Nearly three months have passed since the "historic" elections of December 2005, and the Iraqis have just now selected a prime minister (Jafari, a Shiite Islamic fundamentalist closely allied with Iran), and seemed hopelessly deadlocked on the issue of forming a government that will not promote an immediate outbreak of sectarian violence once formed.

The Sunni insurgency is stronger than ever, and Shiite death squads roam the street in the guise of government police and soldiers. Torture, rape and murder are rampant as official tools of government suppression. And American troops appear to be powerless to stop this mindless slide into the abyss, all the while being killed and maimed for a cause that has always been nebulous.

"Duty," "honor" and "country" mean little when the majority of the American citizens supposedly being served by the ongoing occupation of Iraq are more interested in "American Idol" than the process of bringing peace and stability to ancient Babylon, or when American politicians seem content to continue to allow the men and women who honor our nation through their service to die while those in power grasp for a politically face-saving way to "solve the Iraqi problem." And herein lies the problem: We continue to try to solve a problem we have yet to define, meaning we are seeking a solution to nothing.

America continues to pretend that we are building something of value in Iraq. And yet, common sense dictates that when one seeks to build on a corrupt foundation, whatever it is that is being constructed is doomed eventually to collapse. Our nation's involvement in Iraq is based on as corrupt a foundation as imaginable. We didn't go to war for sound national-security reasons (i.e., a threat that manifested itself in a form solvable only through military intervention), but rather for domestic political reasons based on ideology that exploited the fear and ignorance of the American people in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world.

In the topsy-turvy world of domestic American politics, this reality continues to fail to resonate. Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq continue to be demonized and marginalized, while those who supported it are embraced and applauded.

This "through the looking glass" quality in the American body politic not only hamstrings the nation collectively on the issue of solving the Iraq problem, but also continues to distort reality when dealing with other emerging problems confronting our country and the world, such as the looming crisis with Iran over its nuclear programs.

Even as we fail to grasp the lessons of our unraveling failure in Iraq, we seem to be moving full steam ahead into a similar catastrophe in Iran, making the same mistakes by embracing a threat model (nuclear weapons) void of any hard evidence, and promoting a solution (democracy) that is undefined.

If the upcoming leather anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq tells us anything as a nation, it is that we are in desperate need of a national "time out" when it comes to the issue of Iraq, Iran and the global war on terror. We need to learn the lesson that every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine serving oversees knows only too well - you don't reinforce failure.

If our politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, are unable or unwilling to engage in a rancor-free discussion about where we as a nation are heading when it comes to issues of war and peace, then perhaps we the people should engage in one of our own, and in the process establish agreed-upon principles and standards that not only would serve as a solid foundation upon which to build any future endeavors in the Middle East and elsewhere, but also set forward values and ideals that could be used to hold to account those whom we elect to represent us in higher office.

Scott Ritter is a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) and Marine Corps intelligence officer. He is the author of "Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of the Intelligence Conspiracy to Undermine the U.N. and Overthrow Saddam Hussein," published by Nation Books. He is speaking at Town Hall, Eighth Avenue and Seneca Street in Seattle, at 7:30 p.m. tonight.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Were the "grisly attacks and other sectarian violence unleashed by last week's bombing"…"which killed more than 1,300 Iraqis" (Washington Post) merely a spontaneous reaction to the destruction of the Askariya Mosque, or were they part of a broader strategy to incite civil war?

And why were so many of those who were killed …"shot, knifed, garroted or suffocated by plastic bags over their heads". (Washington Post) Many others were killed gangland-style with hands bound behind their backs and a gunshot wound to the head.

Is this the method of killing that we would normally expect from rampaging mobs, or is it more like a deliberate campaign of terror designed to spread fear throughout the community.

In Max Fuller's seminal article, "For Iraq, 'The Salvador-Option, becomes Reality", Fuller points out that the Iraqi Interior Ministry's death squads were, in fact, trained by agents from the CIA who had honed their skills in Vietnam and El Salvador. (Recently even the New York Times has admitted that these groups received American training) Fuller sees the same pattern appearing in Iraq as in other American-backed counterinsurgency operations. He says:

"In Iraq the war comes in two phases. The first phase is complete: the destruction of the existing state, which did not comply with the interests of British and American capital. The second phase consists of building a new state tied to those interests and smashing every dissenting sector of society."

Fuller's observations are consistent with what we already know about the deliberate destruction of Iraqi institutions, infrastructure, trade unions, peasant organizations and academics. The Iraqi state is being systematically decimated to pave the way for the new order.

Fuller states: "Behind every imperialist counter-insurgency war…lurks the reality of exploitation and class war, and, as successive imperialist powers have shown, the bottom line in combating the hopes and dreams of ordinary people is to resort to spreading terror through the application of extreme violence. In Iraq, the Salvador Option may mean returning home to find your entire family seated at a table with their own severed heads served to them and a bowl of blood for relish."

So, how does Fuller's theory square with the reality of this week's violence in Iraq?

Well, for one thing, Iraqi-born novelist, Haifa Zangana, confirms that there is "a systematic assassination-campaign" directed at academics and human rights activists which is designed to "destroy intellectual life in Iraq". (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21084&hd=0&size=1&l=e) Hundreds of Iraqi intellectuals have been killed without prompting even one investigation by occupation authorities.

Does that sound intentional?

We also have on record the observations of Construction Minister Jassem Mohammed Jaafar who investigated the site of the bombed-out Askariya Mosque and acknowledged that it "was the work of specialists…..Holes were dug into the mausoleum's four main pillars and packed with explosives. Then charges were connected together and linked to another charge placed just under the dome. The wires were then linked to a detonator which was triggered at a distance." (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20998)

Who benefits from such a vicious attack on one of the main icons of Islamic identity?

Some observers are suggesting that Muqtada al-Sadr, the defiant adversary of the US occupation, may have been behind the bombing so that his "black-clad" Mahdi Army could sweep through Baghdad purging his Sunni enemies.

Could al-Sadr be operating secretly as an agent of Iran establishing himself as a main-player in a future Iraqi Islamic state?

It's possible.

After all, The Washington Post states that, "Many of the bodies had their hands still bound-and many of them had wound up at the morgue after what their families had said was their abduction by the Mahdi Army, the Shi'ite militia of Muqtada al-Sadr."

Al-Sadr has denied any involvement in the carnage that followed the bombing. But, is he lying? Did agents from the Interior Ministry dress in black so they would look like the Mahdi Army and, thus, connect al-Sadr to the hostilities?

It is impossible to know.

We do know, however, that al-Sadr met the very next day with representatives of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) and called for an immediate end to the bloodshed.

He also delivered a speech that was suspiciously omitted from western press-coverage where he demanded an end to the violence and an immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces.

He said, "The Iraqi people must not be divided"…"they are one from north to south"….He called for "joint Friday communal prayers with both Sunnis and Shiites" affirming that "there are no Sunni or Shiites mosques, you are a single people."

"Do you want to give aid to the enemy? Do you want to render the occupier victorious? Do you wish to make Satan triumphant or do you wish to help the truth.

No, no to falsehood," he shouted.

"Our Iraq is passing through a big crisis, insofar as our enemies are entering among our brethren and spreading turmoil among you."

"Do not forget the plotting of the Occupation, for if we forget its plots it will kill us all without exception. This series of attacks is not the first and it won't be the last. The attacks will continue. Beware, and be responsible. Religion is your responsibility, mosques are your responsibility, the Muslim people are your responsibility, so do not attack the secure houses of God. Love one another and be brethren of one another so that our Iraq will be secure and stable and independent. We want the expulsion of the Occupier and the American ambassador." (Juan Cole; "Informed Comment")

Is al-Sadr sincere or is this just another political ploy to boost his popularity?

The problem with al-Sadr's speech is that it doesn't fit with the facts as we know them. The relatives of many of the victims of the killing spree spoke only of Sadrists, not of death squads. Also, a number of bloggers have stated unequivocally that it was the Mahdi Army who led the attacks.

What's most damaging to al-Sadr, however, is the fact that over 1,300 Iraqis were killed and 200 mosques destroyed in the rampage. How could the Interior Ministry's meager death squads kill on a scale like that? That would require a small army…. the Mahdi Army. This makes al-Sadr the prime suspect in the Baghdad massacre.

So what does al-Sadr gain from all this?

Well, for the time being he is the most powerful man in Baghdad. He's out-maneuvered the Iraqi Security Forces, the US Army, and Iraq's Prime Minister al-Jaafari. His ruthlessness and political cunning have made him Iraq's newest political powerbroker. Many people now believe that he is more influential than Supreme Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

The ascendancy of al-Sadr demonstrates the inability of the United States to bring either democracy or security to the Iraqi people. Al-Sadr has simply filled a security-vacuum created by the occupation. As political analyst Phyllis Bennis says, "The declared US strategy of training an Iraqi counter-insurgency military force to replace US and 'coalition' troops is a failure."

The Bush plan has completely backfired and put forces in motion that can no longer be controlled. The Iraqi-state has been crushed, but a multi-headed hydra has sprung up in its place making the country ungovernable. The US now faces an intractable resistance on the one hand and militia-violence on the other. Both will continue to gnaw-away relentlessly at America's vulnerabilities.

Iraq's devolution into anarchy does not bode well for the occupation. The factionalized-asymmetrical warfare is best-suited to disparate groups who can strike at will and disappear into the crowd. Guerilla attacks counteract the US military's strongest assets; high-tech weaponry and overwhelming force. We can expect a "long slog" as conditions continue to degenerate.

It's going to be "militia-rule" for quite a while in the new Iraq. America can either withdraw now or prepare to get caught in the crossfire.

No one with a beating heart could look at Abdul Hakim Ismael's scarred face and the happy, excited, nervous child behind it, and not be moved. No one could look at the many people who've stepped up to help and not be inspired.

But this story does not begin and end with an injured little boy, or the other wounded children that the group is helping. It begins with the Bush administration's prosecution of the Iraq war, and the thousands of innocent civilians it is willing to sacrifice in pursuit of its unintelligible goals. Where it ends, no one knows.

This is not to say the Pentagon is intentionally creating such victims. It is to say that despite its best efforts to minimize the damage, a bomb dropped on a child does the same damage accidentally as it does on purpose, and that, by definition, hundreds of bombs dropped on hundreds of villages have created countless Abdul Hakims already and are going to keep creating more.

Yes, war is hell, and that's true for American soldiers as well as the Iraqis. The question for the American public is how much more hell we are willing to inflict in the name of this particular war.

There's only one honest way to answer this question, and that is with the human results of U.S. policy right before our eyes. Americans need to see these shattered kids and families up close. Likewise, the U.S. veterans coming home maimed, traumatized or dead. Only then can citizens make an informed decision as to whether this war is worth its weight in carnage, not to mention $200 billion-plus.

U.S. Army Capt. Chad Hetman, 34, doesn't think it is. He is the aforementioned veteran who stayed with Abdul Hakim and his dad in Jordan and brought them to Pittsburgh.

The New Jersey native entered the Army through the ROTC program at Rutgers University in 1993. He served in the National Guard, was a 2nd lieutenant in the infantry, served in Korea and trained other soldiers in counter-guerilla warfare. Disenchanted with the military, he left active duty as a captain in 2002 and still holds that rank in the Individual Ready Reserves. Since then he's been an activist with Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and other organizations.

"I got out of the Army before Iraq but I still feel that as a U.S. citizen, I'm an accomplice," he said. "Friends of mine have been hurt or killed over there. Soldiers are coming back in bad shape and not getting the treatment they need. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been hurt. I was feeling helpless, but helping this child has been the greatest medicine for that."

Cole Miller, co-founder of No More Victims, said it's critical for Americans to show the world they care about the human suffering caused by the war. And, he added, it's no coincidence that so many Americans never saw a badly injured Iraqi child until one arrived in their midst, or that the administration has blacked out coverage of flag-draped coffins arriving home.

"That's a tactical decision," he said. "They know that if the American people see what's really going on, they won't support it and might even try to stop it."

That's the lesson the Pentagon learned from Vietnam, he said, when searing images like that of the 9-year-old girl running naked and crying after a napalm attack on her village helped turn Americans against the war.

"When Gen. Tommy Franks said we don't count Iraqi casualties, the message is that Iraqis don't count. I believe they do count, and so do many other Americans. The response to Abdul Hakim and the others proves it. Given the chance to step up, people will do amazing things."There's going to be a lot more killing and maiming of innocents in Iraq, especially now that civil war seems increasingly likely if not already under way. What the United States can do about that is an open question.

The growing dilemmas of this war are far too heavy a burden for one little boy. He's here to be healed, and that's an act of kindness, generosity and hope. At some point he'll go home. To what, one fears to ask. But the fact of his presence has done more to inform the citizenry than a thousand presidential speeches. From this point on, we can't say we didn't know.

The poll by Le Moyne College and Zogby International found that only 23 per cent believed US troops should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes", as US President George W. Bush has insisted.

Nearly one in three troops said US forces should withdraw immediately.

Another 22 per cent said US forces should be out within six months, and 21 per cent thought they should exit within a year.

"I don't think anybody is getting alarmed over any one poll, if that's what you're asking me," Mr Whitman said.

He said some of the military's highest retention rates had been among frontline units in Iraq and Afghanistan, indicating morale remained strong.

Military recruiters had also met all their goals so far this year, he said.

The survey was conducted among 944 US military personnel at several locations in Iraq. It had a margin of error of 3.3 per cent.

Mr Whitman said the poll was conducted without US Defence Department involvement.

The researchers did not find the results surprising, because the military has a new mental health screening program for returning soldiers and is encouraging them to get help early to prevent serious problems later, said study co-author Dr. Charles Hoge, a colonel at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Because of the new screening program, the findings cannot be compared with those from previous wars, Hoge said.

"There are psychological consequences of war and we want to address those up front," Hoge said. "The hope is we won't have as high rates of mental health consequences as we've seen in prior wars."

But CBS News correspondent David Martin reports the actual number of soldiers who need treatment is higher, since other studies have shown that half the soldiers who need treatment are unwilling to admit it.

"There are individuals who are afraid to come in and get help despite needing it, because of fear that they'll be stigmatized," Hoge told Martin.

Nineteen percent of those back from Iraq reported mental health concerns, compared with 11 percent of those back from Afghanistan and 8.5 percent of those returning from other places, such as Bosnia.

The study appears Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Veterans' advocates said the study supports their call for increased spending on mental health care for Iraq veterans.

President Bush's budget plan includes a 6 percent increase in spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs. But some in Congress say that is not enough because the increase hinges on more than $1 billion in cuts in other VA spending and the approval of new fees and co-payments for some veterans.

"This budget would ultimately shortchange veterans who need mental health services," said Ralph Ibson, a vice president of the National Mental Health Association. "This study can and should be a wake-up call in terms of veterans' mental health needs."

Medical authorities first accepted post-traumatic stress disorder as a psychiatric condition in 1980 at the urging of Vietnam veterans. A previous study by Hoge and his colleagues found 15 percent to 17 percent of soldiers returning from Iraq showed signs of the disorder, and many were reluctant to seek help because of the stigma attached to mental illness.

Shortly after starting the ground war in Iraq in 2003, the Pentagon began requiring returning service members to complete a three-page survey that is used to decide who needs additional help.

Among other things, the veterans are asked whether they have had nightmares, whether they are constantly on guard or easily startled, and whether they feel numb or detached from others.

"In prior wars, mental health issues weren't studied until years, sometimes decades, after the soldiers came back," Hoge said. "For this war, we're doing it differently. Research is influencing policy and we're adjusting policies as the data come in."


©MMVI CBS Broadcasting Inc.

Two former US soldiers will address 18 meetings across Ireland starting this week.

The Irish Anti-War Movement is organising the speaking tour by a veteran of the Vietnam War and a veteran of the US occupation of Iraq.

Iraq veteran Benjamin Hart Viges and his unit were involved in mortar raids during the US siege of Falluja in 2003.
Mr Viges, of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War, and Frank Corcoran of Vietnam Veterans Against the War will address meetings in most major cities and towns as well as every major university on the island.

The meetings are being held in the run-up to the anti-war march planned for Dublin city centre on Saturday, March 18.
Mr Viges said: "I am a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans for Peace. I was with the 82nd Airborne Division as a mortarman when my unit was deployed to Iraq in February 2003.

"I joined up the day after September 11, 2001. I saw action in Falluja and Baghdad. My mortar platoon dropped numerous rounds on the town of Samawa during the start of the invasion. I don't know how many innocents I killed with my mortar rounds.

"I was so disgusted by the war that, after we came home in January 2004, I filed for conscientious objector status and received that status in December 2004. I'm a Christian. What was I doing holding a gun to another human being?"

Frank Corcoran served with the marines in 1968 in Vietnam. Before travelling to Ireland, he said: "I have been a member of Philadelphia Veterans for Peace since 1990. I have also been active in the School of the Americas Watch campaign for ten, 12 years.

"I am a cancer victim because of exposure to Agent Orange while in Vietnam. I am an elementary school teacher for the past 20 years. I'm an Iraq Veterans Against the War board member and a volunteer staff member for IVAW for the past year and a half."

At the March 18 protest, the anti-war movement will also be calling for an end to CIA "torture flights" through Irish airspace and an end to the use of Shannon airport by the US military.

Over the past year, more than 300,000 US troops have passed through Shannon airport in Co Clare. The March 18 demonstration in Ireland will begin at 2pm in Dublin's Parnell Square.

The two men will speak tomorrow in the ATGWU Hall on Dublin's Middle Abbey Street at 7pm. On Thursday, they will speak at 7pm at Transport House, High Street, Belfast.
On Friday, they will speak at Badgers Bar, Orchard Street, Derry.

For a full list of the 18 meetings, go to www.irishantiwar.org.

Glasgow mum Rose Gentle was among the bereaved relatives who handed in a letter at 10 Downing Street asking the Prime Minister to reconsider keeping troops in Iraq.

They said the deaths of two British soldiers from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment yesterday meant more families would endure "agony".

Their letter stated: "A meeting might give you pause for thought.

"It is time for you to take us and our views seriously. We believe we speak for the majority in this country in our desire to bring the troops home."

The Prime Minister was at the House of Commons when the families walked up Downing Street to deliver the letter.

Mrs Gentle, whose son Gordon, 19, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers died in June 2004, revealed she received a personally signed letter from Mr Blair two weeks ago which said: "I am afraid a meeting with you will not be possible."

She said: "The boys should be brought home now.

"I am receiving an increasing number of phone calls and texts from people serving in the army in Iraq supporting our campaign because they want out.

"There is growing support from military families and Tony Blair is too much of a coward to even meet with us.

"He should have the decency to meet us for five minutes."

Roger Bacon, father of Major Matthew Bacon, 34, who died last September, said he wanted Mr Blair to explain why Britain was involved in the conflict and why troops remained.

He said: "I don't think we should have been involved. We want him to tell us why our sons have been killed.

"He has not bothered to visit those wounded in Iraq and has had as little as possible to do with troops killed or injured.

"We are not going to rant and rave at him - we just want to hear his reasons for what has happened."

Pauline Hickey, mother of Sergeant Chris Hickey of the 1st Battalion, The Coldstream Guards who died last October only joined the campaign by the military families yesterday following the latest deaths.

She said: "I want to get justice for my son and I want answers from Tony Blair. He has something to hide. The man has little humanity."

Today in Baghdad, at least 23 people have died in a wave of sectarian attacks and suicide bombings.