Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The site is a sister to Atlantic Free Press and Brick Ogden an American Expatriate in Amsterdam has been a key supporter of this project.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
The Marines Have Figured It Out: Time to Quit Iraq
by Dave Lindorff Over the past year, Bush has pretty much lost his entire Coalition of the Unwilling, with the British, who have already pulled back from Basra into their fortified base, now intending to quit Iraq altogher early next year
But before the Brits close the door behind them, someone else wants to leave too: the United States Marines, America's answer to ancient Greece's Spartan warriors.
According to a remarkable Wednesday article in the New York
Times, the Marines have told the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates that they'd much prefer to leave Iraq and go take
over the fighting in Afghanistan from the US Army, which has some
26,000 troops over there--just about the same number as the 25,000
Marines currently mired in Iraq.
Very convenient.
And very telling.
The
Marines have clearly looked at Iraq and have seen it for the horrific,
bloddy, hopeless mess that it is. And with recruitment a growing
challenge, and their reputation in tatters thanks to the baby murders
in Haditha, and the massive slaughter of thousands in Fallujah, they
want to go somewhere, anywhere else, where they can at least claim
they're acting under UN or NATO authority, where they won't be seen as
occupiers, and where at least some of the people in the host country
will like them.
Let the U.S. Army deal with President Bush's Iraq mess.
You can't really blame the Marines.
I
spoke with one Marine, a young man just back from a second tour of
Iraq, who had been part of the assault on Fallujah in late 2004. "It
was horrible," he said. "We went in there with no rules of engagement
at all. It was just kill anything that moved. We were using hyperbaric
explosives that, when you threw them into a house, sucked the life out
of every living thing in the building. Then you'd walk in and find old
men and little boys."
The assault on the 300,000-population city
Fallujah, he said (the largest single battle the Marines fought in the
war), was itself a war crime--a collective punishment of a whole city
for the butchering by insurgents based ithere of four American
mercenaries earlier that year. Collective punishment--a tactic that was
routinely used by the Nazis in World War II--was banned by the
Nuremberg Charter, signed by the US, but was a stated reason for the
leveling of Fallujah.
The UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and other laws aimed at making war less barbaric, mean nothing to this administration.
Such
a war, and such battle tactics, are not what Marines, or what any
decent human being, wants to be a part of. And yet, just looking at the
death toll in Iraq--over one million by one account, in a country of 24
million--and at studies that have shown the U.S. kill ratio, of enemy
fighters to civilians to be 1:30, how can the Marines have avoided it?
Secretary
Gates is trying to play down the Marines' proposal, but the very fact
that it has been made should show how desperate the military in Iraq is
becoming.
The war has ceased to be about anything now but
saving Bush's and Cheney's twin asses. They want to engineer
things--and appear to be getting away with it thanks to the gutlessness
and idiocy of the Democrats in Congress--so that they can leave office
before they have to admit defeat and error and pull the troops out.
The
Marines' leaders have obviously what they are doing, and want to get
out too before losing more men and women, and before they have to be
part of the inevitable disgraced exodus that lies ahead.
It's
not likely to happen though. Imagine what it would do to morale in the
already crumbling US Army if the soldiers in Iraq saw the Marines
getting to leave.
That would probably be the last straw for many.
Still,
it's revealing to watch the Marines trying to join other Coalition
forces in rushing the exits while they still can--even if it is jumping
from the fire into the frying pan.
UPDATE:
A
good example of what stinks about the American occupation of Iraq came
today when US forces attacked what their "intelligence" told them was a
meeting of "high-level" members of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The raid
reportedly netted 19 killed "terrorists" and 15 killed civilians,
including women and nine--count 'em--nine children.
Nice shooting guys.
That's
virtually one civilian killed for each alleged "terrorist" killed. But
then, how do we even know all 19, or any of the 19 for that matter,
were "terrorists"? More likely the military is just calling every male
of fighting age, which in the US military's handbook means any male
over the age of 12 and under 85 and able to walk, a terrorist.
Now
putting aside the basic bestiality of this kill ratio even if it is
19:15, how is such an event going to help America bring "peace" to
Iraq? Every one of those dead civilians has relatives who will now be
sworn enemies of America and its military.
The glad-handing
General "Peaches" Petraeus will not likely be going to the Lake
Tharthar region to meet the locals anytime soon. If he does, his
reception won't be friendly, even if he is surrounded by his usual
phalanx of armed bodyguards.
Iraq:Marines are Go! written by a guest,
October 15, 2007
Mr. Dave Lindorff,
I understand that it is quite popular to criticize President Bush these days for the mis-handling of the war in Iraq, even the ex-commander of all American forces in Iraq has joined in. However, I believe that it is inappropriate of those of us who have not been in Iraq or those of us who have not served with the valiant soldiers in Iraq to citicize them for their role there.
The debate on whether or not we should be there, or whether or not we should have ever been there, will rage for years. Those young men and wonen that are there however, do not deserve the comments in this article. I believe that one (of the very many) issues that we currently have when considering the debate over Iraq is the lack of objective reporting from members of the press that have either not been there at all or have not been there long enough to see, hear, and understand all that has gone on there. Rather, the public hears from a journalist that has interviewed one Marine, or one disgruntled general and bashes the efforts of tens of thousands of soldiers that, in intolerable circumstances, have done good things in Iraq, for Iraqis.
Your writings have merit. Your attitude towards the Marines and soldiers now serving our country do not.
Paul Hodges
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
This article is propaganda written by a guest,
October 16, 2007
Spin it any way you want, but the Marines are going to where the fighting is. Currently they are stationed in the Anbar province and they are getting bored. The Sunni Awakenings and Concerned Citizens alliances with the Coalition has dramatically reduced the fighting in the Anbar province.
Although the Taliban and Al Qaeda are getting their asses kicked in Afghanistan, they still have a safe haven in the Waziristan province in Pakistan. This allows them to regroup in Pakistan and slip back over the border to fight again. The Marines want to be where the fighting is. They can also control their own turf more independently, which is a big plus.
Writings 
Over the past year, Bush has pretty much lost his entire Coalition of the Unwilling, with the British, who have already pulled back from Basra into their fortified base, now intending to quit Iraq altogher early next year
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I understand that it is quite popular to criticize President Bush these days for the mis-handling of the war in Iraq, even the ex-commander of all American forces in Iraq has joined in. However, I believe that it is inappropriate of those of us who have not been in Iraq or those of us who have not served with the valiant soldiers in Iraq to citicize them for their role there.
The debate on whether or not we should be there, or whether or not we should have ever been there, will rage for years. Those young men and wonen that are there however, do not deserve the comments in this article. I believe that one (of the very many) issues that we currently have when considering the debate over Iraq is the lack of objective reporting from members of the press that have either not been there at all or have not been there long enough to see, hear, and understand all that has gone on there. Rather, the public hears from a journalist that has interviewed one Marine, or one disgruntled general and bashes the efforts of tens of thousands of soldiers that, in intolerable circumstances, have done good things in Iraq, for Iraqis.
Your writings have merit. Your attitude towards the Marines and soldiers now serving our country do not.
Paul Hodges