Edward Said has an interesting column in Al Ahram today. In it, he argues that imperial policy is supported by an imperial perspective on the part of the controlling power. This perspective is "that way of looking at a distant foreign reality by subordinating it to one's gaze, constructing its history from one's own point of view, seeing its people as subjects whose fate is to be decided not by them but by what distant administrators think is best for them." Al Ahram, "Imperial perspectives", July 24, 2003

"[American views of Arabs] are so incompetent and ideological; they provide Americans not with ideas about Arabs and Muslims, but rather with the way they would like Arabs and Muslims to be. For a great and enormously wealthy country to be producing the kind of mismanaged, poorly prepared and incredibly incompetent occupation of Iraq that is taking place today is a travesty, on intellectual grounds, and how a moderately intelligent bureaucrat like Paul Wolfowitz could be running policies of such colossal incompetence and, at the same time, convincing people that he knows what he is doing, boggles the mind." Al Ahram, "Imperial perspectives", July 24, 2003

Edward Said is a historian and author who writes mainly about Arab affairs. He is highly critical of the most popular western orientalist, Bernard Lewis, for distorting Arab culture and history and creating the "imperial perspective" with which Americans view the Arab world.

Apparently, the death of Uday and Qusay will not stop attacks on US soldiers, at least in the short run. One soldier was killed and seven wounded this morning when two vehicles were struck by a bomb while traveling on a road outside Mosul. In another attack about an hour and a half later, a soldier was killed when his convoy was hit by a bomb in Ar Ramadi. Another soldier and a contractor working with the American military were wounded. New York Times, “U.S. Reaffirms Identification of Hussein's 2 Dead Sons” July 23, 2003

More details on the attack on the building in Mosul where Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay were killed: American troops first surrounded the property at 10 a.m. local time on Tuesday, the general said. He said they attempted to enter but were repelled by small-arms fire, which was believed to be from AK-47's fired by the suspects, who had barricaded themselves on the second-floor of the house. Four American soldiers were wounded in that initial foray, the general said.
During the next two hours, the Americans fired grenades and rockets at the structure and riddled it with 50-caliber machine-gun fire. At noon, the Americans tried again to enter the house but received rifle fire and withdrew, General Sanchez said. After pelting the suspects with more 50-caliber machine gun fire, the American commander of the operation called in a strike of 10 TOW anti-tank missiles fired from Humvees. The assault appeared to have killed three of the four suspects. The battle ended when soldiers stormed up the stairs to the second floor and shot the remaining suspect. New York Times, “U.S. Reaffirms Identification of Hussein's 2 Dead Sons” July 23, 2003

The BBC is reporting that Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay might have been killed in a US raid on a tribal leader's home in Mosul. "Details of the raid remain sketchy but it is understood that, following a tip-off, about 200 US soldiers surrounded a large house belonging to a local tribal leader. A four-hour gun fight ensued and the house was destroyed. The bodies of four Iraqis were then recovered." BBC, "Saddam sons 'may be dead'", July 20, 2003

A unnamed US official in Iraq told Associated Press that investigators were "awaiting positive DNA testing" to confirm the identities of the bodies, while a US official told Reuters two corpses bore a "strong resemblance" to Saddam's sons. He said the bodies were not in the best condition - but "there is optimism within the ranks."

If the report is true, it would be a major accomplishment for coalition forces in Iraq. It is bound to improve US soldier's sagging morale as well as encourage anti-Baathists to come forward.

I am going to start reporting on deaths and attacks among Coalition forces in Iraq. I am curious to know whether attacks are increasing or decreasing in intensity. Perhaps the number will be higher during the summer, when high temperatures increase tensions.

A U.S. soldier was killed and another injured in an ambush along a dangerous road north of Baghdad in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," a center of anti-American resistance. His death brought to 153 the number of U.S. troops killed in action since the March 20 start of war -- six more than during the 1991 Gulf War. U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades and small arms in the assault staged along the road between Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and Ramadi, 60 miles west of the capital. It gave no other details. New York Times

Washington has been in a tizzy over the past week about whom to blame for the African Uranium intelligence fiasco. Here's an interesting site that might shed some light on the subject. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/behindthescenes/05.html

Is the President a liar or just stupid? OK, that is a harsh question, but how do you explain some of the patently false statements that come out of his mouth? I am not speaking of the whole Uranium in Africa affair (dubbed Urain'tium by some bloggers). Rather, there seems to be a pervasive culture of misinformation and suppression of information at the White House.

July 14, 2003: "And we gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region." George Bush

But Saddam Hussein did allow the inspectors unconditional and unfettered access to facilities in Iraq. It was because the Bush administration didn't believe that the inspectors could uncover WMD that the US decided to remove Hussein from power.

May 30, 2003: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two." George Bush

But these 'mobile labs' had no evidence of biological agents in them at all. It has yet to be proved that these mobile labs were used or designed to be used for biological weapons, but George Bush stated that they are as if it had been proved.

April 26, 2003: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." George Bush

In fact, over 8 million people who pay taxes will receive no tax cut at all.

February 3, 2003 "The budget would be in double digit deficit if had there never been a tax cut in 2001. The budget returned to deficit because of war, recession and emergencies associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11th." Fact Sheet: President Bush's 2004 Budget

In fact, "The deterioration in the performance of the economy together with income tax relief … produced a drop in the surplus to $127.1 billion (1.3% of GDP) and a return to deficits." This was written by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Quoted in Slate, Why This Bush Lie? Part 1, July 15, 2003. What is concerning about this mistruth is that it is unlikely to be a factor of the low intelligence of the President and indicates a deliberate pattern of mistruth in the White House.

June 19, 2003 The Bush Administration is accused of "heavy handed" censorship of an EPA's draft report. The White House Council on Environmental Quality ordered sections removed from the report long sections describing the risks of global warming. NY Times, "REPORT BY E.P.A. LEAVES OUT DATA ON CLIMATE CHANGE"

Is seems misinformation is widespread at the White House, and not just regarding the War in Iraq.

Poor Planning Keeps Troops on the Ground in Iraq

The US Army recently announced that all of the 3rd Infantry Division, the soldiers who seized Baghdad from Saddam Hussein’s regime, would be home by the end of September. Now we hear that the homecoming date has been changed to indefinite. These soldiers who were on the front lines, and still are, have been away from their families for about a year. Neither they nor their families know when they will see each other again. Why the confusion and uncertainty? We can blame it again on failed diplomacy by the Bush administration.

Most observers agree at this point that the US needs to keep up troop levels in Iraq in order to maintain security and to combat what the commander of US forces in Iraq, General John Abazaid, calls "a classical guerrilla-type campaign". NY Times, “U.S. Commander in Iraq Says Yearlong Tours Are Option to Combat 'Guerrilla' War” July 17, 2003. Some are even calling for more troops. However, the US has none to spare and many are saying that US forces are already spread thin across the world. The US has 33 active-duty combat brigades and 21 are on duty. Sixteen are in Iraq and two in Afghanistan. Two are in Korea and one in the Balkans. NY Times, July 17, 2003. Congress is putting pressure on the Bush administration to find some way of sharing the cost of policing Iraq. Last week, Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the cost of the occupation in Iraq was as high as $3.9 billion per month. LA Times, “U.S. May Seek U.N. Assistance in Volatile Iraq”, July 17, 2003

Earlier this month, the US went, hat in hand, looking for allies to contribute more than 17,000 troops to a security force for Iraq, but got rebuffed. France and India specifically said that they would not contribute forces without a UN resolution authorizing it. LA Times, July 17, 2003 Colin Powell is discussing the possibility of a UN resolution for this purpose, but it is not clear how likely such a resolution will be received, given the cold shoulder the US has given the UN in the past 6 month. The US has limited U.N. activities in Iraq to humanitarian relief and has sought assistance from other countries on a nation-by-nation basis. Undoubtedly, countries such as France, Germany and Russia will be looking for some concessions from the US in return for shouldering part of the security burden in Iraq. Some concessions likely to be sought would be that any peacekeeping and reconstruction would be done under UN auspices, rather than controlled completely by the US. NY Times, Europe Weighs Helping Out in Iraq, but Under Its Own Terms, July 15, 2003 Even so, it is unlikely Germany or France will contribute troops, even with a UN mandate. LA Times, July 17, 2003

Much has been made by media pundits of the poor planning that went into post-war occupation of Iraq. It is widely accepted that the US Defense Department did not expect the level of resistance to be this high after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Some at the Pentagon claim that the chaos now seen in Iraq is a natural result of a winning war strategy. NY Times, A Perfect War?, July 11, 2003 This argument seems to be, “We won the war, so don’t get so hung up on winning the peace.” But it is the post-war situation that could cause greater instability in the middle east and the world in the long run. While the war plan was sound and very successful, the Bush administration gave short shrift to how it planned to transform Iraq into a liberal democratic nation. Part of the poor planning was the failure to bring allies on board. The only significant ally that we were able to bring along was Britain. While we may have gotten troops from Australia and Poland and gotten political support from Spain and Italy, this is not enough to keep the peace and reconstruct Iraq. Now, because of the obstinate refusal to take into account the concerns of the international community before the war, the US is isolated and cannot gain the support it needs to do the job it needs to do in Iraq. Perhaps this will be a lesson to the hawks in the Bush administration. Somehow, I doubt it.

According to Central Command:
34 American soldiers have have been killed in combat actions since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq on May 1
49 have died in other incidents such as traffic accidents and weapons discharges
Before today, 300 American soldiers had been wounded in combat and 315 in noncombat incidents since May 1.
New York Times

There has been a lot of discussion in the media recently about the quality of the intelligence used to support the war against Iraq. Why is this important? The war is over and most people thought it was a good idea or at least the results of the war were positive. Why go back and revisit issues that were discussed six months ago?

Because democratic processes are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public. The doctrine of preemptive war “requires the public to base its support or opposition on expert intelligence to which it has no direct access. It is up to the president and his administration--with a deep interest in a given policy outcome--nonetheless to portray the intelligence community's findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war.” The New Republic, "The First Casualty", June 30, 2003

In a Washington DC based blog, talkingpointsmemo.com Joshua Micah Marshall dissects the debate about the bogus African uranium claims President Bush used in his 2003 State of the Union speech. The most interesting part of his reports is how the information got into the speech in the first place and why it did not make it into Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations a week later. What is interesting about the story is what it reveals about the Bush Administration’s manipulation of intelligence information that it knew to be false in order to sell a war to the American people.

Yesterday, Condoleeza Rice laid the blame on George Tenet, director of the CIA, for failing to take the information out of the speech. It is apparent once one looks at what happened in January 2003 that George Tenet is getting the blame for an entire process that was controlled by the White House.

When White House staffers were drafting the speech in January, they found some information floating about Iraq seeking 500 pounds of yellowcake uranium in the central African country of Niger. The CIA had known for months that the information was probably false. It is unclear who was the original source of the report, but it made it into both American and British intelligence reports.

During the drafting of the speech, the CIA had objected to the use of the information to support Bush’s claims, citing its unreliability. But the Bush administration wanted to keep it in. According to Colin Powell, they decided that “such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used.” talkingpointsmemo.com, July 11th, 2003 -- 12:56 PM EDT This seems to be a fairly low standard of truthfulness with which to judge evidence supporting the case for war.

The CIA objected anyway, but George Tenet finally agreed to allow the statement to be used so long as it did not have any specific information regarding how much uranium and where it was sought and so long as the statement was attributed to the British. Tenet, in a statement accepting responsibility for the fiasco, said that the CIA agreed to the final wording because “the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.” Associated Press, 7/11/2003 18:29, reported in Boston.com

This rationalization is legalistic hair-splitting on the level of Bill Clinton saying it depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is. It is true that the statement “the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa” is factually correct standing alone. But a statement presented as evidence to support a proposition must be more than just factually correct. The test of truth of a statement relies on the context in which it is made. In this case, the statement was not presented to support the contention that the British said something, but that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. If the statement were used to support an argument that British intelligence was unreliable, then the statement could be accepted as true in that context. But it was not. It was used to support an argument that Iraq was actively working on its nuclear program. In this context, the statement is not true and those who argued for and approved its use should have known this.

In his statement, Tenet agreed that whether the statement was factually correct “should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.” Associated Press, 7/11/2003 18:29, reported in Boston.com

Ya got that right. My question is why the information was included in the first place. The speechwriters and many in the White House knew the information was bogus. According to NPR reporter Tom Gjelten, it was White House staffers who suggested that the claim be attributed to the British. If the story is true, then it is clear that the White House wanted to get the information into the speech, no matter whether it was true or not. The Hill, "A Rose is a Rose is as Rose", June 25, 2003

Colin Powell seemed to have some knowledge of the bogus nature of the information. In fact, it is widely reported he used a “famous barnyard epithet” to describe it. Upon reading the first draft of his speech to the UN, Powell was so upset at the weakness of some of the evidence that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit." US News and World Report, "Truth and Consequences", June 9, 2003

Vice President Dick Cheney knew the information was bogus, but his office included it in the first draft of Powell’s speech to the UN anyway, only days after the CIA judged the information to be inaccurate. Cheney sent Ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger in February 2002, a year before the State of the Union address, to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there. Wilson's report went into great detail about how the uranium ore was processed, how the processing was regulated, and most particularly who had physical custody of the product from the time it was in the ground to the time it was delivered to the customer. Wilson adduced various findings relating to the custody, oversight and regulation of the state uranium mining industry which, in his view, made the alleged sale highly unlikely. Wilson concluded in a recent New York Times Op-Ed that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." talkingpointsmemo.com, July 12th, 2003 -- 11:53 AM EDT

It is clear that the White House knew the information was bogus and kept it in the State of the Union anyway. It was so important to keep in the State of the Union speech because there was no other information available to support the contention that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear capability. In January 2002 the CIA reported on global weapons-technology proliferation, but did not mention a nuclear threat from Iraq. The review said only, "We believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its nuclear program." In addition, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) “never assessed that there was good evidence that Iraq was reconstituting or getting really serious about its nuclear weapons program." The New Republic "The First Casualty", June 30, 2003

Yet it was important to the White House to keep the evidence of Iraq’s nuclear proliferation in the State of the Union speech because the Bush administration had decided to go to war and needed to rally the American people behind its plans. A famous propaganda tactic to get people to support a war is to scare them into believing they are being attacked. Herman Goering said at the Nuremberg trials that "the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." For those of us who opposed the war in January through March of this year, Goering’s quote sounds uncomfortably real.

With the Iraqi war dragging on anticlimacticly into its fourth month, the anti-American rumor-mill is in full swing in Iraq. According to the propaganda, the Americans are responsible for all the problems in Iraqi society. The most common accusation is that the US is not doing anything to restore electricity and is actually preventing its restoration. Such rumors can be expected, given that the US is responsible for restoring electricity and it is not happening.

Even more disturbing, though, is the prevalence of rumors that the US is responsible for bombings against Iraqis. First was the mosque bombing in Falluja, a hotbed of anti-American activity. Local residents have accused US fighter planes of dropping bombs on the mosque. Others, including the US Central Command have accused anti-American activists within the mosque of accidently setting off bombs they were making during a bomb-making class. The local intelligence officer for the US Army said he knew nothing about a bomb-making class, but a local resident says he saw someone target the mosque. "I saw a green laser pointing on Sheikh Leith's room from two cars. Then the cars drove away and the plane dropped the bomb," said 73-year-old resident Abdullah Jassem Ensayif. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

In Ramadi, where seven Iraqis were killed by a bomb at a graduation of US-trained police cadets, locals are actually accusing the Americans of setting off the blast. The reasoning given is that the US wants to keep Iraq unstable so as to keep the Iraqis fighting amongst themselves so the US can rule the country longer. For more, see this article in the New York Times or this one from the Associated Press in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Other anti-American rumors reported by the Associated press:

- The Assaah newspaper claimed that the Israeli government modified its export laws to flood Iraq with Israeli goods. The paper urged Iraqis to carefully check Taiwanese or Chinese-made appliances for hidden Stars of David.

- The same paper recently reported that American helicopters swooped down on construction stores in the southern city of Nasiriyah to steal building supplies.

- Word is traveling on Iraqi streets that U.S. patrols are blaring messages from loudspeakers telling people they won't have electricity until attacks on Americans stop.

- An Iraqi group calling itself "Wakefullness and Holy War" issued a statement on Iranian TV claiming responsibility for recent attacks and announcing that Jews have arrived in Baghdad to spread "sex, prostitution and drugs among young people."

Such rumors, whether true or not, will undermine support for the US in its effort to rebuild Iraq. So long as the Americans are viewed as responsible for the chaos, support will grow for anti-American groups within the country. If support grows for these groups, it will become harder for Iraqis to cooperate with the American occupation. Any government set up under American rule will be suspect. Attacks will continue against American and British troops as well as against Iraqis viewed as collaborating with the occupiers.