Bombing Falluja - Who ya’ gonna’ believe?

By Mike Whitney

“In Iraq we meant to render futile both the theory and the practice of terrorism; what we have done instead is to endow it with diplomatic credentials, making credible the policies of blind assassination.” Lewis H. Lapham; Harper’s

The ink had barely dried on the new Iraq sovereignty resolution, before US warplanes were dumping bombs on a residential target in Falluja. The raid was timed to insure the UN endorsement was passed prior to the continuation of hostilities. The Bush Administration knew that they’d never succeed in persuading the member states to endorse the resolution if the carnage continued in Falluja, so they waited until they achieved their political objective before resuming the bombing.

The conspicuous cynicism of this murderous calculation is shocking.

But beyond the cynicism, the Falluja bombing raid gives us our first preview of what Iraqi sovereignty will actually look like. It shows how the military intends to intervene with overwhelming force without putting American soldiers at risk. It is a model that was developed in the West Bank and is now being transferred to Iraq.

The raid

Twenty six people were killed when US aircraft fired laser guided missiles at a home in Falluja. Witnesses say that the bombing was timed so that the second missile would hit while people were trying to excavate those still trapped in the rubble.

"The number of casualties is so high because after the first missile we jumped to rescue the victims," Wissam Ali Hamad told Al Jazeera. "The second missile killed those trying to carry out the rescue."

Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt did not deny the reports of the attack, but said that they had “significant intelligence” that the home was being used as a “safe house” for terrorists connected to Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Kimmitt’s allegations have been dismissed by top Iraqi security personnel in Falluja who say that there were no Al Qaeda fighters in the wreckage. Rather, the home was being used as a residence for an “extended Iraqi family”.

Brigadier Nuri Abudi, a member of the Falluja Brigade entrusted by the US occupation with imposing security in the city, said “We inspected the damage, we looked through the bodies of the women and children and elderly. This was a family. There is no sign of foreigners having lived in the house. Zarqawi and his men have no presence in Falluja.” (Al Jazeerah)

The US military has consistently alleged that foreigners are operating in Falluja, although up to this point, not one member of a terrorist organization has been either captured or positively sighted. The claim of terrorism has simply become the “all purpose” excuse for ongoing attacks on the Iraqi people. This week’s bombing was no different.

Kimmitt’s explanation was picked up and reiterated by the western media without question. In this case, the media not only echoed the fabrications from the military, but also added a few of their own. A Washington Post report by Edward Cody stated, “Falluja medical personnel said 22 people, ALL DESCRIBED AS FOREIGN FIGHTERS, died” in the incident.

Cody’s allegations are uncorroborated and based on pure fantasy. None of the other reports coming from the site identify the victims as “foreign fighters”, nor has anyone proved that foreigners are a critical part of the Iraqi resistance. Cody’s article is simply intended to establish a link between Al Qaida and the insurgency, and thus, reinforce the Bush Administration’s shabby rationale for occupation.

In fact, not one foreign fighter has been killed or captured in the Iraq conflict. This point cannot be emphasized enough, especially with the Bush Administration trying to resurrect the dubious theory that Iraq is “the central battlefield in the war on terror.” We can be certain that if any foreigner is captured he’ll be trotted out on the front pages of newspapers across the country.

Even claims that “terror mastermind” Zarqawi has organised suicide bombings against the Coalition have to be taken with a degree of skepticism. The truth is that many intelligence analysts believe that Zarqawi died years ago and is not the driving force behind the recent spate of bombings in Baghdad. (In any event, his existence is far from certain.)

That doesn’t matter to the Bush administration. Without any clear evidence of WMD, they need to convince the American public that the chaos in Iraq is the result of Al Qaida operatives. It is a shaky hypothesis that remains the last possible justification for the war. So far, however, the presence of terrorists has been every bit as elusive as the phantom WMD.

Regardless of Kimmitt’s claims of “attacking terrorist strongholds”, the bombing in Falluja was just another reckless act of murder derived from poor intelligence and executed without any consideration to the loss of innocent lives.

It illustrates why the US refused to allow the provisional Iraqi government the power to “veto” military operations that might otherwise be considered unacceptable. Kimmitt expects to carry out many such ruthless operations, and has no intention of getting anyone’s approval.

As “the UN authorized Multinational Force” he can act with complete impunity; and we expect that he will.

Fallujah - Who ya’ gonna’ believe?

The Fallujah bombing controversy described here and here continues. Today The New York Times weighs in with the latest "official" story:

"A day after an American airstrike destroyed six homes in this flash-point city, a senior Iraqi official said Sunday that 23 of 26 people killed in the attack were foreign terrorists, including men from Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen."

Well now that’s rather interesting, since yesterday the Observer reported that "Dr Fadhil al-Baddrani ["one resident reached by telephone"]] said the entire family of Mohammed Hamadi, a 65-year-old farmer, married with two wives, were killed. Among the dead where his wives and children. At least three women and five children were among the dead." Assuming farmer Hamadi and the three women and five children were not among these "foreign terrorists," the claim in the Times can’t be true.

Now, how do we know whom to believe? Well, the Guardian’s claim comes from a named source, which was later backed up in a report in VOA News from "Iraqi military officers in the city of Fallujah." And the Times story? A "senior Iraqi official...who spoke on the condition of anonymity." Who was this official? What was his source of information? Was he actually in Fallujah? What is the source of his information? For all we know, this "senior Iraqi official" was Ahmad Chalabi, or perhaps Iyad Allawi, and their source of information was Paul Bremer or Mark Kimmitt.

What else can we tell about the reliability of the Times story?

Here’s another thing we "learn" from it: "On Sunday, there were no serious mortar attacks against American forces, no fiery sermons at the mosques, no marches in the street" [This is intended to prove that the people of Fallujah were not outraged by the attack]]. Well of course there were no mortar attacks, because American forces have withdrawn from Fallujah. And as far as "marches in the street," AP reports the opposite, and it’s rather hard to believe they just made this up out of whole cloth:

"Hundreds gathered in the center of this restive Sunni-Muslim city Monday to protest a U.S. airstrike that targeted a Jordanian-born militant suspected of masterminding car bomb attacks throughout Iraq. Chanting anti-U.S. slogans, the crowds accused the Americans of falsely claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had sought refuge here in order to create an excuse to attack the city."

You decide. Who ya’ gonna’ believe?

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=11366