Another Omar

I'm the first to admit I'm a bit confused about the Omar Khadr trial. Let me start by saying I have very little sympathy for the Khadrs. There is no question their father was knowingly involved in the financing of terrorism. Here's what we know, which I don't believe is being disputed - The US government sent US soldiers to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime by force and to capture or kill as many members of Al-Qaeda as possible, as the primary response to September 11 attacks. There's pretty good reasons to believe that this is exactly the response Osama Bin Laden was hoping 9/11 would provoke. Either way, a lot of people make the mistake of confusing al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization with the Taliban, the government of Afghanistan, but in this case it doesn't really matter. The Khadrs were members of Al-Qaeda. They were part of a terrorist organization. So I have no problem with US forces killing Ahmed Said Khadr, he's about as fair game as Ayman al-Zawahri or Bin Laden himself. I think we can agree on that. Honestly, in the heat of the battlefield, I don't even have a problem with shooting and killing a fifteen year old boy. These things happen; its an unfortunate fact of war. But in Omar's case things get a bit fuzzy especially with the release of this today -

It has long been assumed by many that Mr. Khadr was the only combatant alive, and so must have been the one who threw the grenade. But the first U.S. service member on the scene described coming across another living fighter, and shooting him dead with a bullet to the head, before finding the wounded Mr. Khadr and shooting him twice in the back but not killing him.

The revelations, mistakenly released in never-before-seen documents, came during a military tribunal hearing for Mr. Khadr yesterday at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

Documents that were supposed to be censored in their entirety were accidentally handed out to reporters in the courtroom, taking both defence and prosecution lawyers by surprise.

Somebody's gonna get shot in the face over letting that dossier split out.

Omar was fifteen years old at the time and he didn't exactly choose to live as a jihadist in Afghanistan. Maybe he's a sociopathic killer - I don't know but he was fifteen years old. And he's been held in Guantanamo for over five years because he killed a US soldier. A US soldier who was sent to Afghanistan to kill him and his kind. Now we find out that not only is it possible he didn't throw the grenade that killed the soldier but another soldier shot him in the back. Twice. So I'm a bit confused - isn't Omar Khadr supposed to be trying to kill American soldiers? Isn't that how war works? How does this constitute a "war crime"? It seems that "unlawful combatant" also means its "unlawful" for you to actually participate in a "combatant" role i.e. fighting back. Providing material support for a terrorist organization make him a criminal. A common criminal not a war criminal but, of course, if he was a criminal he'd be entitled a regular trial.

And don't even get me started on how the inmates at Guantanamo are the "worst of the worst" yet the US has "discharged" two thirds of the estimated 750 inmates since 2002 without charges. Three people have been charged. Three.

Was Iraq all about Oil?

I've read in many different places that the Iraq war was not "all about oil". I consider Gwynn Dyer (and Scott Ritter) proof that not everyone, prior to the Iraq war, believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction as frequently asserted by the Bush administration. In Ignorant Armies Dyer describes in great detail why the impending war is not about weapons of mass destruction and what is likely to follow. However all of his books on the Iraq War (Ignorant Armies, Future Tense and The Mess They Made) argue that oil is sold on the global open market so it unnecessary for the US to invade Iraq to get Iraq's oil - they can just buy it. I have alot of respect for Dyer's opinion so for a long time I was inclined to accept this view. He points out that Iraq continued to sell the majority of its oil to the US right up until the invasion in 2003. But I've always felt there was something missing. And I think I know what it is.

The difference between Iraq selling its oil on the open market and any other oil producing nation is Iraq (under Saddam) doesn't get the money. The Food for Oil program run by the UN receives the money. Saddam managed to siphon some money off, funnel some into bribes and kickbacks and the UN would spend some on medicine, etc. But the majority of that money went into the Food for Oil fund. According to this 2005 article in the Guardian -

The US Congress also voted to spend $18.4bn of US taxpayers' money on the redevelopment of Iraq. By June 28 last year, however, when Bremer left Baghdad two days early to avoid possible attack on the way to the airport, his CPA had spent up to $20bn of Iraqi money, compared with $300m of US funds. The "reconstruction" of Iraq is the largest American-led occupation programme since the Marshall Plan - but the US government funded the Marshall Plan. Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer have made sure that the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the "liberated" country, by the Iraqis themselves.

So the reconstruction of Iraq involved spending up to $20bn in Food for Oil money, which rightfully belongs to the Iraqi people. Had this money been used for "reconstruction", this expense might be justified but if you see the film No End in Sight or read "Imperial Life in the Emerald City", its clear that little or no reconstruction took place. Or better yet read Matt Taibbi's The Great Iraq Swindle. He refers to screwing the American public out of taxpayer money but keep in mind that its $20bn of Iraqi's oil revenue to $300 million of US taxpayer money. That money goes directly to US contractors (virtually no Iraqi's are directly involved in Iraqi reconstruction ... go figure) who provide little or no services in return. These contractors, such as KBR (and its parent Halliburton), Bechtel, Custer-Battles, DynaCorp and Blackwater, in turn make huge contributions to the campaigns of Republican politicians and the Republican party itself. The US buys oil from Iraq and a large percentage of that money goes directly back to US companies and Republican politicians. So the US, in effect, buys the oil and gets to keep the money - including the money for all of the Iraqi oil it has bought in the previous 10 years.

Its sort of like if I bought your house and when the transaction was finished I got the house and, minus a few transaction fees, I also got to keep my money. And you basically get nothing.

Day one on A Man Gotta Have a Code

I've been thinking about setting up a blog for awhile now so today is the day. I was prompted by this article - http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/01/03/pakistan_policy/(via digby). Why is it the Bush administration thinks a free and democratically elected Pakistani government is going to make peace with Isreal? I'm pretty sure that's not a priority for the population of Pakistan. Not that I believe for a minute that the US cares if the elections are free or fair.

Discuss ....