Category: iraq war

  • It’s been just over 20 years since the Battle of Fallujah, a bloody campaign in a destructive Iraq War that we now know was based on a lie. 

    But back then, in the wake of 9/11, the battlefield was filled with troops who believed in serving and defending the country against terrorism. 

    “Going to Fallujah was the most horrific experience of our lives,” said Mike Ergo, a team leader for the US Marines Alpha Company, 1st Battalion. “And it was also, for myself, the most alive I’ve ever felt.”

    This week on Reveal, we’re partnering with the nonprofit newsroom The War Horse to join Ergo’s unit as they reunite and try to make sense of what they did and what was done to them. Together, they remember Bradley Faircloth, the 20-year-old lance corporal from their unit who lost his life, and unpack the mental and emotional battles that continue for them today.

    This episode originally aired in January 2025.

    Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Today, on the 22nd anniversary of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, key architects and commanders of this monstrous war crime, from Condoleezza Rice to David Petraeus, sit comfortably in cushy positions at top American universities. At the same time, the overseers of the ongoing U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment and siege on Gaza, considered a genocide by human rights groups like Amnesty…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In November 2005, a group of US Marines killed 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq. The case against them became one of the most high-profile war crimes prosecutions in US history—but then it fell apart. Only one Marine went to trial for the killings, and all he received was a slap on the wrist. Even his own defense attorney found the outcome shocking. 

    “It’s meaningless,” said attorney Haytham Faraj. “The government decided not to hold anybody accountable. I mean, I don’t know, I don’t know how else to put it.”

    The Haditha massacre, as it came to be known, is the subject of the current season of The New Yorker’s In the Dark podcast and this week’s episode of Reveal. Reporter Madeleine Baran and her team spent four years looking into what happened at Haditha and why no one was held accountable. They also uncovered a previously unreported killing that happened that same day, a 25th victim whose story had never before been told. 

    Photos from this story, as well as a searchable database of military war crimes, can be found at newyorker.com/season-3.

    Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Climate activists have held a former BP CEO and House of Lords peer’s feet to the fire at a key lecture on the climate crisis.

    As the climate-wrecking corporation announced another year of killer profits, lord John Browne didn’t quite get the welcome reception he had bargained for at the 10-year anniversary event.

    However, Fossil Free London made sure he got the one he deserved. To draw attention to more than a decade of him fronting the fossil fuel major branded ‘Blair Petroleum’ after the then Labour Party prime minister’s invasion of Iraq under false pretences, activists called on Browne to “pay up” for the warmongering company’s imperialistic past – and present.

    BP profits: disaster capitalists doing what they do best

    On Tuesday 11 February, BP posted its annual profits for 2024. And boo-hoo, break out the waterworks for BP, it reported that its takings had plummeted to $8.9bn. This was down from $13.8bn in 2023.

    By all accounts of course, it still raked in a staggering sum of money. What’s more, it’s hardly a hit – when its 2023 profits were the second-highest across the past decade. In fact, it’s still more than the company made in 2021 ($7.6bn).

    In 2022, the company leached record profits of $28bn. Of course, the energy crisis that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic triggered was the the disaster capitalist corporation’s wet dream. Price-gouging profiteers like BP were rolling in it, waging class war on the rest of us.

    So excuse us while we bring out our tiny violins.

    Naturally however, it’s also hardly the only war BP has been opportunistically fueling either, because there’s also its war on the climate too. In tandem with its latest profits, the company looks to be planning to its scale back its renewables arm. No surprises here though from the company’s whose well-oiled propaganda pipeline gave the world “Beyond Petroleum” before promptly dumping its slimy rebrand as swift as Deepwater Horizon oil-slick.

    It was as much a stupefyingly oxymoronic misnomer then, as a former BP boss lecturing anyone on the climate crisis is now. When did that rebrand take place? Under the executive directorship of none other than lord John Browne.

    Activists upstage former BP boss at climate lecture

    So, on the day that BP broke the truly devastating news of its billions in losses to its loaded shareholders, the Energy & Climate Change Law Institute invited BP’s former CEO John Browne to the stage.

    Unfortunately for Browne however, Fossil Free London were waiting in the wings. Activists disrupted Browne’s Q&A as he stood at the podium:

    Crucially, activists were also there to highlight BP’s colonial crimes. Browne was BP boss at the time of then-Labour Party PM Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq. British oil interests – namely, BP’s in particular – were at the heart of it. Its cosy revolving door relationship speaks to this. As Declassified UK has previously underscored:

    Within days of Blair’s 1997 election victory, former BP chairman Sir David Simon was ennobled and made a trade minister.

    Moreover, lo and behold, BP was right on the scene to suck up the spoils:

    Governments in London and Washington long denied the Iraq war was about oil. Yet BP returned to the country in 2009 after a 35-year absence and was awarded a significant interest in Iraq’s largest oil field near British-occupied Basra in the south of the country.

    Of course, the predatory profiteer hasn’t slowed in its colonial capitalist conquest since either. Capitalising on Israel’s brutal genocide of Palestinians in Gaza is very on-brand. So unsurprisingly, the corporate criminal has done just that as well.

    Therefore, Fossil Free London demanded reparations for the oil industry’s role in the climate crisis and its destructive, imperialistic operations to boot.

    Law firm sponsor’s complicity

    The Energy & Climate Change Law Institute is based at Queen Mary’s University in London. It bills itself as:

    a leading postgraduate law school

    Moreover, it describes its curriculum as:

    anchored in the real world of the energy sector; and to be a leading voice in the law and regulation of the energy transition.

    The institute hosts its annual ‘Clifford Chance Lecture’, which in it boasts is:

    one of the key dates in the Energy Law calendar for energy law academics, practitioners and policy-makers in the UK and internationally.

    As the name suggests, Clifford Chance law firm sponsors the event. Cue a company dripping in climate crisis complicity. Activists from Fossil Free London highlighted how the company is another handmaiden for big oil and gas.

    US-based student-led Law Students for Climate Accountability ranked it amongst the worst law firms shilling for the fossil fuel industry in 2024.

    When will BP pay up for the harms they’re responsible for?

    The Fossil Free London activist wasn’t pulling any punches as she grilled Browne:

    When will BP and past and present CEOs pay up for the harms they’ve caused, pay up for the climate disasters and deaths they’re responsible for?

    Of course, it was crickets from the white collar criminal who’d pocketed his oil millions.

    A former BP boss, a law firm in bed with big oil, and a bunch of fossil fuel industry sell-outs walk into a corporate-captured lecture theatre. And thanks to climate activists at Fossil Free London, they all got well and truly burned.

    Featured image via

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • It’s been 20 years since the Battle of Fallujah, a bloody campaign in a destructive Iraq War that we now know was based on a lie. 

    But back then, in the wake of 9/11, the battlefield was filled with troops who believed in serving and defending the country against terrorism. 

    “Going to Fallujah was the most horrific experience of our lives,” said Mike Ergo, a team leader for the US Marines Alpha Company, 1st Battalion. “And it was also, for myself, the most alive I’ve ever felt.”

    This week on Reveal, we’re partnering with the nonprofit newsroom The War Horse to join Ergo’s unit as they reunite and try to make sense of what they did and what was done to them. Together, they remember Bradley Faircloth, the 20-year-old lance corporal from their unit who lost his life, and unpack the mental and emotional battles that continue for them today.

    Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • A network of former intelligence operatives has woven itself into the fabric of right-wing alternative media, amplifying anti-Muslim scare narratives that appear aimed at countering a noted decline in conservative support for Israel since October 7, 2023. Central to this effort is Sarah Adams, a figure promoting conspiracies about a supposed Palestinian-linked Al-Qaeda plot against the West.

    On December 12, 2024, Adams appeared on the Shawn Ryan Show for a two-hour interview that quickly amassed over 2.5 million views on YouTube. Shorter excerpts have gained further traction across social media platforms.

    The post Sarah Adams And The Return Of The Iraq War Playbook appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The pioneering TV host Phil Donahue, who revolutionized daytime television by tackling major social and political issues in front of a studio audience, has died at the age of 88. The Phil Donahue Show, later renamed Donahue, ran from the 1960s through to 1996, and the affable host won 20 Emmy Awards and received a Peabody Award throughout his career. In 2003, Donahue was fired from his primetime…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • We continue to look at the record of Donald Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, Senator J.D. Vance, with a focus on his foreign policy actions, with Matt Duss of the Center for International Policy, former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Vance is “very aligned with Trump,” says Duss, such as in his support of the Abraham Accords, the Arab-Israeli normalization deal signed under the Trump…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • “My life before and after [Abu Ghraib] were very different,” Salah Hasan Nusaif Al-Ejaili testified in a Virginia courtroom on Monday, April 15, the beginning of the trial in the case of Al-Shimari v. CACI. Al-Ejaili, one of the three plaintiffs in the case, was an Al Jazeera journalist who was detained in November 2003 and held in the Iraq prison’s “hard site,” which was reserved for “high-value”…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • While current and former officials across the U.S. political spectrum shared praise for and fond memories of former Sen. Joe Lieberman in response to news of his death on Wednesday, critics highlighted how some of his key positions led to the deaths of many others. Lieberman’s family said the 82-year-old died at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital after a fall at his home in the Bronx. He served in the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In my role as a public school educator in Evanston, Illinois, I work in a community of learners with intimate ties to what today is called Israel and Palestine. There, I have struggled, alongside students and colleagues, with how to cultivate honest, ethical and just learning environments to understand and address what is happening in Gaza. The schools in Evanston — a suburban city to the north of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Twenty-two years after Congress gave former President George W. Bush the greenlight to use military force against Iraq, the Biden administration is citing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to justify the most recent deadly U.S. airstrike in Iraq. The January 4 drone strike on a vehicle in a security district of bustling Baghdad reportedly killed at least three members of the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • This year marks the 20th anniversary of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. It also marks 20 years since the birth of the massive global antiwar movement that opposed the war. One of the most compelling wings of that movement involved the hundreds of U.S. veterans who protested the war and occupation. In late 2004, I met Patrick Resta, an army medic who served in Iraq and came home to join the newly…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Every year on September 11, Americans and the global community are reminded of the attacks on the World Trade Center and those who died in New York City, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. The 2,977 lives of various religions, nationalities and ethnicities are rightfully assigned a value. We are called on to remember them and mourn their loss, a stark difference from the lives of people like me…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A Russian mercenary outfit rose to prominence on the UK government’s watch, a new committee report claims. They aren’t wrong. But regardless of the Wagner Group‘s crimes and influence, the UK itself remains a global hub for mercenary activity.

    The Foreign Affairs Select Committee published the hard-hitting report on Wednesday 26 July. Titled ‘Guns for gold: The Wagner Network exposed’, the report examines the mercenary group’s global operations.

    The authors warned that while the Putin-linked group is primarily understood through its role in Ukraine, it operates far outside Europe.

    They said:

    Wagner’s activities in Ukraine are not representative of the network’s operations globally.

    Global guns for hire

    Wagner’s operations are varied. And its roles can include military and non-military operations. The report also points out it is a complex entity with a range of affiliates and attributes:

    The network’s military operations can be mapped in at least seven countries (Ukraine; Syria; the Central African Republic; Sudan; Libya; Mozambique; and Mali), with medium or high confidence that the network has been involved in a non-military capacity in 10 further countries since 2014.

    While not every operation is at the direction of the Russian state, the network’s aims usually align to some degree with Russian interests:

    Even when the Wagner Network has not acted as a direct proxy of the Russian Government, the Kremlin is likely to have benefited from its presence.

    And while Wagner has a mixed track record, the costs are usually the same:

    …atrocities, corruption and the plunder of natural resources.

    Late to the party

    The report claimed that the UK has tried to counter Wagner by supporting Ukraine. But this is not enough, given the group’s geographical spread:

    It is deeply regrettable that it was not until early 2022 that the Government began to invest greater resource in understanding the Wagner Network, despite Wagner fighters having already conducted military operations in at least seven countries for almost a decade.

    But there is another side to the mercenary debate. Certainly Wagner is a brutal operation, linked with atrocities around the world. So brutal and powerful, in fact, that it recently attempted to challenge the Russian state itself through a coup.

    But the UK’s own vast, multi-billion pound mercenary industry has been thriving unchecked not for ten years, but since the Iraq War.

    The UK Wagner?

    While opaque and unaccountable, there have been attempts to expose the UK private military industry. Perhaps the most important report was published by the charity War on Want in 2016.

    It found:

    Private military and security companies (PMSCs) burst onto the scene 15 years ago, following the declaration of a ‘war on terror’ and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    And the firms quickly turned a tidy profit:

    This vast private industry, now worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is dominated by UK companies reaping enormous profits from exploiting war, instability and conflict around the world.

    War on Want called for a ban on mercenary firms – one which so far has not been enacted.

    Whoever can pay

    A later 2018 report into the industry showed it was still raking in cash for violence with minimal oversight.

    As that Open Democracy investigation had it:

    Many of these companies will serve whoever can pay – from wealthy private individuals to faceless corporations. It is easy for them to do so.

    They added:

    Despite the size of this mercenary industry, the entire sector is marked by secrecy. Men trained in the arts of subterfuge and counter-intelligence dominate this sphere, and the result is an industry that operates from the shadows.

    Secretive elite gunmen

    The UK mercenary industry involves a great number of shadowy people. But it has long centred on former soldiers from British special forces units. And the home of the SAS, the sleepy town of Hereford, is also a hub for for-profit military activity.

    As journalist Matt Kennard reported in 2017:

    The business model involves providing “soldiers for hire” to companies and governments around the world, to protect assets and important people from criminals and terrorists (and sometimes dissidents).

    He added:

    It is a multibillion dollar industry operating in virtually every country in the world

    While warfare was, for many years, the sole preserve of states, the neoliberal model of privatisation has been extended to the provision of deadly violence. With obvious results.

    Double standards?

    Certainly, there is an argument the Wagner Group should be proscribed. But not for the first time, the UK finds itself in a position where it cannot finger-point and moralise. Given the UK is home to its own private military industry, which is also unregulated, it is very hard for the UK government to criticise other states for theirs.

    That the same military industry is built on the expertise of its own elite troops, and within shouting distance of its own major special forces base, makes the government’s position even more untenable.

    A ban on global mercenary firms would be sensible and prescient. But that must include our own killers-for-hire, as well as those of foreign powers.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/2s3m akatsiya, cropped to 1910 x 1000, licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In the Blindman’s Buff variation of tag, a child designated as “It” is tasked with tapping another child while wearing a blindfold. The sightless child knows the other children, all able to see, are there but is left to stumble around, using sounds and knowledge of the space they’re in as guides. Finally, that child does succeed, either by bumping into someone, peeking, or thanks to sheer dumb…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On the fourth anniversary of Julian Assange’s arrest, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib led six other progressive lawmakers in calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to “uphold the First Amendment’s protections for the freedom of the press by dropping the criminal charges” against the Australian WikiLeaks founder and withdrawing the extradition request of the U.K. government.

    Assange has been jailed at Belmarsh Prison in London since U.K. authorities forcibly removed him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019. The 51-year-old publisher continues to fight his extradition to the United States, which the U.K. government approved last year.

    Tlaib (D-Mich.) along with Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) on Tuesday joined media outlets, world leaders, and civil liberties, human rights, and press freedom groups that have decried U.S. efforts to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.

    Such organizations “have been emphatic that the charges against Mr. Assange pose a grave and unprecedented threat to everyday, constitutionally protected journalistic activity, and that a conviction would represent a landmark setback for the First Amendment,” the Democrats wrote to Garland. “This global outcry against the U.S. government’s prosecution of Mr. Assange has highlighted conflicts between… America’s stated values of press freedom and its pursuit of Mr. Assange.”

    “We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.”

    The lawmakers argued that prosecuting the publisher “for carrying out journalistic activities greatly diminishes America’s credibility as a defender of these values, undermining the United States’ moral standing on the world stage, and effectively granting cover to authoritarian governments who can (and do) point to Assange’s prosecution to reject evidence-based criticisms of their human rights records and as a precedent that justifies the criminalization of reporting on their activities.”

    “Assange faces 17 charges under the Espionage Act and one charge for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion,” they noted. “The Espionage Act charges stem from Mr. Assange’s role in publishing information about the U.S. State Department, Guantánamo Bay, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much of this information was published by mainstream newspapers, such as The New York Times and Washington Post, who often worked with Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks directly in doing so. Based on the legal logic of this indictment, any of those newspapers could be prosecuted for engaging in these reporting activities.”

    However, “the prosecution of Mr. Assange marks the first time in U.S. history that a publisher of truthful information has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” the letter highlights. “The prosecution of Mr. Assange, if successful, not only sets a legal precedent whereby journalists or publishers can be prosecuted, but a political one as well.”

    “As attorney general, you have rightly championed freedom of the press and the rule of law in the United States and around the world,” the document added, pointing to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recently revised media regulations. “We are grateful for these pro-press freedom revisions, and feel strongly that dropping the Justice Department’s indictment against Mr. Assange and halting all efforts to extradite him to the U.S. is in line with these new policies.”

    “Every day that the prosecution of Julian Assange continues is another day that our own government needlessly undermines our own moral authority abroad and rolls back the freedom of the press under the First Amendment at home,” the letter concludes. “We urge you to immediately drop these Trump-era charges against Mr. Assange and halt this dangerous prosecution.”

    The Democrats’ appeal to Garland coincided with similar demands from parliamentarians across the political spectrum in Australia, Brazil, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, and was welcomed by groups that have long demanded Assange’s freedom.

    “As Julian Assange marks four years in Belmarsh prison and faces possible imminent extradition to the United States, it’s more crucial for members of Congress to speak up now than ever before,” said Rebecca Vincent, director of operations and campaigns at Reporters Sans Frontières, or Reporters Without Borders (RSF). “No one should face prosecution or the possibility of the rest of their lives in prison for publishing information in the public interest.”

    “As long as the case against Assange continues, it will be a thorn in the side of the U.S. government, and undermines U.S. efforts to defend media freedom globally,” Vincent added. “We welcome Rep. Tlaib’s leadership on this issue and encourage widespread support for her call on the Justice Department to drop the charges against Assange. It’s time for the U.S. to lead by example by bringing this 12-year-old case to a close and allowing for his release without further delay.”

    Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, similarly applauded the Michigan Democrat for her “courageous defense of the First Amendment.”

    “Defending the Bill of Rights is the responsibility of every branch of government,” said Gibbons, “and we are proud to stand with those members of Congress who are joining with nearly every press freedom group and newspapers such as The New York Times, in calling on the Department of Justice to end its prosecution of Julian Assange.”

    Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Seth Stern also commended Tlaib’s “efforts to finally put an end to the unconstitutional prosecution of Julian Assange,” stressing that “whatever one might think about Assange personally, there is no principled distinction between the conduct he is charged with and the kind of investigative journalism that has helped shape U.S. history.”

    “As long as the government claims the power to prosecute newsgathering, all journalists can do is hope prosecutors exercise restraint and don’t come after them for doing their jobs. Journalists will surely tread more cautiously as a result,” he warned. “No one who values the First Amendment should be comfortable with that, which is why every major press rights and civil liberties organization opposes Assange’s prosecution.”



  • Recently, the US Senate voted on a bipartisan basis to rescind the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq. President Biden, who voted for that AUMF in 2003, has said he will sign it if it gets to his desk.

    At this writing, it is unclear if the U.S. House will post the rescission for a vote and, if so, whether it will pass in that chamber. I fervently hope that it will, so one of the most notorious episodes in U.S. history can be peacefully laid to rest.

    If that does happen, it would be a strong parallel to the rescission of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution by the U.S. Senate in 2009. That AUMF in 1964 was also based on deception and authorized the U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, which became the greatest American debacle of that era.

    But far more important, rescinding the Iraq AUMF would repudiate deception and manipulation by any Presidential Administration as happened with the George W. Bush Administration in getting Congress to support it. It would also discourage open-ended Congressional AUMFs with no expiration date, which so far has allowed the one in Iraq to continue for two decades. In short, it would re-establish the Constitutional principle that only Congress can declare war, and repudiate the decades-long trend toward an imperial US presidency.

    In the lead-up to the U.S. attack on Iraq 20 years ago, as the executive director of the Princeton-based Coalition for Peace Action, I helped lead intensive organizing to try to prevent it.

    We organized numerous demonstrations opposing the Bush administration’s campaign to start a war with Iraq, including joining a demonstration of over 1 million in New York City shortly before the March 19, 2003 invasion. With demonstrations worldwide attended by tens of millions, it was the largest anti-war mobilization in history to try to prevent a war.

    We also did intensive lobbying in opposition to the Bush Administration’s AUMF to authorize the war. I remember being in a delegation that met with the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg shortly before the vote, at which he shared that he couldn’t justify sending his own son to that war so had decided to vote against it.

    Starting in August 2002, there was an intense mobilization by the Bush Administration with neoconservatives like Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to promote the war based on the deception that it was needed to prevent Iraq from using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

    That culminated with a presentation by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003 asserting the same supposed danger. The Council didn’t vote to support it. We put forward compelling evidence that the Bush Administration was deceiving the American people into supporting the war, but it began anyway.

    Years later, I had an in-person conversation with the Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Dr. Hans Blix. He told me he had met in person with President Bush before he launched the war, and certified to him that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. He said he told him that if he were given just a few more months, he could certify that it also didn’t have Chemical or Biological Weapons. But Blix said Bush simply retorted that he had made the decision, and the US invasion happened shortly after.

    Peace-loving citizens in the U.S. and across the world organized intensively to end the war. I’m proud that the Coalition for Peace Action played a leading role in that effort in our region. But it wasn’t ended until 2011 when the US finally withdrew its last remaining troops as part of an agreement in 2008, before Bush finished his second term. Over 5,000 U.S. Servicemembers were killed, and tens of thousands wounded—including countless returning US Servicemembers who suffer from PTSD to this day. And up to one million Iraqis died.

    The U.S. House needs to complete rescission of this deceptive and extremely damaging AUMF. In January 2020, the Trump Administration invoked it to conduct a drone assassination of a top Iranian military leader who was in Bagdad, creating a grave danger of major war with Iran. Iran did a retaliatory strike against a U.S. base in Iraq. But thankfully, no U.S. troops were killed—though a considerable number were injured.

    Wars of choice in Vietnam and Iraq have not led to peaceful American-style democracies, as those can never be imposed from the outside. We need to rescind the AUMF for the Iraq War, as we did with the Tonkin Gulf AUMF that green-lighted the Vietnam War. Readers wanting to support that goal can visit peacecoalition.org.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Rohima Miah reports from Washington DC that on the 20th anniversary of the United States invasion of Iraq, thousands of peace and antiwar activists rallied in the nation’s capital under the banner Fund People’s Needs, Not the War Machine!

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • March 19–20 marked 20 years since United States forces invaded Iraq. A new report documents the ongoing human, social, economic and environmental toll, reports Brett Wilkins.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Events marking the 20th anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq were organised across Australia, with calls to scrap AUKUS and free Julian Assange. Jacob Andrewartha reports.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • At around 5:30 a.m. local time in Baghdad on March 20, 2003, air raid sirens were heard in Baghdad as the U.S. invasion began. Within the hour, President George W. Bush gave a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office announcing the war had begun. The attack came on the false pretext that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction, and despite worldwide protest…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • It had been 15 years since the U.S. invaded Iraq when, on March 19, 2018, the celebrated Iraqi novelist and poet Sinan Antoon published a blistering op-ed in The New York Times. He took readers through his observations of the steady deterioration of Iraqi society since the war began, but the most scathing words came toward the end. “No one knows for certain how many Iraqis have died as a result of…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.



  • How did we get here? 20 years after the U.S.-led invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq, we still refuse to reckon with the last decades of war as yet another decade of violence unfolds. Since the invasion, tens of thousands if not over a million lives have been lost. Millions of Iraqis are still displaced, while tens of millions have endured relentless violence ever since the destabilization of their country beginning in the 1990s through bombing, sanctions, multiple military invasions, and the occupation that began in 2003.

    We share these reflections as two antimilitarist organizers in the U.S. who met years after the invasion through our shared work with About Face Veterans Against War (formerly known as Iraq Veterans Against the War). Twenty years ago this weekend, one of us was deployed as a communications technician and heard nothing about the massive protests the other participated in. One of us was organizing with Direct Action to Stop the War, coordinating twenty thousand people to shut down San Francisco’s financial district, in an attempt to raise the financial and social cost of invasion that was being steamrolled through despite the largest global street protests in the history of the world.

    We know the war on Iraq—like the war on Afghanistan—was a calculated grift for money and power. We can’t allow the truth to be manipulated or forgotten. George W. Bush is being reanimated as a folksy painter instead of brought to account for his administration’s war crimes. His creation of the so-called “Endless Wars” after 9/11 has so far cost incalculable damage to peoples’ lives and over $14 trillion in Pentagon spending. Up to half of that massive amount has piped directly into the pockets of private military contractors.

    Those who seek profit from wars rely on our consent, our confusion about what’s really happening, and our willingness to submit to historical amnesia. The only voices allowed to speak on large platforms about this 20-year milestone are the ones attempting to rewrite history in favor of the architects and beneficiaries of war. A former speechwriter for Bush wants you to buy that the U.S. “went to war to build a democracy in Iraq,” but listen instead to Iraqis like Riverbend (the pen name of a young Baghdadi woman writing during the early years of the occupation) who told us the truth at the time:

    “You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.”

    Even now in Iraq, everyday people still struggle daily for the bare minimum. As the nonpartisan Iraqi diaspora group Collective Action for Iraq recently described, “People have continued taking to the streets across Iraq to protest corruption, for basic services and to live their lives in dignity—from Kurdistan, to Najaf, and Dhi Qar. State and local security forces continue to respond with violence and the suppression of dissident voices.” These are only a few effects of the cascade of violence triggered by the U.S. occupation.

    The silence here about the devastation caused by U.S. wars abroad is by design. Obama came to office on a platform of “change” nodding strongly towards the populist antiwar sentiment of the late 2000s, and yet here we are, still prioritizing war. Under this ongoing “Global War on Terror” framework—under Bush and Obama and Trump and now Biden—the lead-up to each consecutive war utilizes tailored rhetoric but the patterns remain the same, even while weapons evolve. Now the contractors are the same corporations providing the software we use every day. Google and Microsoft work alongside Raytheon and Northrop Grumman to produce and operate weapons of mass destruction. The war machine is becoming more secretive, more connected, and more ubiquitous. None of us can afford to remain silent or apathetic about the devastation we continue to cause to innocent civilians. The money being spent on war must be redirected to those most impacted by U.S. aggression.

    Instead of reparations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has stolen billions from the Afghan Central Bank; drained Iraq of people, its resources, and undermined civil society creating regional instability. If we allow ourselves to be lied to yet again about these wars, we are more easily manipulated to go along with the next iteration of the U.S. war. Obama’s so-called “Pacific Pivot” initiated a shift back to China, yet again, as the leading rationale for continued military buildup. The fear-mongering is the same, yet the tactics of war-making are being implemented with evermore secrecy by intelligence officials and contractors preventing public discourse and effective oversight.

    Our misleadingly named “defense” spending, the money earmarked for expanding U.S. control overseas, has doubled since the invasion of Iraq. Nothing stops the growth of war profiteering: not exposures of war crimes, not the inarguable destabilization of multiple countries with increased violence and displacement, not the epidemics of veteran suicide and war trauma coming home, not the avoidance of auditing or accountability for the use of such funds. Last Monday, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord told reporters that a $1 trillion defense budget is coming soon.

    What will the world look like 20 years from today? If this country cannot relinquish its death grip on empire-building, we will have only continued to impoverish and incarcerate our own population while spreading unimaginable destruction abroad. The U.S. military is also the biggest polluter on the planet; in order to address the dangers of climate change, we must shrink this footprint immediately.

    If we want a brighter future, we can and must divest from wars abroad and the increased domestic militarization that both pose serious threats to democracy. We can move that money from the Pentagon, police, and prisons to invest instead in community needs and real safety. We can pursue diplomacy, nonviolent interventions, and repair. This country is rich in leadership—especially in Black, Brown, and Indigenous-led grassroots community organizing. There are those working toward taking better care of each other amid conditions created by an overextended empire that deprioritizes human needs. Let’s move towards collective healing instead of continually funneling money into the bloody pockets of CEOs of weapons makers and major corporations that profit off death and destruction. Let’s return resources, including money and sovereignty, to the people most impacted by these wars.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Friday marked the upcoming 20th anniversary of the George W. Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq—where thousands of U.S. troops remain today—by asking if Americans have learned anything from the “failed war of aggression” and warning that waging another such war will have even more dire consequences.

    In a Twitter thread, Omar (D-Minn.) asserted that “20 years later, the Iraq War remains the biggest foreign policy disaster of our generation, one that took thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.”

    As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs estimates as many as 580,000 people were killed in Iraq and Syria since 2003 and nearly 15 million people were made refugees or internally displaced by the war—which is forecast to cost a staggering $2.9 trillion by 2050.

    The war was waged—under false pretenses against a country that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks—by neoconservative Republicans in the Bush administration who since before 9/11 had sought a way to invade Iraq and oust erstwhile ally Saddam Hussein. The horrors of war and occupation included torture, indiscriminate killing, sex crimes, environmental devastation, and soaring birth defects caused by the use of depleted uranium weapons.

    What then-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer called Operation Iraqi Liberation—OIL—devastated much of Iraq but enriched multinational corporations while creating a power vacuum that was eventually filled by Islamic State, whose rise to power in much of Iraq and neighboring Syria led to a second phase of the war launched during the administration of former President Barack Obama that continues today.

    “Have we fully learned the lessons from this failed war of aggression, or are we doomed to repeat it?” Omar asked.

    “Our foreign policy discourse remains fundamentally pro-war,” Omar noted. “Think tanks (often the same ones who cheerled the Iraq War) outflank each other to justify armed conflict and derail diplomacy with adversaries like Iran.”

    Omar—whom Republicans recently ousted from the House Committee on Foreign Affairs—continued:

    Instead of seeing China as a geopolitical challenge to be managed, politicians gin up jingoistic sentiment and nationalism to see who can be the most “anti-China.”

    Our spending on Pentagon waste and new weapons continues to rise uncontrollably—with weapons contractors wielding more lobbying power than ever in Washington.

    Our national media too often treat war as a game—a way to juice ratings as fewer Americans turn into TV news—rather than the most horrific state of conditions to be avoided at all costs.

    Claims from senior national security officials are reported as fact, even when no evidence for those claims is presented.

    Much like the lost Iraqi lives lost were often ignored 20 years ago, we continue to ignore the pain and suffering of Black and Brown people in places like Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Haiti, and more.

    “To truly be able to avoid another Iraq, we need a national reckoning with how we got into it the first place,” argued Omar, who fled civil war in Somalia with her family when she was a child.

    “We need accountability for those who got us into this war,” Omar said. “But most of all we need to see all of our lives connected as part of the human fabric—to understand that the parent who loses a child in war could be us, that the child who is displaced could be our child.”

    “Because the next Iraq,” she added, “will be even worse.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory.” — Viet Thanh Nguyen

    As mainstream U.S. media outlets pause to remember the U.S. invasion of Iraq, it’s clear that there’s a lot they hope we’ll forget—first and foremost, the media’s own active complicity in whipping up public support for the war.

    But the more you dig into mainstream news coverage from that period, as our documentary team did last week when we put together this five-minute montage from our 2007 film War Made Easy, the harder it is to forget how flagrantly news networks across the broadcast and cable landscape uncritically spread the Bush administration’s propaganda and actively excluded dissenting voices.

    After 20 Years, Will US News Media Finally Admit its Craven Complicity in Iraq War? | WAR MADE EASY www.youtube.com

    The numbers don’t lie. A 2003 report by the media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) found that in the two weeks leading up to the invasion, ABC World News, NBC Nightly News, CBS Evening News, and the PBS Newshour featured a total of 267 American experts, analysts, and commentators on camera to supposedly help make sense of the march to war. Of these 267 guests, an astounding 75% were current or former government or military officials, and a grand total of one expressed any skepticism.

    Meanwhile, in the fast-growing world of cable news, Fox News’s tough-talking, pro-war jingoism was setting the standard for ratings-wary executives at most of the more “liberal” cable networks. MSNBC and CNN, feeling the heat of what industry insiders were calling “the Fox effect,” were desperately trying to outflank their right-wing rival—and one another—by actively eliminating critical voices and seeing who could bang the war drums loudest.

    At MSNBC, as the Iraq invasion approached in early 2003, network executives decided to fire Phil Donahue even though his show had the highest ratings on the channel. A leaked internal memo explained that top management saw Donahue as “a tired, left-wing liberal” who would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.” Noting that Donahue “seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives,” the memo warned ominously that his show could end up being “a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”

    Two decades later, as we hurtle ever closer to potentially catastrophic new wars, there’s been virtually no accountability or sustained reporting in mainstream news media to remind us of their own decisive role in selling the Iraq war.

    Not to be outdone, CNN news chief Eason Jordan would boast on air that he had met with Pentagon officials during the run-up to the invasion to get their approval for the on-camera war “experts” the network would rely on. “I think it’s important to have experts explain the war and to describe the military hardware, describe the tactics, talk about the strategy behind the conflict,” Jordan explained. “I went to the Pentagon myself several times before the war started and met with important people there and said . . . here are the generals we’re thinking of retaining to advise us on the air and off about the war, and we got a big thumbs up on all of them. That was important.”

    As Norman Solomon observes in our film War Made Easy, which we based on his book of the same name, the bedrock democratic principle of an independent, adversarial press was simply tossed out the window. “Often journalists blame the government for the failure of the journalists themselves to do independent reporting,” Solomon says. “But nobody forced the major networks like CNN to do so much commentary from retired generals and admirals and all the rest of it . . . It wasn’t even something to hide, ultimately. It was something to say to the American people, ‘See, we’re team players. We may be the news media, but we’re on the same side and the same page as the Pentagon.’ . . . And that really runs directly counter to the idea of an independent press.”

    It’s an act of forgetting we can ill afford, especially as many of the same media patterns from 20 years ago now repeat themselves on overdrive…

    The result was a barely debated, deceit-driven, headlong rush into a war of choice that would go on to destabilize the region, accelerate global terrorism, bleed trillions of dollars from the U.S. treasury, and kill thousands of U.S. servicemembers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, most of them innocent civilians. Yet two decades later, as we hurtle ever closer to potentially catastrophic new wars, there’s been virtually no accountability or sustained reporting in mainstream news media to remind us of their own decisive role in selling the Iraq war.

    It’s an act of forgetting we can ill afford, especially as many of the same media patterns from 20 years ago now repeat themselves on overdrive–from the full-scale reboot and rehabilitation of leading Iraq war architects and cheerleaders to the news media’s continuing over-reliance on “experts” drawn from the revolving-door world of the Pentagon and the arms industry (often without disclosure).

    “Memory is a strategic resource in any country, especially the memory of wars,” the Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen has written. “By controlling the narrative of the wars we fought, we justify the wars we are going to fight in the present.”

    As we mark the 20th anniversary of the murderous U.S. invasion of Iraq, it’s imperative to reclaim the memory of this war not only from the Bush administration officials who waged it, but also from the corporate media system that helped sell it and has tried to control the narrative ever since.
    To mark the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the RootsAction Education Fund will be hosting a virtual screening of “War Made Easy” on March 20th at 6:45 PM Eastern, followed by a panel discussion featuring Solomon, Dennis Kucinich, Kathy Kelly, Marcy Winograd, India Walton, and David Swanson. Click here to sign up for the event, and click here to stream “War Made Easy” in advance for free.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • As the U.S. Senate on Thursday teed up a vote to end the congressional authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars, President Joe Biden formally backed the bipartisan bill.

    The progress on finally repealing the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force (AUMFs) comes just ahead of the 20th anniversary of the George W. Bush administration’s costly and devastating invasion of Iraq.

    The bill ( S. 316/H.R. 932) was reintroduced in February by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and has GOP co-sponsors in both chambers. On Thursday, 19 Republican senators joined with all Democrats present to advance the measure.

    The legislation has not yet been approved by the House of Representatives, which is narrowly controlled by the GOP. However, if it reaches the president’s desk, he supports it, according to the statement of administration policy released Thursday.

    While former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump used the 2002 authorization to justify strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, respectively, the new Biden administration document notes that “the United States conducts no ongoing military activities that rely primarily on the 2002 AUMF, and no ongoing military activities that rely on the 1991 AUMF, as a domestic legal basis.”

    “Repeal of these authorizations would have no impact on current U.S. military operations and would support this administration’s commitment to a strong and comprehensive relationship with our Iraqi partners,” that policy statement adds. “President Biden remains committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework more appropriate to protecting Americans from modern terrorist threats.”

    Demand Progress Education Fund policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement that “we are glad President Biden is supportive of getting these outdated AUMFs off the books, and that he is committed to work with Congress on presumably replacing the 2001 AUMF with a narrower framework.”

    “However, any serious attempt by President Biden to work with Congress on war powers reforms requires the administration to halt unauthorized participation of U.S. armed forces in hostilities that contravene the War Powers Act,” Kharrazian stressed. “This includes ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen, ceasing the use of U.S. forces to protect Syrian oil fields and battling Iranian-backed militias, and putting an end to legally dubious military operations in the Horn of Africa.”

    The campaigner continued:

    Moreover, the administration must commit to full legal transparency regarding the use of military force. Both this administration and previous administrations have failed to provide Congress with timely reporting on the 2001 AUMF, as required by 50 U.S. Code § 1550. Additionally, President Biden has failed to respond to lawmakers’ inquiries about the administration’s legal justifications for the expansive use of the 2001 AUMF and Article 2 authorities. Without such transparency, Congress is unable to fully exercise its oversight and legislative duties over war and peace.

    It’s encouraging to see an administration committed to addressing outdated AUMFs. However, a genuine commitment will involve respecting congressional authority over war by proactively ending unauthorized military activities and implementing comprehensive transparency measures.

    In a series of tweets, the Quaker advocacy group Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) welcomed the administration’s position and highlighted fresh comments from Kaine and Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a co-sponsor, who gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday with members of the American Legion.

    “There’s no reason—none—to have a war authorization against a strategic partner, and so that’s the first reason why we need to do this,” Kaine said of Iraq, adding that the repeal must also occur to honor U.S. service members.

    Kaine called out previous failures by Congress to end the AUMFs, and noted that leaving them in place enables abuse. While confirming he has not spoken with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) about the bill, the senator expressed optimism that it will pass—saying of the lower chamber, “there’s a wonderful bipartisan coalition there as well.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • This article was funded by paid subscribers of The Dissenter Newsletter, a project of Shadowproof. Become a monthly paid subscriber to help us publish more independent journalism on whistleblowing.

    To further their nationwide efforts to restrict access to transgender health care, Republicans in the state of Missouri have deployed a former case worker at Washington University’s Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital, who they claim is a whistleblower.

    There is no shortage of activists, journalists, academics, and people of conscience who have some story to share about the impact of the “Collateral Murder” video.

    The U.S. military footage of an Apache helicopter crew shooting indiscriminately at a dozen Iraqi civilians — including Reuters journalists Namir Noor Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh, and two young children — is widely recognized for exposing the true nature of the United States war in Iraq and for making WikiLeaks and Julian Assange household names.

    Three years before WikiLeaks made it possible for the public to watch this video, Dean Yates, Reuters bureau chief in Iraq, learned of its existence. Yates testified about the impact of the video at the Belmarsh Tribunal in Sydney, Australia on March 4, 2023.

    Later in the Tribunal, another delegate, Australian lawyer Bernard Collaery, called Yates’ testimony “admissible evidence,” which could serve as witness testimony in defense of Assange. (In fact, a statement from Yates was submitted to a British court during Assange’s extradition trial.)

    It has now been nearly 13 years since WikiLeaks published the video, and nearly 16 years since the attack took place. No one responsible for the attack or the invasion of Iraq has faced even a modicum of accountability.

    In contrast, Assange is languishing in Belmarsh Prison under torturous conditions. He sits in legal limbo while the United States continues to pursue his extradition under Espionage Act charges, in a case which poses an unprecedented threat to press freedom.

    While WikiLeaks’ publication of military documents from Iraq and Afghanistan are at the heart of the case, the “Collateral Murder” video is absent from the 18-count indictment that spans 37 pages.

    “The U.S. military usually didn’t investigate civilian casualties in Iraq. It did in this case because Namir and Saeed worked for a major international news organization,” Yates said as he started his speech.

    “I was shown—without advance warning—less than three minutes of footage from the gun-camera of Crazy Horse 1-8, up to where it opened fire for the first time. I was told the gunship then attacked a minivan because it was believed to be helping wounded insurgents and picking up weapons. U.S. forces had acted in accordance with the rules of engagement for Iraq, I was told.”

    Yates spent the next three years trying to convince the Pentagon to provide the full footage through the Freedom of Information Act, yet his effort was met with repeated refusals.

    Then, in 2010, WikiLeaks published the video. It immediately was clear that what the Pentagon had claimed was deceptive and dishonest.

    Screen shot from the “Collateral Murder” video

    “It was obvious why the U.S. government didn’t want to share the tape with Reuters,” Yates said. “It showed grainy figures on a Baghdad street. The hellish clack of Crazy Horse 1-8’s chain gun firing rounds the size of a small soft-drink bottle, the length of a man’s hand. Clouds of dust as those cannon shells crashed into men.”

    Yates further explained in his testimony that he highlighted sections of the indictment against Assange when the charges were announced. He concluded they were “an attempt to criminalize what journalists do,” and then Yates recalled something U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning explained at her court-martial.

    “After saving a copy of the tape, Ms. Manning told her court-martial that she searched for and found the ROEs, a 2007 flow chart outlining the chain of command for the use of force in Iraq and a laminated ‘ROE Card’ soldiers carried with them that summarized the rules,” Yates explained. “Then I got it. The U.S. government didn’t want the video in a courtroom. Too embarrassing.”

    “Potential war crimes. Cruel pilot banter. The U.S. military repeatedly lied about the events of July 12, 2007, in which my Iraq staff were killed.”

    Yates debunked, point-by-point, the lies in the original statement that the U.S. military put out justifying the attack, as well as the excuses U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made following WikiLeaks’ publication of the footage. Yates emphasized that U.S. troops were well aware of the rules of engagement that they were violating, and despite this clear breach of rules, a U.S. military investigation cleared the pilots.

    The Pentagon engaged in a cover-up to try to keep the footage from ever seeing the light of day.

    Zoomed in screen shot from the “Collateral Murder” video

    “All this shows why the U.S. government didn’t put the tape in Assange’s indictment – that snapshot of the war would have exposed the hypocrisy of its case against him,” Yates said. “The breach of the ROEs, the blatant way the military ignored the wrongdoing and the extent senior military and civilian officials lied about it. Collateral Murder is so powerful because it is pure truth-telling. No military officials could deflect, sanitize, or provide ‘context.’”

    Yates finished his testimony by comparing the video to the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by photojournalist Eddie Adams at the start of the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War. The photo powerfully documented the casual execution of Nguyen Van Lem, and is credited for changing public perception of the war in Vietnam.

    The “Collateral Murder” video certainly impacted the public perception of the Iraq War. However, 20 years after the invasion of Iraq, many of the war’s architects have succeeded in memory-holing their crimes, lies, and abuses of power.

    Thanks to Assange and WikiLeaks, even if the criminals behind the war and occupation in Iraq never face any justice for their actions, this video will always be available to anyone who wants to know the truth about the conflict.

    The post US Still Trying To Bury ‘Collateral Murder’ Video That WikiLeaks Released appeared first on Shadowproof.

    This post was originally published on Shadowproof.



  • The first time I was asked to comment publicly on Julian Assange and Wikileaks was on MSNBC in April 2010. Wikileaks had just released the Collateral Murder video. The video, leaked by Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, was taken from the gunsight of a US Apache helicopter as the helicopter’s crew killed 12 unarmed Iraqi civilians on a Baghdad street in 2007. Two Reuters journalists were killed and two small children were severely wounded (the Apache’s crew killed the children’s father as he attempted to assist wounded civilians). For three years, until Wikileaks released the video, the U.S. military claimed a battle had taken place and that aside from the two journalists, all the dead were insurgents.

    The Army declared the journalists killed in the crossfire. The wounded children were ignored, even though the Apache’s crew had recognized at the time they had shot children. “Well, it’s their fault [for] bringing their kids to a battle.” the helicopter pilots said on the video minutes after shooting them. There had been no battle.

    In the studio, the MSNBC host asked another veteran and me for our thoughts on the video. Her question was about the apparent shock American audiences were experiencing watching the brutal reality of the Iraq War. We were both incredulous that more than seven years into the war, such a video would be shocking. What did you think we were doing over there?

    The effects on the First Amendment and press freedom will be severe if Julian Assange is extradited and successfully prosecuted.

    I went to war three times. I have seen mothers with their dead children and have heard their cries in Arabic, Pashto, and English. Those cries were all the same. The hell of war that has consumed men, women, and children for decades and continues in unending forms is unimaginable to many of us. Even harder to swallow is knowing these acts of organized murder and mass suffering, perpetrated in our names, were not cruel accidents of war but the result of planned and deliberate policies.

    The millions of victims of the US wars throughout the Muslim World are familiar with the violence of these wars. For Americans at home, such familiarity with the wars, their violence, and the consequences, did not exist. Julian Assange and Wikileaks helped to change that.

    For publishing the victims of the wars and war crimes caused by the U.S. and the West, Julian Assange is being held in Britain’s notorious Belmarsh prison, awaiting extradition to the United States. Assange’s harrowing captivity began more than 12 years ago when a US rendition forced him to seek sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. I had the privilege of meeting him there in 2014. That visit allowed me to thank him for his witness through Wikileaks for the millions of war victims ignored, unnamed, and rendered voiceless. Over a decade on, his mental and physical health is failing, and Biden, despite his commitment to press freedom, has yet to budge on a pardon.

    New York Times Vietnam war correspondent Neil Sheehan said the Pentagon Papers taught him that secrets were not kept by a government to protect its people from adversaries but rather to protect the government’s actions from the knowledge of its people. Perhaps this is the greatest crime that Julian Assange committed in the eyes of both Democratic and Republican governments: he dared to tell the American people what their government had done.

    The effects on the First Amendment and press freedom will be severe if Julian Assange is extradited and successfully prosecuted. His persecution and torture already serve as a warning to journalists worldwide. And morally, Julian Assange’s imprisonment obstructs any reckoning we in the U.S. must do to contend with our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and their victims.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • The 20th anniversary of the then largest protest in world history is on February 15. As time passes, memories fade. But the 2003 protest against the Iraq war was huge and worth remembering.

    Looking back on, three things stand out.

    The scale

    This post was originally published on Green Left.