The Economist -- the veritable Bible of the Anglo-American Establishment -- paints a grim portrait of the Iraqi regime installed at the point of American guns: a sinkhole of torture, execution, increasing repression and brazen power-grabs.

The Shia-led government has overseen a ballooning of the country’s security apparatus. Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state.

Old habits from Saddam Hussein’s era are becoming familiar again. Torture is routine in government detention centres. “Things are bad and getting worse, even by regional standards,” says Samer Muscati, who works for Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby. His outfit reports that, with American oversight gone (albeit that the Americans committed their own shameful abuses in such places as Abu Ghraib prison), Iraqi police and security people are again pulling out fingernails and beating detainees, even those who have already made confessions. A limping former prison inmate tells how he realised, after a bout of torture in a government ministry that lasted for five days, that he had been relatively lucky. When he was reunited with fellow prisoners, he said he saw that many had lost limbs and organs.

The domestic-security apparatus is at its busiest since Saddam was overthrown six years ago, especially in the capital. In July the Baghdad police reimposed a nightly curfew, making it easier for the police, taking orders from politicians, to arrest people disliked by the Shia-led government. In particular, they have been targeting leaders of the Awakening Councils, groups of Sunnis, many of them former insurgents and sympathisers, who have helped the government to drive out or capture Sunni rebels who refused to come onside. Instead of being drawn into the new power set-up, many of them in the past few months have been hauled off to prison. In the most delicate cases, the arrests are being made by an elite unit called the Baghdad Brigade, also known as “the dirty squad”, which is said to report to the office of the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki.

There are more details in the full story. However, the Economist is being a bit demure in attributing the current degradation to the machinations of the al-Maliki regime alone. The United States has been deeply, directly and instrumentally involved in the dirty work of the Iraqi regime since the very beginning of the conquest. In fact, the Iraqi security forces whose atrocities are detailed in the Economist were created by the Americans, as I noted in a Moscow Times article way back in August 2003:

Here's a headline you don't see every day: "War Criminals Hire War Criminals to Hunt Down War Criminals."

Perhaps that's not the precise wording used by the Washington Post this week, but it is the absolute essence of its story about the Bush Regime's new campaign to put Saddam's murderous security forces on America's payroll.

Yes, the sahibs in Bush's Iraqi Raj are now doling out American tax dollars to hire the murderers of the infamous Mukhabarat and other agents of the Baathist Gestapo – perhaps hundreds of them. The logic, if that's the word, seems to be that these bloodstained "insiders" will lead their new imperial masters to other bloodstained "insiders" responsible for bombing the UN headquarters in Baghdad – and killing another dozen American soldiers while Little George was playing with his putts during his month-long Texas siesta.

Naturally, the Iraqi people – even the Bush-appointed leaders of the Potemkin "Governing Council" – aren't exactly overjoyed at seeing Saddam's goons return, flush with American money and firepower. And they're certainly not reassured by the fact that the Bushists have also re-opened Saddam's most notorious prison, the dread Abu Ghraib, and are now, Mukhabarat-like, filling it with Iraqis – men, women and children as young as 11 – seized from their homes or plucked off the street to be held incommunicado, indefinitely, without due process, just like the old days. As The Times reports, weeping relatives who dare approach the gleaming American razor-wire in search of their "disappeared" loved ones are referred to a crude, hand-written sign pinned to a spike: "No visits are allowed, no information will be given and you must leave." Perhaps an Iraqi Akhmatova will do justice to these scenes one day.

It didn't take a genius to see, in August 2003, what would happen when the American conquerors began filling the old torture chambers of Abu Ghraib with innocent captives. The International Red Cross later estimated that some 70-90 percent of the thousands of prisoners rounded up by the Americans in Iraq were not guilty of any kind of crime whatsoever, much less any connection to terrorism or the insurgency.

But these tortures -- which the Economist does at least mention in passing -- are just the tip of a very large slag-heap of atrocities. The United States has also been running its own "dirty squads" from the very start, as we detailed here last year in A Furnace Seal'd: The Wondrous Death Squads of the American Elite.

That post was occasioned by the release of Bob Woodward's latest lumbering tome from the deepest bowels of the Beltway. As we noted last year:

Woodward revealed -- or, rather, confirmed -- the existence of what he called the key element to the "success" of Bush's escalation of the war crime in Iraq: a "secret killing program" aimed at assassinating anyone arbitrarily deemed a "terrorist" by the leaders of the foreign forces occupying the conquered land.

In a TV appearance to puff the book, Woodward celebrated the arbitrary murder, by methods unknown, of people designated "terrorists," by criteria unknown, as "a wonderful example of American ingenuity solving a problem in war, as we often have." ....

What is most noteworthy about the "revelations" is that they have provoked no controversy at all. The United States admits that it is operating secret death squads in Iraq, and this barely rates a passing mention in the press, and certainly no comment whatsoever on the campaign trail, no debate among the national leadership. And this despite the fact that, as Woodward makes clear, the targets of the American death squads are not merely "terrorists," as the general public broadly understands the term -- i.e., religious extremists in the al Qaeda mold -- but anyone arbitrarily designated an "insurgent" or a leader in "the resistance."

That is, anyone who resists the invasion and occupation of his native land is deemed a legitimate target for a secret death squad. For execution without charges, without trial, without evidence. And this, to Woodward, is "wonderful" and "amazing." By this logic, of course, the Nazis were fully justified in murdering leaders of the French resistance in World War II. The British would certainly have been justified in sneaking into George Washington's house and killing the insurgent leader in his bed. (And his wife too, no doubt, as an acceptable level of "collateral damage.") In fact, Woodward sternly warns members -- members, mind you, not just leaders --  of "the resistance" to "get your rear end out of town;" i.e., leave your native land or else be murdered in your bed by secret assassins of the occupying power.

This is the heroic, honorable stance of the American elite in the 21st century. What the Nazis did, we do, and for the same reason: to secure the forcible occupation of a land we conquered through an unprovoked war of aggression.  It is indeed wonderful and amazing that such a state of affairs -- such an abyss of depravity -- is accepted so calmly by the great and good among us....and by tens of millions of our fellow citizens.

The 2008 post goes on to detail just some of the vast amount of information, readily available in mainstream newspapers and magazines, about the American use of death squads and "paramilitaries" to carry out "extrajudicial killings" of people accused -- by someone, somewhere, for some reason or no reason at all -- of being "terrorists" or "insurgents," or "bad guys," to use the playground parlance so favored by our high priests and their media acolytes. These killings, these "dirty squads," have been part of the occupation of Iraq since the beginning, as has the systematic use of torture and the unlawful detention of innocent people. That al-Maliki is carrying on the practices and policies of those who put him into power should come as no surprise -- not even to the Economist. 

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Michael Allen said:

The Obama Administration is Actually Increasing the US Presence in Iraq US presence in Iraq is actually growing. Believe it or not, the U.S. presence in Iraq is growing under the leadership of antiwar president Barack Obama. A recent Washington Post by reporter Walter Pincus explains that when U.S. troops are "withdrawn," their jobs are taken over by......mercenaries -- the notorious "contractors," who are hired for fabulous sums of money to sustain the huge U.S. presence there. And there are some really awful aspects of this process, including: • The cost of the contractors is substantially higher than the cost of the soldiers they replace. (That is, the cost of the war is going up as the U.S. "scales down" its presence in Iraq) • "Where private guards replaced soldiers, many more guards were needed to do the same job." So the numbers and cost of the U.S. presence is going upward, not downward. • The new contractors are overwhelmingly "third-country nationals" employed by U.S. corporations under contract from the U.S. Defense and State departments. That is, with unemployment at 60% in many places around Iraq, the new jobs created by these contractors are not giving employment to unemployed Iraqis. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-schwartz/the-obam... US actually increasing personnel in Iraq: More contractors, fewer troops US forces are not withdrawing from Iraq. Well, its soldiers are. But not civilian contractors. Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to withdraw US troops from the war-torn country, the US is planning to award contracts to protect US installations at a cost to taxpayers that could near $1 billion. In fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq just awarded $485 million in contracts just last week, while Congress enjoyed its summer recess. Five firms will handle private security deals to provide security for US bases. It's a neat rhetorical loophole that will allow US officials to say that the country has withdrawn from Iraq, while its contractors remain. "Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period," the Washington Post's Walter Pincus wrote in Wednesday editions. "That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million. ... http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/us-replacing-iraq-troops-with-private-contractors/ With U.S. Forces in Iraq Beginning to Leave, Need for Private Guards Grows By Walter Pincus Tuesday, September 8, 2009 As the United States withdraws its combat forces from Iraq, the government is hiring more private guards to protect U.S. installations at a cost that could near $1 billion, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. On Sept. 1, the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) awarded contracts expected to be worth $485 million over the next two years to five firms to provide security and patrol services to U.S. bases in Iraq. Under this contract, the firms will bid against one another for individual orders at specific bases or locations. These "task orders" in the past have ranged from supplying one specialist to providing as many as 1,000 people to handle security for a major base. Under a similar contract with five security contractors that began in September 2007, the MNF-I spent $253 million through March 2009, with needs growing over that 18-month period. That contract, which was to run three years, had a spending limit of $450 million. Against that background, the inspector general for reconstruction predicted that costs for private security at U.S. facilities in Iraq "will grow in size to a potential $935 million." The inspector general's report, issued this year, said the MNF-I planned to switch to private guards for Victory Base Camp, one of its largest installations. That facility alone would require "approximately 2,600 security personnel," the report said.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Shainzona said:

	Wanna bet..... ...that these American chickens will come home to roost one day?
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 14, 2009
Votes: +0

No One of Consequence said:

	... ...that these American chickens will come home to roost one day? That was the exact phrase people used regarding the 9/11 attacks. I can guarantee you that when the consequences have become obvious and horrifying, the government will have no choice but to blame yet another group of poor brown people for the results.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 14, 2009
Votes: -1

Yankee 30 said:

	... Paul Craig Roberts, September 14, 2009: Paul Craig Roberts, September 14, 2009: "...The telltale part of Obama’s speech was the applause in response to his pledge that “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits.” Yet, Obama and his fellow politicians have no hesitation to add trillions of dollars to the deficit in order to fund wars."
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 14, 2009
Votes: +0

Shainzona said:

	... no one of consequence....I used that phrase tongue in cheek. Except this time, it's probably more likely to be true, at least in my eyes. As Michael Allen pointed out (above) "we have met the enemy, and he is us."
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: +1

Jimmy Montague said:

	It's the brown people's fault -- I couldn't wait to be the first American to make the accusation. They torture themselves. They do it because their religion enslaves them and they hate themselves for being slaves to their own beliefs. There it is. Get used to it.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

The usual Phonk said:

Mr No wonder the American with a great enthusiasm went to the poles and voted for Bush for the second time. Cheney is still adamant that the invasion of Iraq was legal and also the right thing to do and he would do it again without a flinch And the American soldiers have served sevaral terms in Iraq, that must've too enjoyable. No criminal admits his crimes, and there's no bravery in killing defenceless unarmed men women and children but the exception here is that the Americans are used to these abominable crimes.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: +1

The usual Phonk said:

Call it a dirty US army and government. We haven't heard all the stories about the dirts of Americans, reason is US army is still there and Iraq is still unstable and don't have time to dig and publish the US dirts, then Afghanistan will follow. the books and movies that will be produced about US dirts is nothing like Hollywood movies portraying USA as a saviour of humanity from an imaginary asteroid or illusionary aliens. Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan Somalia are real far from what hollywood is making you look like. A proud army and government where 95% of the population doesn't give a toss what their elected are committing on their names.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: +0

The usual Phonk said:

	Viva USA They toppled Mosadeg and placed a shah dictator, then they toppled Iraq's elected prez and put Saddam in, when saddam disagree with oil price he was toppled and Maliki comes in another puppet just like Mubarak on US payroll at 3 billions dollar a year. and what are the tools for USA to interfere in other countries' affairs...its US soldier who carry these criminal plan
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: +1

robertsgt40 said:

	Police State? "Human-rights violations are becoming more common. In private many Iraqis, especially educated ones, are asking if their country may go back to being a police state." I hate to break this to you but you DO live in a police state. The only difference between Iraq and the U.S. is we still have guns, holding the federales off...for now.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... Jimmy, sorry I misread you. But I think my prior answer remains applicable. I reviewed Executive Orders from 2001-2009 and saw nothing of the type you are seeking. I wouldn't expect to see anything, frankly. Two reasons why -- (1) nothing done by Bush/Cheney was very constitutional, especially the use of military force; and (2) the use of death squads isn't the type of thing that the Federal Government would document for public consumption, if it documented the thing at all. Remember the revelation by Sy Hersh a few months ago about Cheney's secret hit squad -- Hersh didn't find that by perusing public documents.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 17, 2009
Votes: +1

Gonzolegend said:

So true Chris I'm Irish and remember a piece you did a few years ago (after the Al Askari mosque bombing, which set off all the Sunni-Shia violence). In it you showed how a lot of the British special ops troops who sowed choas in Belfast during the troubles, were sent to Iraq around the time the Death Squads started. I guess that story (one of the best you've written imo) shows how this counter insurgency tactic is being applied verbatim in Iraq. Of course it barely needs to be said but these tactics completely knock out any of the professed goals of bringing Democracy to Iraq.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 18, 2009
Votes: +0