To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » When America Kills....II

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

When America Kills....II

By David Peterson at Mar 14, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
To repeat a question that I asked last month (Feb. 26): Why do you suppose the American and British governments pay so little attention to how many Iraqis they are killing? Readers will have to forgive me for speaking so frankly. But the question does not appear to be trivial. After all, over the past 24 months, I've seen lots of similarly turned questions---though, typically, with one important change:
Not: Why don't the American and British governments pay attention to how many Iraqis they are killing? But: Why don't the American and British governments pay attention to how many Sudanese the government of the Sudan is killing?
Likewise with a second pair of questions:
Not: Why don't the American and British governments put a stop to their own killing of Iraqis? But, rather: Why don't the American and British governments put a stop to the government of the Sudan's killing of the Sudanese?
Between ourselves, I'll bet that there's a Pulitzer Prize in the Non-Fiction category waiting to be picked up by any American writer sufficiently adept at answering the second-half of each of these pairs of questions, while skating with the precision of an Olympic gold medalist just off the edge of the first of them. The simplest answer, however, to the question with which I began---Why do you suppose the American and British governments pay so little attention to how many Iraqis they are killing?---is that they don't want to know. But why wouldn't they want to know? The only equally simple answer to this question has a ring of circularity to it: Because they are the governments most responsible for the deaths, they are also the governments least interested in making an issue out of the deaths. Besides, why would the American and British governments want to know how many Iraqis they are killing? They're already booked solid with bringing to trial the leadership of the regime they ousted from Baghdad for all of the Iraqis it killed while in power---a caveat that clearly extends beyond the territorial limits of mere Iraq to a bunch of other countries and governments around the world. Back to the Sudan, for example, where the U.S. Department of State tells us the "government and government-supported militia (jinjaweed) committed serious abuses during [2004], including razing hundreds of villages of African tribes," leading Colin Powell, then the Secretary of State, to declare as far back as last September that "genocide had been committed in Darfur, and the Government and the jinjaweed bore responsibility." This, then, gives us yet another reason why the American and British governments don't want to know how many Iraqis they are killing. Because they're already booked solid trying to bring an end to the violence, disease, and starvation that are killing people in the western Sudan. And because they're trying to bring to trial the leadership in Khartoum for all of the people who died there over the past 24 months or longer. Although the Second Anniversary of the American and British war over Iraq is fast approaching, "neither the public nor public health professionals are able to obtain reliable and officially endorsed information about the extent of civilian deaths attributable to the allied invasion of Iraq," a British doctor named Klim McPherson writes in the current issue of the British Medical Journal (March 12). One of 24 workers in the public health field who recently signed an Open Letter to the U.S. and U.K. governments demanding they "commission immediately a comprehensive, independent inquiry into Iraqi war-related casualties," McPherson invoked the important study of Iraqi mortality rates that was posted to The Lancet's website last October 29, and continued:
The plain fact is that an estimate of 100 000 excess deaths attributable to the invasion of Iraq is alarming. This is already half the death toll of Hiroshima. Apart from the practical arguments, the principled ones stand and will always stand. Have we not learnt any lessons from the history of sweeping alarming numbers of deaths under the carpet? This is not something about which there can be any political discretion 60 years after Auschwitz. The UK government, acting on our behalf, ought to offer reasoned criticism of the existing estimates. It should pursue their public health responsibilities to count the casualties by using modern methods. Democracy requires this, as does proper responsibility under the Geneva Conventions.
Compelling material here. Particularly the references to Auschwitz and the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless. To date, I have been able to find mentions of this Open Letter and the British Medical Journal's entry into the fray over the ongoing foreign military occupation of Iraq in the Daily Telegraph (Sydney), The Guardian and Seattle Times (March 11), and posted to the World Socialist Web Site (March 12)---the Telegraph's and Times's having been very brief, while The Guardian's and the WSWS's were of some insight and importance. Thus, The Guardian reports that the Open Letter is "hard-hitting" and "castigates the British and American governments for failing to investigate the deaths of civilians caught up in the conflict in Iraq." While reporting for the WSWS, Rick Kelly writes:
There is an equally obvious answer as to why such a project will never be officially commissioned—which is that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis is of absolutely no interest to the US or Britain. The coalition forces made it clear from the outset that they would keep no account of their killing. “We don't do body counts,” General Tommy Franks declared. Any examination of the numbers of dead today would draw attention to the brutality of the war—from the initial “shock and awe” bombardment to the wholesale destruction of cities such as Fallujah. Furthermore, an accurate assessment of Iraqi casualties would reveal something of the nature and extent of the war crimes that continue to be committed on a daily basis by the occupying forces. This is a subject that the US and British governments—together with their accomplices in the media—have done their utmost to suppress. Both President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are acutely aware that any discussion on these issues would further inflame anti-war sentiment among ordinary people.
To repeat myself from last time (Feb. 26), the reason that the McPherson Open Letter to the American and British governments has received so little attention within the English-language news media is exactly the same as the reason the English-language news media paid so little attention to The Lancet study of Iraqi deaths---much less made the scale of these deaths a theme of their coverage, complete with calls to hold the political leaderships in Washington and London accountable for it: Because the killing happens to be crucial to the mission the major English-speaking countries have undertaken in Iraq. It remains far safer, therefore, to fret over the world's inaction with respect to the government of the Sudan, than the world's inaction with respect to the American and British governments. Monitoring casualties may indeed be a humanitarian imperative. But this presumes that when dealing with the American and British governments, realpolitik does not prevail. Is there anybody who seriously believes this?
Global Public Health Experts Say Failure To Count Iraqi Casualties Is Irresponsible, Open Letter, Klim McPherson et al., British Medical Journal, March 12, 2005 "Counting the dead in Iraq," Klim McPherson, British Medical Journal, March 12, 2005 "UK and US governments must monitor Iraq casualties," Owen Dyer, British Medical Journal, March 12, 2005 "True count of Iraqi war casualties not easy to get," Armando Acuna, Sacramento Bee, March 6, 2005 "Iraq allies accused of failing to investigate civilian deaths," Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, March 11, 2005 "International health experts demand inquiry into number of Iraqi war casualties," Rick Kelly, World Socialist Web Site, March 12, 2005 “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey,” Les Roberts et al., The Lancet, posted online October 29, 2004. (This copy of the document is made available by the U.K.-based Count the Casualties organization.) “Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion,” Press Release, Center for International Emergency, Disaster, and Refugee Studies, October 28, 2004 “100,000 Iraqis Dead: Should We Believe It?” Stephen Soldz, ZNet, November 3, 2004 "Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored," Lila Guterman, Chronicle of Higher Education, February 4, 2005 (Here linking to the copy archived at the Voices in the Wilderness website, as the Chronicle's website has withdrawn its copy from circulation in the hope of extracting surplus $$$$$$ in exchange for access.) Iraq Coalition Casualties Iraq Body Count Project "Sudan," U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2004 When America Kills...., February 26, 2005
Postscript (January 9, 2006): For one subject that the Great Emancipators back in the States and the U.K. don't like to touch---and, therefore, we ought to:
"How Many Iraqis Have Died Since the US Invasion in 2003?" Andrew Cockburn, CounterPunch, January 9, 2006 "A Formula for Slaughter: The American Rules of Engagement from the Air," Michael Schwartz, TomDispatch.com, January 10, 2006 “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey,” Les Roberts et al., The Lancet, posted online October 29, 2004. (This copy of the document is made available by the U.K.-based Count the Casualties organization.) “Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion,” Press Release, Center for International Emergency, Disaster, and Refugee Studies, October 28, 2004 “100,000 Iraqis Dead: Should We Believe It?” Stephen Soldz, ZNet, November 3, 2004

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (9)

50

Re: When America Kills....II

By Peterson, David at Mar 17, 2005 04:45 AM
Take a look at:
"Highlights of Briefing by UN Emergency Relief Coordinator on Humanitarian Situation in Different Regions," UN Office at Geneva, March 16, 2005
Reading this, as well as the UN News Center's report about it ("Eastern DR of Congo surpasses Darfur as biggest, most neglected emergency – UN relief official," March 16), it is awfully hard for me not to conclude that here we are dealing at the level of public relations---and reality is being very poorly served. "The situation in the strife-torn eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has surpassed the upheavals in Sudan's Darfur region as 'the biggest, most neglected humanitarian emergency in the world today', according to the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator [Jan Egeland]." Why the hell even frame matters like this?

Reply this comment

50

Re: When America Kills....II

By Peterson, David at Mar 17, 2005 03:50 AM
Notice the actual source of the phrase. Then ask how and why the situation in the western Sudan became a "cause celebre" over the course of the past 16 months (or so). How this situation has been represented in the English-language news media: As a massive Arab crime against non-Arabs. (Even worse, depending on the source.) A massive crime for which the best remedy is what?

Reply this comment

Person

By Gammon101, Bwong at Mar 16, 2005 21:34 PM
The death toll is Darfur has been estimated to be around 300,000. Three times of Iraq. "Cause celebre"?

Reply this comment

50

Re: When America Kills....II

By Peterson, David at Mar 15, 2005 19:23 PM
A question worth asking is why the western Sudan became a "cause celebre" (Samantha Power's phrase) over the past 12 to 16 months. Is it because people have been getting killed and are dying there (with Irish filmmaker Ronan Tynan warning that the death toll is "over 300,000"), and because we (I mean the American and British states, UN organizations, NGOs, and the like) can reverse this crisis, without resorting to war? Not in my opinion. It is vanity to the point of self-delusion to believe that power and ideology are not critical factors here, and that the American state---the lunatic Congress, for example, or the State Department---has responded to a humanitarian crisis because it is a humanitarian crisis, rather than a humanitarian crisis exploitable according to the needs and interests of American Power. Epistemic autocracy indeed. A moral one, too. With American Power at its center.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: When America Kills....II

By Rocstar, Ubermench at Mar 15, 2005 09:45 AM
They do not count the dead in Iraq because they do not care how many have died - simple. They have no fear because we pose no threat, and have allowed them to amass strength so that they feel invincible in their resolve. They know that we live for the same things they promise, personal peace and comfort - and until we are able to show the people that this path they take will lead to our utter and complete destruction, nothing will change. Not until we groan from the depths of our being, despising what we have become, crushing the grip of our self-delusion, will we mount effective opposition. Not until we count the cost, and realise like our forefathers that we need to sacrifice our "lives, our fortunes and sacred honor." However, make no mistake about it - it will be harder this time. Whereas before the enemy was outside of us, now he is within, and power never concedes until it has been soundly defeated and irreparably destroyed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: When America Kills....II

By Rocstar, Ubermench at Mar 15, 2005 09:26 AM
We live in an epistemic autocracy, and until we embrace this fact, we will never be free. How many times do dictators have to be propped up, only to be knocked down for us to see a pattern? How many times does oppression have to rear it's ugly head in the name of freedom before we recognize it for what it truly is? This will never be halted until we realize it will take more than a march, a lighting of a scented candle, a rally with loud speakers, and other various ineffective means - because this is also an accepted pattern, it is a rat maze and our captors only wait for us to complete the course and than it's business as usual. Think of what we see happening as a public water tap - we turn it off momentarily, they turn it back on again. We park next to the water faucet with threats till we grow weary and go to sleep - they turn it on again! Until we take a sledge hammer to the pipes and completely destroy the system, it will never stop.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: When America Kills....II

By Rocstar, Ubermench at Mar 15, 2005 09:09 AM
Unless we strike at the heart of this issue no one in opposition will prevail. We are controlled from the cradle to the grave. We are fed visions, insidiously and purposefully, of acceptable authorities and historic fallacies, all our lives. People trust what they consider to be authoritative, it is what they believe in. We are not free people, we have never been free, each of us lives in an illusory world. We have no priority structure except what we are told should matter, and that is what we want. I have used this quote before, no doubt I will probably use it again - "I have sworn on the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" Thomas Jefferson

Reply this comment

Person

Re: When America Kills....II

By Rocstar, Ubermench at Mar 15, 2005 08:53 AM
David, once again you impress me with your voluminous sourcing - if I were setting up a think tank, I would nominate you for the research necessary for whatever the topic. My hat is off to you. My thought about this is simple, this adminstration relies heavily upon the already influenced resident minds. Woven into the warp and woof of our thought processes is that we are right, and can do no wrong - and the powers that be rely upon this illusion. They rely upon it because it is working, no one mounts an effective opposition. Someone may call for this accountability, but than they drop it - no one follows up. Even if they do follow up they do not have the floor so to speak, all avenues of truly influential communication are closed.

Reply this comment

50

Re: When America Kills....II

By Peterson, David at Mar 14, 2005 22:16 PM
You can say that again.---And then some. And yet people are left scratching their heads when states with this kind of track record "fail" to undertake a "humantarian" intervention over the western Sudan! (My hunch is, sooner or later, they'll get around to it. When they can craft it according to NATO-expansive purposes.) But consider how closely aligned with the needs and interests of American Power all of this is. The Americans, the British, etc., get to invade and occupy a foreign country, and to kill foreign nationals there---while all of the public moralists back in the States and Britain and elsewhere get to denounce the government of the Sudan for killing its own. In the hands of the really crafty public moralists, such as the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof or the crew at Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy or the countless "solidarity" groups to have sprung up on the web (e.g., the Save Darfur Coalition---though there is a bunch of others), you'd think that the history of the world begins anew with every atrocity, that the U.S. Government were the Red Cross, and that its only failure was a failure to use its immense power to carry out police and humanitarian missions on the basis of need. And if they are really brave, they'll even denounce the American and British governments for not moving more aggressively to stop another government, the Sudan's, from killing, and for not doing more to hold its political leadership accountable. My god. Where would the assailants of Fallujah be, without a moral sphere this skewed and this aligned with their interests and needs!

Reply this comment

Loading_border