Editor’s note: This is
for all those who are wondering why their relative or friend who served in the
Iraq war, or any other war, committed suicide on the battlefield or after
coming home (and scores did) or why they are so changed on their return,
mentally and emotionally. They will never hear it from the concerned relative
or friend because he or she is dead or because none of them want to talk about
the experience they had on the battlefield.
It is hoped they will
get some understanding on this issue after reading this. And, it is hoped our
leaders who so blithely send our young ones, our future hopes, to wars, most of
which are unnecessary and waged for political reasons, will think twice before
waging another war.
What follows is a
reproduction of a 2016 article by Robert Fisk, as published in The Independent,
published in England. He is a respected and well known writer.
*******************************
Author: Robrt Fisk
Friday 24 October 2003 00:00
I was in the police
station in the town of Fallujah when I realised the extent of the
schizophrenia. Captain Christopher Cirino of the 82nd Airborne was trying to
explain to me the nature of the attacks so regularly carried out against
American forces in the Sunni Muslim Iraqi town. His men were billeted in a
former presidential rest home down the road - "Dreamland", the
Americans call it - but this was not the extent of his soldiers'
disorientation. "The men we are being attacked by," he said,
"are Syrian-trained terrorists and local freedom fighters." Come
again? "Freedom fighters." But that's what Captain Cirino called them
- and rightly so.
Here's the reason.
All American soldiers are supposed to believe - indeed have to believe, along
with their President and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld - that Osama
bin Laden's "al-Qa'ida" guerrillas, pouring over Iraq's borders from
Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia (note how those close allies and neighbours of Iraq,
Kuwait and Turkey are always left out of the equation), are assaulting United
States forces as part of the "war on terror". Special forces soldiers
are now being told by their officers that the "war on terror" has
been transferred from America to Iraq, as if in some miraculous way, 11
September 2001 is now Iraq 2003. Note too how the Americans always leave the
Iraqis out of the culpability bracket - unless they can be described as
"Baath party remnants", "diehards" or
"deadenders" by the US proconsul, Paul Bremer.
Captain Cirino's
problem, of course, is that he knows part of the truth. Ordinary Iraqis - many
of them long-term enemies of Saddam Hussein - are attacking the American
occupation army 35 times a day in the Baghdad area alone. And Captain Cirino
works in Fallujah's local police station, where America's newly hired Iraqi
policemen are the brothers and uncles and - no doubt - fathers of some of those
now waging guerrilla war against American soldiers in Fallujah. Some of them, I
suspect, are indeed themselves the "terrorists". So if he calls the
bad guys "terrorists", the local cops - his first line of defence -
would be very angry indeed.
No wonder morale is
low. No wonder the American soldiers I meet on the streets of Baghdad and other
Iraqi cities don't mince their words about their own government. US troops have
been given orders not to bad-mouth their President or Secretary of Defence in
front of Iraqis or reporters (who have about the same status in the eyes of the
occupation authorities). But when I suggested to a group of US military police
near Abu Ghurayb they would be voting Republican at the next election, they
fell about laughing. "We shouldn't be here and we should never have been
sent here," one of them told me with astonishing candour. "And maybe
you can tell me: why were we sent here?"
Little wonder, then,
that Stars and Stripes, the American military's own newspaper, reported this
month that one third of the soldiers in Iraq suffered from low morale. And is
it any wonder, that being the case, that US forces in Iraq are shooting down
the innocent, kicking and brutalising prisoners, trashing homes and -
eyewitness testimony is coming from hundreds of Iraqis - stealing money from
houses they are raiding? No, this is not Vietnam - where the Americans
sometimes lost 3,000 men in a month - nor is the US army in Iraq turning into a
rabble. Not yet. And they remain light years away from the butchery of Saddam's
henchmen. But human-rights monitors, civilian occupation officials and
journalists - not to mention Iraqis themselves - are increasingly appalled at
the behaviour of the American military occupiers.
Iraqis who fail to
see US military checkpoints, who overtake convoys under attack - or who merely
pass the scene of an American raid - are being gunned down with abandon. US
official "inquiries" into these killings routinely result in either
silence or claims that the soldiers "obeyed their rules of
engagement" - rules that the Americans will not disclose to the public.
The rot comes from
the top. Even during the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, US forces declined to
take responsibility for the innocents they killed. "We do not do body
counts," General Tommy Franks announced. So there was no apology for the
16 civilians killed at Mansur when the "Allies" - note how we Brits
get caught up in this misleading title - bombed a residential suburb in the
vain hope of killing Saddam. When US special forces raided a house in the very
same area four months later - hunting for the very same Iraqi leader - they
killed six civilians, including a 14-year-old boy and a middle-aged woman, and
only announced, four days later, that they would hold an "inquiry".
Not an investigation, you understand, nothing that would suggest there was
anything wrong in gunning down six Iraqi civilians; and in due course the
"inquiry" was forgotten - as it was no doubt meant to be - and
nothing has been heard of it again.
Again, during the
invasion, the Americans dropped hundreds of cluster bombs on villages outside
the town of Hillah. They left behind a butcher's shop of chopped-up corpses.
Film of babies cut in half during the raid was not even transmitted by the
Reuters crew in Baghdad. The Pentagon then said there were "no
indications" cluster bombs had been dropped at Hillah - even though Sky TV
found some unexploded and brought them back to Baghdad.
I first came across
this absence of remorse - or rather absence of responsibility - in a slum
suburb of Baghdad called Hayy al-Gailani. Two men had run a new American
checkpoint - a roll of barbed wire tossed across a road before dawn one morning
in July - and US troops had opened fire at the car. Indeed, they fired so many
bullets that the vehicle burst into flames. And while the dead or dying men
were burned inside, the Americans who had set up the checkpoint simply boarded
their armoured vehicles and left the scene. They never even bothered to visit
the hospital mortuary to find out the identities of the men they killed - an
obvious step if they believed they had killed "terrorists" - and
inform their relatives. Scenes like this are being repeated across Iraq daily.
Which is why Human
Rights Watch and Amnesty and other humanitarian organisations are protesting
ever more vigorously about the failure of the US army even to count the numbers
of Iraqi dead, let alone account for their own role in killing civilians.
"It is a tragedy that US soldiers have killed so many civilians in
Baghdad," Human Rights Watch's Joe Stork said. "But it is really
incredible that the US military does not even count these deaths." Human
Rights Watch has counted 94 Iraqi civilians killed by Americans in the capital.
The organisation also criticised American forces for humiliating prisoners, not
least by their habit of placing their feet on the heads of prisoners. Some
American soldiers are now being trained in Jordan - by Jordanians - in the
"respect" that should be accorded to Iraqi civilians and about the
culture of Islam. About time.
But on the ground in
Iraq, Americans have a licence to kill. Not a single soldier has been
disciplined for shooting civilians - even when the fatality involves an Iraqi
working for the occupation authorities. No action has been taken, for instance,
over the soldier who fired a single shot through the window of an Italian
diplomat's car, killing his translator, in northern Iraq. Nor against the
soldiers of the 82nd Airborne who gunned down 14 Sunni Muslim protesters in
Fallujah in April. (Captain Cirino was not involved.) Nor against the troops
who shot dead 11 more protesters in Mosul. Sometimes, the evidence of low
morale mounts over a long period. In one Iraqi city, for example, the
"Coalition Provisional Authority" - which is what the occupation
authorities call themselves - have instructed local money changers not to give
dollars for Iraqi dinars to occupation soldiers: too many Iraqi dinars had been
stolen by troops during house raids. Repeatedly, in Baghdad, Hillah, Tikrit,
Mosul and Fallujah Iraqis have told me that they were robbed by American troops
during raids and at checkpoints. Unless there is a monumental conspiracy on a
nationwide scale by Iraqis, some of these reports must bear the stamp of truth.
Then there was the
case of the Bengal tiger. A group of US troops entered the Baghdad zoo one
evening for a party of sandwiches and beer. During the party, one of the
soldiers decided to pet the tiger who - being a Bengal tiger - sank his teeth
into the soldier. The Americans then shot the tiger dead. The Americans
promised an "inquiry" - of which nothing has been heard since.
Ironically, the one incident where US forces faced disciplinary action followed
an incident in which a US helicopter crew took a black religious flag from a
communications tower in Sadr City in Baghdad. The violence that followed cost
the life of an Iraqi civilian.
Suicides among US
troops in Iraq have risen in recent months - up to three times the usual rate
among American servicemen. At least 23 soldiers are believed to have taken
their lives since the Anglo-American invasion and others have been wounded in
attempting suicide. As usual, the US army only revealed this statistic
following constant questioning. The daily attacks on Americans outside Baghdad
- up to 50 in a night - go, like the civilian Iraqi dead, unrecorded.
Travelling back from Fallujah to Baghdad after dark last month, I saw mortar
explosions and tracer fire around 13 American bases - not a word of which was
later revealed by the occupation authorities. At Baghdad airport last month,
five mortar shells fell near the runway as a Jordanian airliner was boarding
passengers for Amman. I saw this attack with my own eyes. That same afternoon,
General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, claimed he knew nothing
about the attack, which - unless his junior officers are slovenly - he must
have been well aware of.
But can we expect
anything else of an army that can wilfully mislead soldiers into writing
"letters" to their home town papers in the US about improvements in
Iraqi daily life.
"The quality of
life and security for the citizens has been largely restored, and we are a
large part of why it has happened," Sergeant Christopher Shelton of the
503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment bragged in a letter from Kirkuk to the
Snohomish County Tribune. "The majority of the city has welcomed our
presence with open arms." Only it hasn't. And Sergeant Shelton didn't
write the letter. Nor did Sergeant Shawn Grueser of West Virginia. Nor did
Private Nick Deaconson. Nor eight other soldiers who supposedly wrote identical
letters to their local papers. The "letters" were distributed among
soldiers, who were asked to sign if they agreed with its contents.
But is this, perhaps,
not part of the fantasy world inspired by the right-wing ideologues in
Washington who sought this war - even though most of them have never served
their country in uniform. They dreamed up the "weapons of mass
destruction" and the adulation of American troops who would
"liberate" the Iraqi people. Unable to provide fact to fiction, they
now merely acknowledge that the soldiers they have sent into the biggest rat's
nest in the Middle East have "a lot of work to do", that they are -
this was not revealed before or during the invasion - "fighting the front
line in the war on terror".
What influence, one
might ask, have the Christian fundamentalists had on the American army in Iraq?
For even if we ignore the Rev Franklin Graham, who has described Islam as
"a very evil and wicked religion" before he went to lecture Pentagon
officials - what is one to make of the officer responsible for tracking down
Osama bin Laden, Lieutenant-General William "Jerry" Boykin, who told
an audience in Oregon that Islamists hate the US "because we're a
Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian and
the enemy is a guy called Satan". Recently promoted to deputy under-secretary
of defence for intelligence, Boykin went on to say of the war against Mohammed
Farrah Aidid in Somalia - in which he participated - that "I knew my God
was bigger than his - I knew that my God was a real God and his was an
idol".
Secretary of Defence
Donald Rumsfeld said of these extraordinary remarks that "it doesn't look
like any rules were broken". We are now told that an "inquiry"
into Boykin's comments is underway - an "inquiry" about as thorough,
no doubt, as those held into the killing of civilians in Baghdad.
Weaned on this kind
of nonsense, however, is it any surprise that American troops in Iraq
understand neither their war nor the people whose country they are occupying?
Terrorists or freedom fighters? What's the difference?