The Catastrophic Iraq Occupation the U.S. Media Rarely Reports:
Interview with Dahr Jamail
By Kevin Zeese, AlterNet. Posted October 30, 2007.
"The bogus idea that if the U.S. leaves things will worsen is both
inherently racist and ignorant."
Dahr Jamail's MidEast Dispatches are essential reading for anyone who
wants to understand what is happening in Iraq (you can sign up on the
site to receive his reports via email). Dahr Jamail has spent a total
of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent U.S.
journalists in the country. His current book is Beyond the Green Zone:
Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq. Jamail was
recently interviewed by Democracy Rising's Kevin Zeese.
Kevin Zeese: Compare your experiences in Iraq with how the media
generally described the events. Do you think most people, Americans in
particular, are getting an accurate picture of what has occurred in
Iraq? Is occurring in Iraq?
Dahr Jamal: From the invasion until now, with few exceptions the
so-called mainstream media in the West has portrayed a drastically
different picture of what Iraq is really like under U.S. military
rule. We regularly see stories from the military point of view, and
rarely, if ever, how catastrophic the occupation has made life for the
average Iraqi. Thus, most people are in no way getting an accurate
picture of what has occurred, or what is occurring today. For example,
how many mainstream outlets cite the only scientific survey which has
been done to tally the number of Iraqis killed? Known as the Lancet
report, and conducted by scientists from John's Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Health in conjunction with Iraqi doctors from
al-Mustanceriya University in Baghdad, it found that 655,000 Iraqis
had died as the direct result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation.
Over 90 percent of the people they tracked had death certificates
provided by family members to the researchers. Yet the mainstream
media does not cite this survey, which was authenticated by British
Government. Why not? This is but one example of countless examples.
Zeese: You were in Fallujah, describe how long, when and under what
circumstances. I understand you were there right after the four
Blackwater operatives were killed in Fallujah? I've heard commentators
describe the U.S. role in Fallujah in heroic terms, like something out
of a World War II movie. How do you see the role of the U.S. military
in Fallujah?
Jamail: I went into Fallujah several times; first-before the siege to
see that the military had an ongoing policy of collectively punishing
the cities residents by cutting water and electricity everytime they
were attacked. Then during April I went as the siege was in progress.
After the siege ended I returned several times in May to chronicle
what happened. Later, during the November siege, I covered it by
interviewing doctors and refugees from the city.
What the U.S. military did in that city, under orders from the White
House, likens it to a modern Guernica. Most of the city was destroyed
during the second attack-70% of it was destroyed. Restricted and
illegal weapons like cluster bombs and white phosphorous were used by
the military. Marine snipers were shooting anything that moved in the
city.
Horrible war crimes took place there. Yet, again, the corporate media
portrayed it as a heroic action to free the people of the city from
fighters, yet it was mostly the people from the city themselves
fighting to defend their homes, and their city, from the military. Of
all I saw in Iraq, Fallujah stands as the worst action the U.S.
military took, aside from the initial invasion of the country.
Zeese: Were women, children and the elderly being killed? Was it
accidental? Intentional? The U.S. military talks about precision
bombs, what kinds of weapons was the U.S. using?
Jamail: From what I saw in April, at a small clinic inside Fallujah,
it was mostly women, children and elderly being shot by marine
snipers. Everyone I saw coming to the clinic, people from different
parts of the city coming at different times, were all telling the same
story. That snipers were shooting everything that moved since they
were being kept out of the city by the resistance. It definitely
appeared to be intentional, and soldiers later verified this. Later,
during the November siege, military leaders declared the entire city a
"free fire zone," meaning they gave soldiers license to shoot anything
they wanted.
As far as "precision" bombings -- there is no such thing. Just the
blast radius alone for many of the munitions means that by definition
there will be damage to nearby locations, which usually means civilian
homes. This has been true since the initial invasion.
Zeese: During the last presidential campaign I was with Ralph Nader
when he was being interviewed on an international television show and
a woman called from Fallujah, this was after the first battle when
Bush pulled back from attacking the city, and the woman expressed
pride that they had pushed back the U.S. military. At the same time I
recall Senator Kerry, who was running for president, mocking George
Bush for backing down on Fallujah. His comments gave Bush the green
light for the second attack on the city where many more died. Now, I
see the top Democratic presidential candidates saying they cannot
promise to get out of Iraq by 2013 and all keep a military action
against Iran on the table. All this is occurring when the vast
majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq and do not want a war
with Iran. What do you make of the political situation in the U.S. and
the electoral choices that peace voters have?
See: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/66448/
|
