What happened to the Aziziyah school courtyard story?
On April 5, Reuters reported that Marines were digging up a school courtyard in the Iraqi town of Aziziyah, following tips by townspeople that there might be chemical weapons buried there. From the Reuters story:

U.S. Marines were digging up a suspected chemical weapons hiding place in the courtyard of an Iraqi girls' school in a town southeast of Baghdad on Saturday.

The Marines said that a man who described himself as an ex-member of the Iraqi special forces said that a group of Iraqi men had knocked down a wall of the school two months ago, hidden something and concreted it over in the course of three nights.

"We don't have a clue now but we're going to dig it up and see," General James Mattis, the commander of the Marine Division, the main Marine ground force in Iraq.

"Local people grabbed a Marine's gas mask and pointed to this site," Matiss said of tip-offs about feared chemical weapons at the site in the town of Aziziyah 80 km (50 miles) southeast of Baghdad.

I've found one Knight Ridder/Tribune item that may refer to what was found:

Marines also found two missiles marked with a chemical symbol buried under recently poured concrete in the town of Aziziyah.

Otherwise, the Aziziyah school courtyard story has dropped off the Google News radar screen. Can anybody tell me what happened?


The case of the missing WMD: speculation
Most Iraqi WMD discovery stories have not checked out.* But regardless of what I learn about the Aziziyah school courtyard story, it seems to me that if coalition forces found a real site like this, they might dig up enough to see there was something, and leave the rest untouched for independent verification. One reason to not publicize a find might be to take the time and ship in the equipment to verify that there is more to it, in a way that leaves the evidence intact and credible. The Pentagon seems to not have believed it would be so difficult to find WMD, and is only now thinking of how to make late discoveries credible to the outside world.

It's also possible that the Bush administration may have hopes of both finding WMD and slapping UNMOVIC and US opponents on the Security Council one last time. UNMOVIC was near Aziziyah at least once before the war**, and apparently after the school courtyard renovation project. Even a relatively small town and its environs can be a big place to search, but it might feel satisfying to some Bush administration folk to say, "look, the inspections process was hopeless; UNMOVIC guys drove right past this. At the rate they were going, it could have taken years -- to miss everything."

It's true that the Bush administration is currently opposing UN inspections, which would seem to contradict the "leave untouched" speculation. It might also just be a delaying tactic until coalition forces make discoveries they're confident of. Anyhow, wait a week; this is the most visibly schizophrenic administration I can remember.

At any rate, I don't support playing politics with this. I think it's important that UNMOVIC teams should be given the chance to validate any coalition WMD discoveries (and make discoveries of their own). If there are WMD, the main things are (1) to get the stuff out of circulation and (2) to get some clearly independent people to help put WMD discoveries above suspicion. If that must be UNMOVIC, so be it.

=====
* The other story I haven't seen specifically debunked is the "polluted Euphrates" story. The recent Judith Miller story in the New York Times ("Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert") invites skepticism, despite her stature as a journalist; she wasn't allowed to see the discoveries or talk to the scientist involved.
** I don't know whether the "Al-Aziziyah Airfield and Firing Range" frequently mentioned in the NTI report is near Aziziyah, or just has a similar name. But one item in the table at the bottom of this article mentions that UNMOVIC inspected "two facilities near Aziziyah owned by the Mesopotamia State Company for Seeds." posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:23:00 AM -- |  

 

Bon mots extended
Via Jim Henley, I learn that Jesse Walker has offered these three pithy descriptions:

Patriotism: I love my dad.
Nationalism: My dad can beat up your dad.
Imperialism: Here he comes now.

Nice! Let me add a couple more:

Totalitarianism: I like grinding my foot in your dad's face.
Libertarianism: Say, that looks painful. Probably some local custom. None of my business, though.

All in good fun! posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:01:00 AM -- |  

 

Peter Maass with the Marines in Iraq
Peter Maass is one of the best reporters and journalists around today. His book "Love Thy Neighbor" stands as one of the most compelling accounts of Bosnia in the 1990s that I know of. His writing is generally matter of fact yet skillful, so that the peculiar mixture of horror and hypocrisy of that war, or the squalor of Pakistani slums, or the chaos of Kandahar in the wake of the Taliban defeat all speak for themselves, and stay in your mind long after you've read about them.

Maass introduces "Good Kills," his New York Times Magazine account of the Third Battalion, Fourth Marines campaign in Iraq, like this:

As the war in Iraq is debated and turned into history, the emphasis will be on the role of technology -- precision bombing, cruise missiles, decapitation strikes. That was what was new. But there was another side to the war, and it was the one that most of the fighting men and women in Iraq experienced, even if it wasn't what Americans watching at home saw: raw military might, humans killing humans.

...and ends it like this:

Collateral damage is far easier to bear for those who are responsible for it from afar -- from the cockpit of a B-1 bomber, from the command center of a Navy destroyer, from the rear positions of artillery crews. These warriors do not see the faces of the mothers and fathers they have killed. They do not see the blood and hear the screams and live with those memories for the rest of their lives. The grunts suffer this. The Third Battalion accomplished its mission of bringing military calamity upon the regime of Saddam Hussein; the statue of Saddam fell just a few minutes after the sniper and I spoke. But the sniper, and many other marines of the Third Battalion, could not feel as joyous as the officers in the rear, the generals in Qatar and the politicians in Washington.

The civilians who were killed -- a precise number is not and probably never will be available for the toll at Diyala bridge, or in the rest of Iraq -- paid the ultimate price. But a price was paid, too, by the men who were responsible for killing them. For these men, this was not a clean war of smart bombs and surgical strikes. It was war as it has always been, war at close range, war as Sherman described it, bloody and cruel.

Read it all.

I think Dan Adesnik, of Oxblog, misinterprets Maass's intent with this article. As the final paragraph makes clear, it isn't to portray the Marines as monsters, not even Colonel McCoy. Rather, it simply describes the forward motion of an organization with a "consistent strategy as it moved toward Baghdad: kill every fighter who refused to surrender", and the firepower (and enemy) allowing them to execute that strategy as unstoppably as a bulldozer grading a construction site.

That's not "anti-military bias," as Adesnik charges. That's what any military dreams of, that's what they're for -- not to die for their country, but to make the other fellows die for theirs, as Patton is claimed to have said. It's best to get a good hard look at that when it's done in your country's name, and that's what Maass gives you. posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:03:00 AM -- |  

 
Iranian journalist and weblogger arrested


Via Jeff Jarvis via Hossein Derakshahn ("Editor: Myself"), I learn that Sina Motallebi, an Iranian journalist, has been jailed by Iranian authorities on charges arising from opinions he's expressed on his blog. Jarvis' blog entry has links to a Guardian article mentioning Motallebi and to information about the crackdown on freedom of speech in Iran.

From a petition to Reporters Without Borders asking for support, and drafted by the Iranian blogging community:

Sina Motallebi, Iranian journalist, writer and the blogger behind www.rooznegar.com was summoned by the Iranian authorities and subsequently arrested on ambiguous charges on the eve of his 30th birthday. These charges include the content of his web log, as well as interviews with foreign press and his other writings.

Sina's wife Farnaz posted the news of his arrest on his blog on April 19th, but the posting was later removed. He had already published the content of his summons the day before.

This is the latest on a series of attacks on freedom of speech by the government of Iran. Reporters without Borders recently called Iran, "the biggest jail for journalists in the Middle East". The group also named Iranian leader Ali Khamenei on its list of "Predators of Press Freedom". The list also included China's Jiang Zemin, Syrian president Bashar el-Assad, Ariel Sharon of Israel and the recently deposed Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Khamenei was also chosen as an "Enemy of the Press" by Committee to Protect Journalists last year.

The undersigned call for all international human rights advocacy organizations, as well as groups active in support of journalists and media to protest the arrest of Sina Motallebi and demand an immediate halt to any future harassment of journalists by the Iranian government.

We consider Sina Motallebi a prisoner of conscience and demand his immediate release. Furthermore, we urge all other freedom loving citizens around the globe to join us by signing this petition and writing to the following authorities on this very urgent and critical matter. (emphases added)

Iranian officials to contact include Iranian President Khatami and Ambassador to the United Nations M. Javad Zarif. Glenn Reynolds suggests sending your comments to the more generic e-mail address iran@un.int as well.

=====
UPDATE, 4/21: Now that I think about it, I'm CCing two additional addresses with each of the e-mails I send: hrwnyc@hrw.org (Human Rights Watch), and tb-petitions@ohchr.org (UN High Commissioner on Human Rights). The addresses are provided in the petition web site. Also, the Iranian Interests Section at the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, D.C. has an e-mail address on its Arabic/Farsi page: requests@daftar.org. Finally, a minor spelling error in the petition was corrected. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:17:00 AM -- |  

 

Old Boeing tanker lease stories never die, they don't even fade away
Regular readers will no doubt recall a story I mentioned in early January of last year about Boeing's great idea to lease modified 767s to the Air Force for use as air tankers. Opponents -- including noted peacenik Senator John McCain (R-AZ) -- noted that the leasing plan was quite a bit more expensive ($22 billion) than buying the planes outright ($15 billion). Thus yet another witty "Newsrack" title was born: "$7 billion here, $7 billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

Today's New York Times business section updates the story ("Creative Deal or Highflying Pork?"). The details vary a bit, but the overall picture remains the same: the GAO estimates the cost of the lease to be between $26 and $30 billion, "significantly more expensive than a direct purchase"; the 100 Boeing 767 tankers envisioned could be purchased for about $12 billion, according to the Times. The best option, reports the Times, may be altogether different:

According to the G.A.O., the quickest and cheapest way to upgrade the Air Force tanker fleet is to modernize existing tankers, which would cost the government only about $3.2 billion. Moreover, the Boeing proposal would leave the Air Force with a smaller tanker fleet over all because the leased tankers would have to be returned after six years. (emphasis added)

The Air Force disputes the effectiveness of the older KC-135 tankers (despite their greater fuel capacity), claims the lease arrangement will save up to $800 million, and believes the arrangement provide replacement planes more quickly than purchases would.

The "creative accounting" in the deal lies in Boeing's creation of a "special purpose entity" to keep the deal's debt off its balance sheet, preserving its credit rating. The maneuver would also not count as Air Force "procurement" -- avoiding competition with other major projects. Instead, the money would come out of the Air Force operations and maintenance budget (Sergeant Stryker territory, if I'm not mistaken). Just as concretely, the deal would keep open the 767 production line a little longer, a key consideration for some Congressional members -- and the president:

One of the biggest proponents is Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington, who has been pressing the Boeing case in Congress and even at the White House. Boeing's main production facility is in his state.

"I had a meeting with the president on another matter and I raised this issue to impress on him the need to get it done," Mr. Dicks said in an interview. "He said, `I support it' and turned to Andy Card and said, `Andy, you get it done.'" Andrew H. Card Jr. is the White House chief of staff.

It remains to be seen whether Bush's directive will be contradicted by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's own recently commissioned cost-benefit analysis. If Rumsfeld kills the deal, it won't even reach Congress for a vote.

=====
* Not incidentally -- I would never have noticed the story myself the first time; the credit for that goes to reader Chris Protopapas. posted by Thomas Nephew at 10:59:00 PM -- |  

 

Wide right, wide left: museum looting and political football
I'll confess that my first reactions to the looting of the Iraqi National Museum of Antiquities were not what they are now. When I first heard the news, I did say something like "Oh jeez, that's awful." But I was basically still untensing from a state of constant, obsessive worry about the war, fearing catastrophic attacks on American soldiers or a punishing, block by block "battle of Berlin" on the Tigris.

What reports were trickling in about the human cost were bad enough; I saw television images of pretty scary looking firefights in Baghdad even after the statue came down. I felt like there were more immediate things to worry about, "you know," I thought to myself, "actual flesh and blood humans."

And so there were. But what happened to the museum, and even more irreparably to the burnt-out National Library and Ministry for Religious Affairs, is a tragedy that Meghan O'Rourke, of Slate, rightly compares to losing the Louvre. It won't do to soft-pedal the loss, it won't do for me to help turn it into a game of political football. Whether or not there was American culpability in the strictest sense, the cultural loss is so grave as to be a political defeat snatched from the jaws of military victory.

Where I'm afraid I really misreacted was by allowing myself to see some reactions to the catastrophe through a pro/anti-war prism, and respond to them in that frame of mind. John Quiggin, for example, noticed a London Times article reporting that British forces saw some looting -- of Baathist party facilities -- as a feature rather than a bug of their occupation*, and wrote:

When we come to allocate the responsibility for the destruction of archeological treasures and so on, it will be important to recall that this was the product of deliberate policy, not mere neglect.

I don't read Quiggin, I noticed this via Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who I do read fairly regularly. Patrick hammered it home: "Deliberate policy. Remember this. You can bet that Iraq will."

I disagreed with "deliberate" used in connection with the museum looting, and with the tenor of the remarks. Since I'd recently posted about Makiya's statement that "we will remember who stood by us," I added a comment noting Makiya's remark to Patrick's post, and added some speculation on my part about what might explain American reluctance to guard the museum, and who might have been among the principal looters.

Some subsequent reporting (including Makiya's next journal entry) bears out some of my speculations: a museum whose underground safes were opened, not forced, is one that was looted with inside help, presumably at a fairly senior level -- and for all I know, before Americans ever entered the city. Other reports indicate that American forces dispersed looters at least once, and that they took fire from inside the museum at least once.**

But as I prepared to address what I considered a particularly stupid remark in the comments to Mr. Nielsen Hayden's post, I questioned whether I ought to pursue quarrels down every branch of the argument. Maybe I was just compounding a tragedy, in a small and petty way, by helping turn it into a sideshow political quarrel. I posted this instead:

The more I read about the museum and library, the sadder I get. I don't mean to soft-pedal what happened, and I accept that there may well be American responsibility, even by military standards under the circumstances. I don't know.

Even if the war was "not in our name" -- but especially if we supported it: what, if anything, can we help do about these losses? I imagine none of us want Iraqis permanently associating their new liberties with the loss of their heritage. Even if we "just" care about retrieving the lost artifacts, we should support whatever grass-roots efforts come along to help restore these antiquities to the Iraqi people.

Mark Kleimann is probably not the only one to suggest a combination of payments and amnesty to just get the stuff back, if possible. Money collected for this purpose might also serve as a reward for information helping catch and convict the more organized thieves and fences.

Via Moira Breen, I see that Archaeology Magazine is following the story, of course; maybe they will organize some way for us to help retrieve the looted artifacts.

I hope that the truth about any coalition force misfeasance or malfeasance (or lack thereof) will emerge. But that's secondary to retrieving as much of the lost treasures of Iraq as possible. We destroyed the regime there, and thereby took responsibility for the country, including its patrimony. We failed in that responsibility. We must now restore whatever we can, and protect what remains. Americans should join in taking that responsibility, especially if they supported the war as I did.

The Washington Post reports that UNESCO has established a Special Fund for the Iraqi Cultural Heritage to help pay for emergency measures to address the losses and prevent further losses. There does not appear to be a way for individuals to contribute to that fund, and I'm not aware of other initiatives yet. When I learn of something, I'll let you know.


Links about the losses of Iraqi antiquities

The 2003 Iraq War & Archaeology site by Francis Deblauwe.

Taking Stock in Baghdad: daily updates since April 15 by Archaeology magazine.

UNESCO and Iraq

The threat to world heritage in Iraq, and related news links, by Oxford University's Nicholas Postgate, Eleanor Robson, et al (via Deblauwe)

Destruction of Iraq's Art, special ongoing section of ArtsJournal.com. So far, it's updated more frequently than the "Taking Stock" link.

=====
* There's at least one report report of similar encouragement by American troops, a translation of an April 11 item in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. The article charges that US troops encouraged Baghdad residents to loot administrative buildings near the museum; the looting then spread to the museum. The report is based on the statements of Khaled Bayomi, a Swedish "human shield." (via Electrolite commenter David Byron)
** Admittedly, while these items may mitigate the coalition role, they may also not be sufficient to exculpate it. Link acknowledgments: Sergeant Stryker, for the WSJ OpinionJournal item; Moira Breen, for the Telegraph report and the Archaeology link, Ginger Stampley (4/21 update), for the ArtsJournal.com link..

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:55:00 AM -- |