US government or its allies.

In February 2003 many critics of the Bush administration believed the “evidence” presented to the UN on the grounds that Powell was presenting it. They were wrong to. It would be just as wrong to assume that an administration led by Obama would never present false claims to the world, whether knowingly or in the belief that they’re true.

The US and Israeli governments ask why Iran has built secret underground facilities if it’s not to build nuclear weapons. Well it could be to build nuclear weapons – or it could be because the US and Israeli governments have threatened to bomb them so often they’re keeping everything vital underground.




Misdirection and Making up quotes:


The focus on whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons or not obscures the fact that
nuclear deterrents prevent WMD attacks either way


AND


Terrorism :

Iranians are as outraged, afraid and angry when they see civilians killed by US and Israeli forces as Americans and Israelis are seeing September 11th and suicide bombings killing civilians

As infuriating as it is to be blatantly lied to to justify war, all the debate over whether other countries are developing WMDs misses the point. Like a magician’s sleight of hand it misdirects our attention away from the fact that whether hostile states have WMDs or nuclear weapons or not is irrelevant; because they’d have to commit national suicide to use them – and the past behaviour of the Iranian regime, like Saddam before them, shows they’re not suicidal.

True, they may recommend ‘martyrdom’ to other people, but as an organisation they are not prepared to commit suicide themselves.

Iran has entirely rational motives to want nuclear weapons, just like Israel.

Israel, at war with neighbouring Arab states, developed nuclear weapons in the 1950s and since then has built up an arsenal of between dozens and hundreds of nuclear warheads (18).

Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1980. Saddam had political support, financial backing and arms sales from most of the world’s governments as he used chemical weapons on Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. That included the US government, who continued funding him even after Halabja. Ahmadinejad fought in the eight year Iran-Iraq War. In 1988, when the USS Vincennes entered Iranian waters and through the negligence of its crew shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing over 280 people, the Iranian government and military believed the attack had been deliberate and that the US military was now going to fight alongside Iraq’s. Rather than be defeated and overthrown in a war they couldn’t have won senior Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard officers persuaded Khomeini to make peace.They included Khameini, now “Supreme Leader” of Iran and Rafsanjani, now one of the most senior members of Iran’s governing councils. The “Leader” Khameini is Commander in Chief of the Iranian military; not President Ahmadinjead. If Iran had nuclear weapons Khameini would control them, not Ahmadinejad. Yet we’re meant to believe that the same Ayatollahs and Revolutionary Guard commanders who persuaded Khomeini to make peace rather than be overthrown in 1988 would gladly all be destroyed by a nuclear counter-strike from Israel’s allies which would destroy the Islamic Republic they fought for just in order to destroy Israel (19)– (30).


p align="justify">We are told to listen to what they say, by a mixture of misquoting the speeches calling for the overthrow of the Israeli government as calls to “wipe Israel off the map”.

The actual translation of Ahmadinejad’s supposed “wipe Israel off the map” speeches was a quote from Khomeini’s annual ritual Qod’s Day address. What he actually said was that he hoped the “illegal regime which rules over Quods [in Jerusalem] will be erased from the pages of history.” It was a quote from Khomeini, who said the same annually since the 1979 revolution. In other words for decades the Iranian government have called for “regime change” in Israel just as the Israeli and US governments have threatened and called for “regime change” in Iran repeatedly. One is reported as warmongering and threatening behaviour and provocative, while the other is supposedly entirely legitimate Only when the Bush administration and the Israeli government wanted to carry out “regime change” in Iran was a Qods day address brought up and misquoted as if it was something new and dangerous. (31) – (32).

In a subsequent interview with a French TV channel Ahmadinejad clarified that he meant he hoped Israel would collapse the way the Soviet Union collapsed – by the will of all its people – Christian, Jewish and Muslim and suggested a referendum as one possible mechanism (33).

A much more worrying speech was made by Rafsanjani in December 2001 in which he said “If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.” (34)


It’s worth looking at the context of this speech though. The Israeli government – most of all Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was vocally trying to persuade the US to attack Iran instead of or as well as Iraq and making threats of Israeli airstrikes on Iran. Iranians, seeing Palestinian civilians and terrorists alike blown to pieces in Sharon’s opportunistic offensive following September 11th, had the message “you’re next”, soon to be reinforced by Bush’s February 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech. In that context Rafsanjani’s speech can be seen as a speech aiming to frighten and deter the US and Israel from attacking Iran – a reaction to their threats to attack Iran; as well as an expression of Iranian anger at the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians, both combatants and civilians. Since the speech was a ‘Qods Day’ speech, on which Khomeini annually condemned the Israeli government for its backing for the Shah’s dictatorship and its oppression of Palestinians, Rafsanjani was reflecting the public mood in Iran, one of anger and fear towards Israel and the US. For many Iranians it is the Israeli and US governments and militaries who are the “terrorists” murdering “us” (Muslims in occupied Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq). When they see civilians including children killed by US or Israeli airstrikes they are as outraged, angry and afraid as Americans were when they saw people killed on September 11th. The message Rafsanjani was sending was a similar one to that sent out by the US and Israeli governments to Al Qa’ida, Iraq and Iran – if you “terrorists” keep murdering “us” then we will destroy you (35)– (37). Both sides threats were completely counter-productive, putting them each in more danger of attack by the other as it made them feel threatened.


If anyone doubts that more than half the Palestinians killed by Israeli forces are civilians they can consult any independent human rights group, such as Amnesty International or the Israeli B’T Selem.

Amnesty found that around half the dead in Israeli offensives in the first half of 2008 were civilians, with 70 of the 450 killed being children(38) . B’T Selem’s investigation of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza from December 2008 to January 2009 found that 773 of the 1,387 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces were civilians, with another 248 being police officers killed in Israeli air strikes on police stations. Only 330 were definitely combatants, while for 36 it was uncertain. Palestinian groups meanwhile killed 3 civilians and one Israeli soldier in rocket attacks and 5 soldiers in Gaza. So Israeli forces killed over 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed and of the Palestinians killed over half were unequivocally unarmed civilians, with about another quarter being police. Almost a quarter of the Palestinians killed – 320 – were children (39).

At the same time as being told we should believe Iranian threats against Israel (and badly misquoting them in many cases to change the meaning of the words) we’re told not to listen to what the Iranian government say when they say (as Ahmadinejad and Khameini have many times) that they are not developing nuclear weapons, that nuclear weapons are immoral and un-Islamic. Khameini, like Khomeini before him, has issued fatwas against the production, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons. Yet it may well be that the Iranian regime, like Saddams, is actually telling the truth. Iraq had no WMDs, Iran may have no nuclear weapons programme.In the 1970s the Shah’s regime had a nuclear weapons programme. If the Islamic Republic’s government really wanted nuclear weapons surely they would have them 34 years later? They don’t. Ahmaedinejad has even said repeatedly that Iran does not want nuclear weapons. For instance in September 2009 he said that “Nuclear arms, we believe they belong to the past and the past generation...We do not see any need for such weapons," This was bizarrely reported by much of the media under headlines such as ‘Ahmadinejad says he won't rule out an Iran nuclear bomb’ (40) – (44).

There is of course the real possibility that the constant threats of attack against Iran from the US and Israel from the mid-1990s on could have made it’s government decide to get the technology so it can rapidly construct a weapon as a deterrent if an attack seems imminent.

Israelis can’t be blamed for being afraid when hearing what sound like threats of nuclear attack. Even if many of these threats are deliberate mis-translations someone living in Tel Aviv will obviously be much more concerned by them than someone living in London or Glasgow. However it’s worth noting that a poll of Israeli Jews in June 2009 found that only 21% believe Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel if it acquired them, with 80% of respondents saying Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would make no difference to their lives (45)

So if most Israelis aren’t worried, why the hype?

However it’s possible that the Iranians aren’t telling the truth in either case; that they might be developing nuclear weapons; and that their bluster and threats against Israel are also based on their equal fears due to repeated threats from Israeli and US governments of attack by the much stronger Israeli and US militaries. The Iranian speeches are almost certainly attempts at deterrence by a country with a weak military and no reliable allies – Iran- faced by one with a powerful military, nuclear weapons and allies with an even more powerful military and even more powerful weapons (Israel and the US). After every missile test the Iranian government issue a warning to Israel not to attack Iran, the message being, if you attack us, we can hit you back. After the latest launch for instance Iranian Defence Minister Ahmad Vadhi warned Israel not to “dare” to attack Iran, warning that if it did it would expedite “the last breath of the Zionist regime” (46). Iranian missile launches in July 2008, which were loudly condemned as “aggression” and “provocation” followed a massive Israeli air force exercise in June practising for air strikes on Iran (47)

The constant threats of military action against Iran by the US and Israel over the last decade and the US occupations of countries on both of Iran’s borders – Afghanistan and Iraq – are certainly enough to make them feel threatened; as are US fleets entering their waters from the 1980s on; US backing for Saddam’s attacks on Iran in the past; US Special Forces entering Iran and aiding Sunni and Arab dissident groups to carry out attacks on Iranian government officials and roadside bombings against the Iranian military. In reality Iranians are considerably more threatened by the US, Israel and their allies than any of us are by them. Every Iranian missile launch, including the recent ones, has been accompanied by a warning – don’t attack us, because we can hit back if you do (48)– (50).

Iran will not arm terrorist groups with nuclear weapons for the same reason. National suicide by proxy would still be national suicide.

Pakistan has had nuclear weapons for decades under an Islamic fundamentalist ideology in its military from General Zia on; yet not one nuclear weapon was handed over to the Islamic terrorist groups it backs. Iran would be no different.


Hypocrisy:

on Nuclear Weapons Programmes, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), genocide and Human Rights

Israel, has built up an arsenal of anywhere from dozens to 200 nuclear warheads from the 1960s on. This is surely a much more serious breach of the (hypocritical) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty than anything Iran has done so far, even if all the allegations are true. An Israeli Arab, Mordechai Vanunu, has been jailed or under house arrest for decades for leaking details of the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, which is well known to governments worldwide.Then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert let slip for the first time in a TV interview that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programmes. IAEA inspectors have never been granted access to any of them. (51) - (53).

Here are some photos and satellite images you won’t be seeing in the media much – of Israel’s nuclear weapons plant at Dimona in the Negev desert (courtesy of Space Imaging Middle East and AFP respectively).







Israel has threatened and carried out attacks on Arab states, occupied Palestinian territory, carried out large scale indiscriminate fire on civilians, torture and gross abuses of human rights against Palestinians as bad as anything the Iranian regime has done to dissidents and minorities in Iran.

Yet there has been no condemnation, no threats of sanctions or airstrikes or regime change.

Iran’s threats to overthrow the Israeli government are reported as threats of genocide by nuclear weapon. Nuclear armed Israel’s similar threats against Iran are not.Nor is the routine and indiscriminate killing and deliberate starvation of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces.

(for sources on Israeli killings of Palestinian civilians and deliberate starvation see http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/Israel-Palestine/notdemocratsversusterrorists/ and http://www.duncanmcfarlane.org/Israel-Palestine19thJan08/ and these blog posts, all of which provide full sources) as well as sources (38) and (39) above




copyright©Duncan McFarlane2009



Sources



(1)
= Forward 28 Aug 2009 ‘With Each New Assessment, Iran’s Nuclear Clock Is Reset’, http://www.forward.com/articles/112468/

(2)
= ABC News 12 Apr 2006, The Insider: Daily Investigative Report,
‘U.S. Wants U.N. Action Against Nuclear Iran’,
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1835578&page=1

(3)
= Guardian 27 Sep 2009 ‘Iran and United States on collision course over nuclear plant’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/iran-nuclear-weapons-plant

(4)
= Jerusalem Post 26 Sep 2009 ‘Obama warns Iran to come clean’/ “Obama: Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253820675245&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

(5)
= CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL, Presidential Comments, Aired December 31, 2002 - 14:12 ET, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/31/se.01.html

(6)
= Institute for Science and International Security 25 Sep 2009 ‘ISIS Imagery Brief’,
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/Qom_Imagery_Brief_25Sept2009.pdf

(7)
= U.S State Department Archive ‘Remarks to the United Nations Security Council,
Secretary Colin L. Powell, New York City, February 5, 2003’,
http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm ;
And ;
‘U.S State Department Archive ‘Secretary Powell at the UN: Iraq's Failure to Disarm’’,
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/index.htm

(8)
= Observer 08 Jun 2003 ‘Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/08/iraq.foreignpolicy

(9)
= Independent 17 Aug 2003 ‘New evidence shows crucial dossier changes’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-evidence-shows-crucial-dossier-changes-536153.html

(10) = Observer 12 Dec 2004 ‘Kelly death paramedics query verdict’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/politics.davidkelly

(11) = Independent 13 July 2009 ‘Doctors call for inquest into scientist's death’,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/doctors-call-for-inquest-into-scientists-death-1743688.html

(12) = Norman Baker MP (2007) ‘The Strange Death of Dr. David Kelly’,
Methuen Publishing, 2007

(13)
= HRW 11 May 2009 ‘Libya/US: Investigate Death of Former CIA Prisoner’, http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/11/libyaus-investigate-death-former-cia-prisoner

(14) = Washington Post 12 May 2009 ‘Detainee Who Gave False Iraq Data Dies In Prison in Libya’, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103412.html

(15)
= ABC News 08 Sep 2005 ‘Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief’,
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979

(16) = Guardian 05 Feb 2003 ‘US claim dismissed by Blix’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.unitednations

(17) = Mother Jones 05 Feb 2003 ‘The U.N. Deception: What Exactly Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago, and What He Told the World’, http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2008/02/un-deception-what-exactly-colin-powell-knew-five-years-ago-and-what-he-told-world (provides links to US State Department Intelligence Reviews on Iraq)

(18)
= Federation of American Scientists – Israel – Nuclear Weapons,
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/index.html

(19) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(20) = Karsh, Efraim (2002) ‘The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988’ Osprey, London, 2002, p20-22,44-45,53-55

(21) = Washington Post 22 Mar 1992, ‘Gonzalez's Iraq Expose: Hill Chairman Details U.S. Prewar Courtship, Washington Post archive article here ; full article also reproduced at the Federation of American Scientists' website here ; This gives an account provided by A US Congressman based on information provided to congressional committees by the CIA.

(22) = Washington Post 5 Aug 1992, ‘GOP Seeks Probe of Gonzalez Over Iraq Data, Washington Post archive article here ; also reproduced in full at the Federation of American Scientists’ website at http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920325wp.htm
Far from disputing the accuracy of Gonzalez's claims the Bush (senior) administration and the CIA instead stopped providing Gonzalez with intelligence briefings and attempted to have him censured by congress for releasing the information to the public

(23) = 'U.S. chemical and biological warfare-related dual use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the health consequences of the Persian Gulf War'/ A report of Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Alfonse M. D’Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with respect to export administration, United States Senate (1994) - Link to Library of Congress record

(24) = National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, 25 Feb 2003 ‘
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984’,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

(25) = Freedman, Lawrence (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies : America Confronts the Middle East’, Orion, London, 2008, chapter 8, Pages 152-166 of hardback edition

(26) = Freedman, Lawrence (2008) ‘A Choice of Enemies : America Confronts the Middle East’, Orion, London, 2008, chapter 10, Pages 194-206 of hardback edition

(27) = Newsweek 13 Jul 1992 ‘Sea of Lies : Sea Of Lies : The Inside Story Of How An American Naval Vessel Blundered Into An Attack On Iran Air Flight 655 At The Height Of Tensions During The Iran-Iraq War-And How The Pentagon Tried To Cover Its Tracks After 290 Innocent Civilians Died’, http://www.newsweek.com/id/126358

(28) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006 - pages 170-174

(29) = Pollack, Kenneth M.(2004), ‘The Persian Puzzle', Random House, New York, 2005 paperback edition - pages 231-233

(30) = NYT 15 Jul 1988 ‘Iran Falls Short in Drive at U.N. To Condemn U.S. in Airbus Case’,http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/15/world/iran-falls-short-in-drive-at-un-to-condemn-us-in-airbus-case.html

(31)
= Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006, (hardback edition)

(32) = Guardian Comment Is Free14 Jun 2006, ‘Lost in Translation’,http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

(33)
= Iranian Television Broadcasts President Ahmadinezhad's Interview With French TV "Exclusive interview" with Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad by David Pujadas of French TV's TF2 Channel on 22 March 2007 – recorded Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 Sunday, March 25, 2007 (reproduced as second item below article on Professor Juan Cole’s website at http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html

(34) = Qods Day Speech (Jerusalem Day)
Chairman of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani
December 14, 2001, Friday
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 1130 gmt 14 Dec 01
Translated by BBC Worldwide Monitoring,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html

(35) = Gareth Porter/Asia Times 30 Aug 2007 ‘Israel urged US to attack Iran - not Iraq’
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html

(36) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006

(37) = Uri Avnery/Counterpunch 11 Feb 2002 ‘Oil, Sharon and the Axis of Evil’,
http://www.counterpunch.org/avneryoil.html

(38) = Amnesty International World Report 2009 - Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-occupied-territories

(39) = B’T Selem 9 Sept. 2009: B'Tselem publishes complete fatality figures from Operation Cast Lead, http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20090909.asp

(40) = San Francisco Chronicle 31 Oct 2003 ‘Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says
Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim’, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/31/MNGHJ2NFRE1.DTL&hw=Khamenei+fatwa&sn=001&sc=1000+%282003%29

(41) = Christian Science Monitor 18 Sep 2009 ‘Ahmadinejad says he won't rule out an Iran nuclear bomb’, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0918/p99s01-duts.html

(42) = Jerusalem Post 18 Sep 2009 'Defiant Iran risks further isolation',
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1253198149651

(43) = Observer 27 Sep 2009 ‘Iran and United States on collision course over nuclear plant’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/iran-nuclear-weapons-plant

(44) = Takeyh, Ray (2006), ‘Hidden Iran - Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic, Times Books, New York, 2006, (hardback edition) p137

(45) = Haaretz/Reuters 14 Jun 2006 ‘Poll: Most Israelis could live with a nuclear Iran’, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092691.html

(46) = Guardian.co.uk 28 Sep 2009 ‘Iran test-fires long-range missiles – then warns Israel’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/iran-tests-long-range-missiles

(47) = BBC News 20 Jun 2008 ‘Israelis ‘rehearse Iran attack’’http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7465170.stm

(48) = New Yorker Magazine 5 Mar 2007
, ‘Annals of National Security : The Redirection’, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

(49) = ABC News 03 Apr 2007
, ‘ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran’, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

(50) = Telegraph 17 Jan 2006
, ‘'We will cut them until Iran asks for mercy'
’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/15/wiran15.xml

(51) = See (18)

(52) = Guardian 18 Mar 2005 ‘Vanunu faces new jail term’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/mar/18/pressandpublishing.internationalnews

(53) = Guardian 13 Dec 2006 ‘Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe
• PM admits on TV that Israel has atomic weapons’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/13/israel



copyright©Duncan McFarlane2009