mintpressnews--2020-01-09--Iraqis to the United States: What Part of “Go Home” Don’t You Understand?

Iranian forces launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against two military bases housing US troops in Iraq early hours of Wednesday morning .
The al-Assad airbase in western Iraq was hit by 17 missiles , and 5 targeted at a base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil .
No US casualties were immediately reported .
Iran ’ s supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , called the attack a “ slap in the face ” of the US , and observers seem to question whether the attack was designed to kill or inflict casualties , or was it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation which could have escalated into a regional or perhaps world war .
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said he was informed of the attack by Iran ahead of time , which acted as a safety valve after he , in turn , informed US commanders .
Iraqi militias may now begin attacks of revenge for the US assassination of the Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , who died alongside Soleimani in the drone strike on Friday .
Iraqi militia leader Qais al-Khazali said today his group ’ s retaliation should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Iranian response.
” Al-Muhandis was the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces ( PMF ) , an Iraqi militia group that is an official component of the Iraqi armed forces .
Previously , the US had attacked Iraqi PMF troops in Qaim and killed 24 Iraqi soldiers and wounded dozens more .
The Iraqi military , militias , and government consider the recent US attacks on Iraqi troops and leaders on Iraqi soil as an act of aggression and more than enough reason to request the US military leave Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Monday the United States “ has made no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq , ” seemingly oblivious to the fact the Iraqi parliament voted on Sunday to oust 5,200 US troops .
Esper has repeatedly reaffirmed that the U.S. was not pulling troops out of Iraq .
The US has around 5,000 troops deployed in Iraq , with plans to send in another 3,800 American paratroopers , and an additional 4,000 troops that may be sent .
US forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011 , but returned in 2014 at the invitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; however , that fight is over , and Trump angered the Iraqi government when he said the only reason he was leaving troops in Iraq was to watch Iran .
There were anti-US sentiments brewing in Iraq since the 2003 invasion , which perceived the US military to be an occupation force , and unwelcomed , but after the Trump statement about his main mission in Iraq , the calls for “ Yankee Go Home ” grew louder and included groups who had not previously called for the ouster .
The US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against ISIS to focus on self-protection of troops .
PM Abdul-Mahdi asked parliament on Sunday to take “ urgent measures ” to ensure the removal of foreign forces from the country , and on Monday , PM Abdul-Mahdi met with US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller and stressed the need for the two countries “ to work together to execute the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq , ” and added the situation in Iraq was “ critical.
” American troops in Iraq are in the country based on a request by the then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 .
That request can be revoked by parliament , and indeed , a recent parliamentary resolution to that effect passed 173 to 0 , although 156 MPs boycotted it , but clearly , it passed by a majority and united some factions previously at odds .
Sajad Jiyad , managing director of Bayan Center , an Iraqi think tank said , “ Even people nominally pro-U.S. , anti-Iran or neutral are not happy with what the US has done , and believe it ’ s a dangerous escalation , ” and added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an infringement on sovereignty.
” On Monday , PM Abdul-Mahdi received a letter from Marine Brig .
Gen. William Seely III , commander of ‘ Task Force Iraq ’ , declaring the US intention to withdraw , and with specific details about the exit .
The letter was sent twice , and the copy that Abdul-Mahdi has in his possession is signed , and he added , “ It ’ s not like a draft , or a paper that fell out of the photocopier and coincidentally came to us.
” Strangely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a ‘ hoax ’ , and his officials Esper and Pompeo denied any letter of the kind was signed , or official .
Abdul-Mahdi took to the Iraqi TV to broadcast his exasperation with conflicting U.S. signals , and said : “ We have no exit but this , otherwise we are speeding toward confrontation.
” The stated long-term goal of Iran ’ s reprisals is to remove US troops from the region .
Supreme Leader of Iran , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , said “ This region won ’ t accept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t accept the presence of the US.
” Iranian President , Hassan Rouhani , early Wednesday warned that the US forces would be removed from the Middle East , saying : “ You cut off Soleimani ’ s hand from his body , your feet will be cut off from the region.
” Poland evacuated its ambassador in Iraq , and the Philippine government has ordered the mandatory evacuation of Filipino workers from Iraq .
Germany has announced they will withdraw troops from Iraq , as well as Spain , Croatia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are staying .
There are about 2,900 European troops in Iraq .
Trump has asked NATO to send more troops to Iraq ; however , NATO troops are leaving Iraq .
Trump ’ s 2016 campaign promise was an “ America First ” policy , and he promised to reduce US involvement in foreign wars .
However , his decision to bomb Iraqi militias and assassinate Iran ’ s commander Soleimani in a drone strike caught Middle Eastern and European allies unaware and confused .
Since then , the US has given off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq even while it deploys more troops immediately for protection .
The US media uses the phrase ‘ Shia militias backed by Iran ’ to identify the PMF ; however , this is misleading and verges on propaganda .
The PMF is an Iraqi militia and part of the Iraqi armed forces .
The fact they are mainly comprised of Shias should not be a surprise , given the fact that Iraq is overwhelmingly populated by Shias .
Iran is a neighboring country and is also mainly Shia .
Iran supports Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Iran supports a ‘ resistance ’ philosophy : that is resistance to the occupation of Palestine , Lebanon , Syria , and Iraq .
Iran is inside Iraq at the official request of the Iraqi government .
The fundamental division between the US and Iran is this ‘ resistance ’ philosophy , which has become ingrained in the mentality of the majority of residents in the Levant , but which the US fails to recognize or understand .
Iraq also has Sunni militias , and they are Al Qaeda and ISIS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all fighting those terrorists .
Feature photo | Mourners step on US flags with pictures of President Trump while waiting for the funeral of Iran ’ s top general Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , deputy commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces , in Baghdad , Iraq , Jan. 4 , 2020 .
Nasser Nasser | AP Steven Sahouni is an independent Syrian political analyst and writer based in Lebanon ; he has been covering the Syrian crisis since it ’ s onset in 2011 and has published several articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regularly interviewed by US , Canadian and German media .
This article was published with special permission from the author .
It originally appeared at Mideast Discourse .

Iranian forces launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against two military bases housing US troops in Iraq early hours of Wednesday morning. The al-Assad airbase in western Iraq was hit by 17 missiles, and 5 targeted at a base in the northern Iraqi city of Erbil. No US casualties were immediately reported.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the attack a “slap in the face” of the US, and observers seem to question whether the attack was designed to kill or inflict casualties, or was it carefully orchestrated to produce closure to a situation which could have escalated into a regional or perhaps world war. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said he was informed of the attack by Iran ahead of time, which acted as a safety valve after he, in turn, informed US commanders.
Iraqi militias may now begin attacks of revenge for the US assassination of the Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who died alongside Soleimani in the drone strike on Friday. Iraqi militia leader Qais al-Khazali said today his group’s retaliation should be “no less than the size of the Iranian response.”
Al-Muhandis was the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an Iraqi militia group that is an official component of the Iraqi armed forces. Previously, the US had attacked Iraqi PMF troops in Qaim and killed 24 Iraqi soldiers and wounded dozens more. The Iraqi military, militias, and government consider the recent US attacks on Iraqi troops and leaders on Iraqi soil as an act of aggression and more than enough reason to request the US military leave Iraq.
U.S. Defence Secretary Mark Esper, said Monday the United States “has made no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq,” seemingly oblivious to the fact the Iraqi parliament voted on Sunday to oust 5,200 US troops. Esper has repeatedly reaffirmed that the U.S. was not pulling troops out of Iraq.
The US has around 5,000 troops deployed in Iraq, with plans to send in another 3,800 American paratroopers, and an additional 4,000 troops that may be sent. US forces withdrew from Iraq in 2011, but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the Iraqi government to fight ISIS; however, that fight is over, and Trump angered the Iraqi government when he said the only reason he was leaving troops in Iraq was to watch Iran. There were anti-US sentiments brewing in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, which perceived the US military to be an occupation force, and unwelcomed, but after the Trump statement about his main mission in Iraq, the calls for “Yankee Go Home” grew louder and included groups who had not previously called for the ouster. The US military has admitted they have sidelined work against ISIS to focus on self-protection of troops.
PM Abdul-Mahdi asked parliament on Sunday to take “urgent measures” to ensure the removal of foreign forces from the country, and on Monday, PM Abdul-Mahdi met with US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller and stressed the need for the two countries “to work together to execute the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq,” and added the situation in Iraq was “critical.” American troops in Iraq are in the country based on a request by the then prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in 2014. That request can be revoked by parliament, and indeed, a recent parliamentary resolution to that effect passed 173 to 0, although 156 MPs boycotted it, but clearly, it passed by a majority and united some factions previously at odds. Sajad Jiyad, managing director of Bayan Center, an Iraqi think tank said, “Even people nominally pro-U.S., anti-Iran or neutral are not happy with what the US has done, and believe it’s a dangerous escalation,” and added, “The common denominator is this was an infringement on sovereignty.”
On Monday, PM Abdul-Mahdi received a letter from Marine Brig. Gen. William Seely III, commander of ‘Task Force Iraq’, declaring the US intention to withdraw, and with specific details about the exit. The letter was sent twice, and the copy that Abdul-Mahdi has in his possession is signed, and he added, “It’s not like a draft, or a paper that fell out of the photocopier and coincidentally came to us.” Strangely, Trump said he thought the letter was a ‘hoax’, and his officials Esper and Pompeo denied any letter of the kind was signed, or official. Abdul-Mahdi took to the Iraqi TV to broadcast his exasperation with conflicting U.S. signals, and said: “We have no exit but this, otherwise we are speeding toward confrontation.”
The stated long-term goal of Iran’s reprisals is to remove US troops from the region. Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said “This region won’t accept the US presence. Governments elected by nations won’t accept the presence of the US.” Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, early Wednesday warned that the US forces would be removed from the Middle East, saying: “You cut off Soleimani’s hand from his body, your feet will be cut off from the region.”
Poland evacuated its ambassador in Iraq, and the Philippine government has ordered the mandatory evacuation of Filipino workers from Iraq. Germany has announced they will withdraw troops from Iraq, as well as Spain, Croatia, and Romania. France says they are staying. There are about 2,900 European troops in Iraq. Trump has asked NATO to send more troops to Iraq; however, NATO troops are leaving Iraq.
Trump’s 2016 campaign promise was an “America First” policy, and he promised to reduce US involvement in foreign wars. However, his decision to bomb Iraqi militias and assassinate Iran’s commander Soleimani in a drone strike caught Middle Eastern and European allies unaware and confused. Since then, the US has given off conflicting signals on its intentions to exit Iraq even while it deploys more troops immediately for protection.
The US media uses the phrase ‘Shia militias backed by Iran’ to identify the PMF; however, this is misleading and verges on propaganda. The PMF is an Iraqi militia and part of the Iraqi armed forces. The fact they are mainly comprised of Shias should not be a surprise, given the fact that Iraq is overwhelmingly populated by Shias. Iran is a neighboring country and is also mainly Shia. Iran supports Iraq, their armed forces, and their militias. Iran supports a ‘resistance’ philosophy: that is resistance to the occupation of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Iran is inside Iraq at the official request of the Iraqi government. The fundamental division between the US and Iran is this ‘resistance’ philosophy, which has become ingrained in the mentality of the majority of residents in the Levant, but which the US fails to recognize or understand. Iraq also has Sunni militias, and they are Al Qaeda and ISIS, while Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all fighting those terrorists.
Feature photo | Mourners step on US flags with pictures of President Trump while waiting for the funeral of Iran’s top general Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, in Baghdad, Iraq, Jan. 4, 2020. Nasser Nasser | AP
Steven Sahouni is an independent Syrian political analyst and writer based in Lebanon; he has been covering the Syrian crisis since it’s onset in 2011 and has published several articles in numerous media outlets – He is regularly interviewed by US, Canadian and German media.
This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally appeared at Mideast Discourse.


mintpressnews--2020-01-10--Reclaiming the Narrative: How to Combat Israel’s Misuse of “Antisemitism”

At a talk I delivered in Northern England in March 2018 , I proposed that the best response to falsified accusations of antisemitism , which are often lobbed against pro-Palestinian communities and intellectuals everywhere , is to draw even closer to the Palestinian narrative .
In fact , my proposal was not meant to be a sentimental response in any way .
“ Reclaiming the Palestinian narrative ” has been the main theme in most of my public speeches and writings in recent years .
All of my books and much of my academic studies and research have largely focused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights , history , culture , and political aspirations – at the very core of any genuine understanding of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonialism and apartheid .
True , there was nothing particularly special about my talk in Northern England .
I had already delivered a version of that speech in other parts of the UK , Europe and elsewhere .
But what made that event memorable is a conversation I had with a passionate activist , who introduced himself as an advisor to the office of the head of the British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the activist agreed with me regarding the need to embrace the Palestinian narrative , he insisted that the best way for Corbyn to deflect anti-Semitic accusations , which have dogged his leadership since day one , is for Labor to issue a sweeping and decisive condemnation of antisemitism , so that Corbyn may silence his critics and he is finally able to focus on the pressing subject of Palestinian rights .
I was doubtful .
I explained to the animated and self-assured activist that Zionist manipulation and misuse of antisemitism is a phenomenon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and will always be there as long as the Israeli government finds the need to distract from its war crimes against Palestinians and to crush pro-Palestinian solidarity worldwide .
I explained to him that while anti-Jewish racism is a real phenomenon that must be confronted , “ antisemitism ” , as defined by Israel and its Zionist allies , is not a moral question that is meant to be solved by a press release , no matter how strongly-worded .
Rather , it is a smokescreen , with the ultimate aim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being the crimes of military occupation , racism , and apartheid in Palestine .
In other words , no amount of talking , debating or defending oneself can possibly convince the Zionists that demanding an end to the Israeli military occupation in Palestine or the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid regime , or any genuine criticism of the policies of Israel ’ s right-wing government are not , in fact , acts of antisemitism .
Alas , the activist insisted that a strong statement that would clarify Labor ’ s position on antisemitism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy against the undeserved smearing .
The rest is history .
Labor went into a witch-hunt , to catch the “ true ” anti-Semites among its members .
The unprecedented purge has reached many good people who have dedicated years to serving their communities and defending human rights in Palestine and elsewhere .
The statement to end all statements was followed by many others .
Numerous articles and arguments were written and made in defense of Corbyn – to no avail .
Only a few days before Labor lost the general election in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corbyn , one of Britain ’ s most sincere and well-intentioned leaders in the modern era , the “ top anti-Semite of 2019.
” So much for engaging the Zionists .
It doesn ’ t matter whether Corbyn ’ s party lost the elections in part because of Zionist smearing and unfounded anti-Semitic accusations .
What truly matter for me as a Palestinian intellectual who has hoped that Corbyn ’ s leadership will constitute a paradigm shift regarding the country ’ s attitude towards Israel and Palestine , is the fact that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation focused on Israeli priorities and Zionist sensibilities .
It saddens me that while Palestine should have occupied the center stage , at least during Corbyn ’ s leadership years , it was still marginalized signifying once again that solidarity with Palestine has become a political liability to anyone hoping to win an election – in the UK and anywhere in the West as well .
I find it puzzling , indeed disturbing , that Israel , directly or otherwise , is able to determine the nature of any discussion on Palestine in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream platforms but within pro-Palestinian circles as well .
For example , I have heard activists repeatedly questioning whether the one-state solution is at all possible because “ Israel simply would never accept it ” .
I often challenge my audiences to base their solidarity with Palestine on real love , support , and admiration for the Palestinian people , for their history , their anti-colonial struggle , and the thousands of heroes and heroines who have sacrificed their own lives so that their people may live in freedom .
How many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poets , artists , feminists , football players , singers , and historians ?
How familiar are we really , with Palestinian geography , the intricacies of its politics , and the richness of its culture ?
Even in platforms that are sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle , there is an inherent fear that such sympathy could be misconstrued as antisemitism to the extent that Palestinian voices are often neglected , if not completely supplanted with anti-Zionist Jewish voices .
I see this happening quite often even in Middle Eastern media that supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is largely linked to Palestine and Palestine only .
While the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the civil rights struggle in the United States – as was the case of many genuine anti-colonial liberation movements around the world – have strategically used intersectionality to link with other groups , locally , nationally or internationally , the movements themselves relied on black voices as true representatives of their peoples ’ struggles .
Historically , Palestinians have not always been marginalized within their own discourse .
Once upon a time , the Palestine Liberation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many shortcomings , provided unified Palestinian political discourse which served as a litmus test for any individual , group or government regarding their position on Palestinian rights and freedom .
The Oslo accords ended all of that – it fragmented the Palestinian discourse just as it has divided the Palestinian people .
Since then , the message emanating from Palestine has become muddled , factionalized and often self-defeating .
The Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions Movement ( BDS ) has done a tremendous job in bringing about some clarity by attempting to articulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BDS is yet to yield a centralized political strategy that is communicated through a democratically-elected Palestinian body .
As long as the PLO persists in its inertia and without a truly democratic alternative , the crisis of the Palestinian political discourse is likely to continue .
Concurrently , the Zionists must not be allowed to determine the nature of our solidarity with the Palestinian people .
While true Palestinian solidarity requires the complete rejection of all forms of racism , including antisemitism , the pro-Israel camp must be sidelined entirely from any conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it means to be “ pro-Palestine ” .
To be anti-Zionist is not always the same as being pro-Palestine , the former emanating from the rejection of racist , Zionist ideas and the latter indicating a real connection and bond with Palestine and her people .
To be pro-Palestine is also to respect the centrality of the Palestinian voice , because without the Palestinian narrative there can be no real or meaningful solidarity , and also because , ultimately it will be the Palestinian people who will liberate themselves .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the iconic South American revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara .
“ Liberators do not exist .
The people liberate themselves ” .
For the Palestinians to “ liberate themselves ” , they have to claim their centrality in the struggle for Palestinian rights everywhere , to articulate their own discourse and to be the champions of their own freedom .
Nothing else will suffice .
Feature photo | Members of the Jewish anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group demonstrate against the Israeli General Elections outside a polling station in Jerusalem .
Sebastian Scheiner | AP Ramzy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Palestine Chronicle .
He is the author of five books .
His latest is “ These Chains Will Be Broken : Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons ” ( Clarity Press , Atlanta ) .
Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs ( CIGA ) , Istanbul Zaim University ( IZU ) .
His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

At a talk I delivered in Northern England in March 2018, I proposed that the best response to falsified accusations of antisemitism, which are often lobbed against pro-Palestinian communities and intellectuals everywhere, is to draw even closer to the Palestinian narrative.
In fact, my proposal was not meant to be a sentimental response in any way.
“Reclaiming the Palestinian narrative” has been the main theme in most of my public speeches and writings in recent years. All of my books and much of my academic studies and research have largely focused on positioning the Palestinian people – their rights, history, culture, and political aspirations – at the very core of any genuine understanding of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli colonialism and apartheid.
True, there was nothing particularly special about my talk in Northern England. I had already delivered a version of that speech in other parts of the UK, Europe and elsewhere. But what made that event memorable is a conversation I had with a passionate activist, who introduced himself as an advisor to the office of the head of the British Labor Party, Jeremy Corbyn.
Although the activist agreed with me regarding the need to embrace the Palestinian narrative, he insisted that the best way for Corbyn to deflect anti-Semitic accusations, which have dogged his leadership since day one, is for Labor to issue a sweeping and decisive condemnation of antisemitism, so that Corbyn may silence his critics and he is finally able to focus on the pressing subject of Palestinian rights.
I was doubtful. I explained to the animated and self-assured activist that Zionist manipulation and misuse of antisemitism is a phenomenon that has preceded Corbyn by many decades, and will always be there as long as the Israeli government finds the need to distract from its war crimes against Palestinians and to crush pro-Palestinian solidarity worldwide.
I explained to him that while anti-Jewish racism is a real phenomenon that must be confronted, “antisemitism”, as defined by Israel and its Zionist allies, is not a moral question that is meant to be solved by a press release, no matter how strongly-worded. Rather, it is a smokescreen, with the ultimate aim of distracting from the real conversation, that being the crimes of military occupation, racism, and apartheid in Palestine.
In other words, no amount of talking, debating or defending oneself can possibly convince the Zionists that demanding an end to the Israeli military occupation in Palestine or the dismantling of the Israeli apartheid regime, or any genuine criticism of the policies of Israel’s right-wing government are not, in fact, acts of antisemitism.
Alas, the activist insisted that a strong statement that would clarify Labor’s position on antisemitism would finally absolve Corbyn and protect his legacy against the undeserved smearing.
The rest is history. Labor went into a witch-hunt, to catch the “true” anti-Semites among its members. The unprecedented purge has reached many good people who have dedicated years to serving their communities and defending human rights in Palestine and elsewhere.
The statement to end all statements was followed by many others. Numerous articles and arguments were written and made in defense of Corbyn – to no avail. Only a few days before Labor lost the general election in December, the Simon Wiesenthal Center named Corbyn, one of Britain’s most sincere and well-intentioned leaders in the modern era, the “top anti-Semite of 2019.” So much for engaging the Zionists.
It doesn’t matter whether Corbyn’s party lost the elections in part because of Zionist smearing and unfounded anti-Semitic accusations. What truly matter for me as a Palestinian intellectual who has hoped that Corbyn’s leadership will constitute a paradigm shift regarding the country’s attitude towards Israel and Palestine, is the fact that the Zionists have indeed succeeded in keeping the conversation focused on Israeli priorities and Zionist sensibilities. It saddens me that while Palestine should have occupied the center stage, at least during Corbyn’s leadership years, it was still marginalized signifying once again that solidarity with Palestine has become a political liability to anyone hoping to win an election – in the UK and anywhere in the West as well.
I find it puzzling, indeed disturbing, that Israel, directly or otherwise, is able to determine the nature of any discussion on Palestine in the West, not only within typical mainstream platforms but within pro-Palestinian circles as well. For example, I have heard activists repeatedly questioning whether the one-state solution is at all possible because “Israel simply would never accept it”.
I often challenge my audiences to base their solidarity with Palestine on real love, support, and admiration for the Palestinian people, for their history, their anti-colonial struggle, and the thousands of heroes and heroines who have sacrificed their own lives so that their people may live in freedom.
How many of us can name Palestine’s top poets, artists, feminists, football players, singers, and historians? How familiar are we really, with Palestinian geography, the intricacies of its politics, and the richness of its culture?
Even in platforms that are sympathetic to the Palestinian struggle, there is an inherent fear that such sympathy could be misconstrued as antisemitism to the extent that Palestinian voices are often neglected, if not completely supplanted with anti-Zionist Jewish voices. I see this happening quite often even in Middle Eastern media that supposedly champion the Palestinian cause.
This phenomenon is largely linked to Palestine and Palestine only. While the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa and the civil rights struggle in the United States – as was the case of many genuine anti-colonial liberation movements around the world – have strategically used intersectionality to link with other groups, locally, nationally or internationally, the movements themselves relied on black voices as true representatives of their peoples’ struggles.
Historically, Palestinians have not always been marginalized within their own discourse. Once upon a time, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), despite its many shortcomings, provided unified Palestinian political discourse which served as a litmus test for any individual, group or government regarding their position on Palestinian rights and freedom.
The Oslo accords ended all of that – it fragmented the Palestinian discourse just as it has divided the Palestinian people. Since then, the message emanating from Palestine has become muddled, factionalized and often self-defeating. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) has done a tremendous job in bringing about some clarity by attempting to articulate a universal Palestinian discourse.
However, BDS is yet to yield a centralized political strategy that is communicated through a democratically-elected Palestinian body. As long as the PLO persists in its inertia and without a truly democratic alternative, the crisis of the Palestinian political discourse is likely to continue.
Concurrently, the Zionists must not be allowed to determine the nature of our solidarity with the Palestinian people. While true Palestinian solidarity requires the complete rejection of all forms of racism, including antisemitism, the pro-Israel camp must be sidelined entirely from any conversation pertaining to the values and morality of what it means to be “pro-Palestine”.
To be anti-Zionist is not always the same as being pro-Palestine, the former emanating from the rejection of racist, Zionist ideas and the latter indicating a real connection and bond with Palestine and her people.
To be pro-Palestine is also to respect the centrality of the Palestinian voice, because without the Palestinian narrative there can be no real or meaningful solidarity, and also because, ultimately it will be the Palestinian people who will liberate themselves.
“I am not a liberator,” said the iconic South American revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara. “Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves”.
For the Palestinians to “liberate themselves”, they have to claim their centrality in the struggle for Palestinian rights everywhere, to articulate their own discourse and to be the champions of their own freedom. Nothing else will suffice.
Feature photo | Members of the Jewish anti-Zionist Neturei Karta group demonstrate against the Israeli General Elections outside a polling station in Jerusalem. Sebastian Scheiner | AP
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net


mintpressnews--2020-01-10--Lee Camp: The War in Afghanistan Is a Fraud (and Now We Have Proof)

Bombs have numbers .
Humans have names .
Our American military boasts a skill and passion for using numbers to turn names into yet more numbers .
But these numbers have grown so gargantuan and out of control that one struggles to comprehend them .
In just 10 months in 2018—the latest numbers made available—our military dropped 5,982 munitions on Afghanistan , turning many thinking , living and loving names into cold , lifeless numbers .
Over the span of the war , 43,000 Afghan civilians have been numberized .
We , as Americans , essentially never even notice when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will happen again many times today , and no one in America will really care .
( At least not while the game is on . )
64,000 Afghan security forces have been numberized since 2001 .
Our government has known for years that the war in Afghanistan is a jaw-dropping disaster on the level of “ Cats ” : the movie .
How do we know they knew ?
The Washington Post actually just published some impressive reporting , taking a step back from its lust for pro-war propaganda .
( The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was during the O.J .
Simpson trial .
The first one .
The one with the glove . )
The Post unearthed a trove of thousands of internal government documents that expose the catastrophic war .
And it turns out there are Tinder dates between a young neo-Nazi and an old Jewish lady that have gone better than this war .
“ that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign , making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the paper reported .
Let me translate The Washington Post ’ s fancy-pants language : U.S. officials didn ’ t “ fail to tell the truth ” ; they fucking lied .
The phrase “ failed to tell the truth ” oozes around the brain ’ s neural pathways , strategically dodging the anger receptors .
“ Failed to tell the truth ” sounds like veracity is a slippery fish U.S. officials just couldn ’ t catch .
Let ’ s take a moment to consider the motivations and goals of the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country to stop al-Qaida from attacking us in any way , namely by flying large planes into our buildings .
We achieved this goal within the first couple months .
With al-Qaida essentially decimated , it seems logical that we should have left the country , reserving the right to return if any other big passenger airplanes came after us .
But we didn ’ t leave .
We never leave .
Rule No .
1 of the American empire is “ Never Truly Leave a Country After Invading.
” In order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to move the goal post .
To what ?
We weren ’ t sure .
We ’ re still not sure .
Nearly 20 years later , if you ask a U.S. general or president ( any of them ) what the goal is in Afghanistan , they ’ ll feed you a word salad so large it ’ ll keep you regular for months .
In fact , we now know that even during some of the earliest years of the war , the Pentagon and the Bush administration didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Right now you ’ re thinking it ’ s rather juvenile and uninformed of me to refer to enemy forces as “ bad guys , ” but , as you ’ ll see in a moment , our government literally spoke about them in those terms .
Side note : This is because murderous rampages by war criminals are always juvenile .
Murder , by definition , is unevolved . )
According to the Post ’ s Afghanistan Papers , an unnamed former adviser to an Army Special Forces team said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come to them with a map to show them where the good guys and bad guys live .
It took several conversations— [ a ] t first , they just kept asking : ‘ But who are the bad guys , where are they ?
’ ” Yet we Americans were instructed in the early years that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had everything under control .
To imply otherwise was to make a mockery of tens of millions of yellow ribbons .
But in reality , Rumsfeld , too , had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no visibility into who the bad guys are , ” he said behind closed , locked , soundproof doors .
Meanwhile , Rumsfeld publicly and boldly led the nation in a well-defined and decisive victory in the land of the Afghans .
In 2003 , he said , during a press conference alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai , “ General Franks and I … have concluded that we ’ re at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction and activities.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 years of reconstruction ( and activities ) .
Apparently , most U.S.-backed “ reconstruction ” is done from the air , via bombs .
Let that be a lesson to you , rest of the world : You better not screw with us or we ’ ll reconstruct you and your whole family !
67 journalists have been reconstructed during the war in Afghanistan .
Is two decades too long for an utter , unmitigated disaster ?
Maybe we can stretch it to three ?
We ’ ve been funding warlords and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice .
Yet American presidents have continually told us we ’ re making progress .
“ Douglas Lute , a three-star Army general who served as Afghanistan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations , told government interviewers in 2015 , ‘ What are we trying to do here ?
We didn ’ t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.
’ ” I imagine that quote particularly upsets many Americans , because if there ’ s one thing we ’ re good at , it ’ s having a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing .
To put it simply , we are the best at bad ideas .
But these Afghanistan Papers unveil a pretty terrible picture .
One we need to confront as a nation and not just sweep under the rug ( and not just because the rug would have to be the size of the Pacific Rim ) .
Upon hearing these revelations , CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer did his best impersonation of someone who gives a shit .
He said : Yes , it ’ s a bombshell—despite the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Papers has been known for a decade or more .
Back in 2012 , I myself was doing poorly written standup comedy bits about how our government funded both sides of the war in Afghanistan .
This goes to show that the mainstream media has two priorities—one is to spout the U.S. government ’ s talking points , and the other is to distract us all from the whitewashing of history .
They help Americans believe that we just found out about the failures in Afghanistan ; that we just started McCarthyism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 1950s to horrific consequences ; that we just now discovered the breathtaking environmental consequences of factory farming .
( I ’ m kidding—corporate media will never report on that .
You could have a CNN anchor tied up in a sack in Gitmo , and he would still refuse to admit factory animal farming is killing the planet at an aggressive pace . )
But Blitzer wasn ’ t content pretending to be shocked that the Afghanistan War isn ’ t going well , so he put his acting chops to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also might be flaws with the war in Iraq .
He said , “ I can only imagine and brace for a similar report about the long U.S. war in Iraq as well .
I suspect that could be some horrifying news as far as that is concerned also.
” That ’ s right : As of last month , Blitzer thinks there might be some problems with the war ( s ) in Iraq .
( Blitzer strikes me as the type of guy who wouldn ’ t notice if you stole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
Yes , Wolf , not only has there been similar mismanagement and mass war crimes committed in our invasion of Iraq , but you , in fact , helped manufacture consent for that war as well .
You are complicit in the deaths of millions of people who will never come back from numberization .
Throughout the past 20 years , the mainstream media reiterated the lies told by our various presidents .
They beat those lies into our heads with impressive frequency .
Lies like those told by President Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on national television : “ Over the last three years , the tide has turned .
We broke the Taliban ’ s momentum .
We ’ ve built strong Afghan security forces .
… Our troops will be coming home .
… As our coalition agreed , by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.
” I don ’ t know about you , but I ’ m pretty thrilled for the war to be over in 2014—whenever 2014 may come .
3,800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies .
The Afghanistan Papers show that not only has the 20-year war been wasteful of human life , it ’ s also been wasteful of money .
Of course , this is the point when you think , “ The military— wasteful ?
!
Well , paint my nipples and call me Phyllis Diller ; that ’ s the damnedest thing I ever did hear !
” Yes , this is hardly shocking , since $ 21 trillion has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon over the past 20 years .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money wrapped up in the entire stock market .
Money has been flowing into Afghanistan so fast that officials aren ’ t even able to waste it quick enough !
( I wish that were a joke . )
From the Post ’ s report , again : “ One executive at USAID guessed that 90 percent of what they spent was overkill : ‘ We lost objectivity .
We were given money , told to spend it and we did , without reason.
’ … One contractor said he was expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects in a single Afghan district roughly the size of a US county.
” The contractor said he couldn ’ t conceive of how to spend $ 3 million a day for people literally living in mud huts .
Well , I guess USAID should start handing out furniture built out of blocks of shrink-wrapped hundred-dollar notes .
Maybe fill bean bag chairs with small bills .
( If you aren ’ t yet outraged enough , please keep in mind that , according to The New York Times , adjusting for today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than eight days of the Pentagon ’ s stated budget to give the entire world clean water for a year , thereby saving millions of lives and turning the U.S. into the most beloved nation on earth . )
But rather than accept our own corruption and war profiteering , our military placed the blame squarely on the Afghan people .
Per The Washington Post , “ The U.S. military also accused Afghan commanders of pocketing salaries—paid by U.S. taxpayers—for tens of thousands of ‘ ghost soldiers.
’ ” Although ghost soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think they meant the Afghan commanders claimed they had a certain number of soldiers , but most weren ’ t real .
So America can ’ t fund the health care of our own goddamn real soldiers who get home and wait in line for months to secure any semblance of care , but we can fund ghost soldiers half a world away ?
!
Donald Trump just cut food stamps to 700,000 people , impacting more than a million children , but we ’ re funding fucking ghosts ?
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ghost soldiers to donate some of their supper to the starving kids of America .
Ghosts seem to be an ongoing difficulty for the U.S .
In the same issue of The Washington Post containing the Afghanistan Papers , there was an unrelated article titled , “ The U.S. Wasted Millions on Charter Schools ” that said , “ A report found that [ during the Obama Administration ] 537 ‘ ghost schools ’ in America never opened but received more than $ 45.5 million in federal start-up funding.
” Apparently we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and almost nobody in our government seems to give a shit !
I guess you could say they give a ghost shit—it ’ s not really there .
Yet the problems in our forever war don ’ t stop at the walking dead .
The Post says , “ The US has spent $ 9 billion to fight the problem [ of opium ] over the past 18 years , but Afghan farmers are cultivating more opium poppies than ever .
Last year , Afghanistan was responsible for 82 percent of global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post doesn ’ t tell you is that a lot of that opium was for use inside the U.S. , to fuel our opioid epidemic .
An American becomes a number every 11 minutes from an opioid overdose .
So how does our government respond when revelations like the Afghanistan Papers come out ?
A few senators pause in the middle of their T-bone steaks and red wine to say , “ This needs to be looked into , I daresay.
” But then a few days pass and they just give the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black hole .
The spending bill just passed by Congress sends $ 738 billion to the Pentagon .
And , as RootsAction stated , it contains “ almost nothing to constrain the Trump administration ’ s erratic and reckless foreign policy .
It is a blank check for endless wars , fuel for the further militarization of U.S. foreign policy , and a gift to Donald Trump.
” To put it mildly , asking the Democrats to stand up against endless war is like asking Anne Hathaway to bench-press a Chevy Tahoe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and she has no interest in even trying .
42,000 Taliban and insurgents have been numberized .
That may sound like a successful war to some , but keep in mind that the U.S. military likes to categorize anyone it kills “ an insurgent.
” The Pentagon goes by the theory that if it kills you , then you ’ re an insurgent—because if you weren ’ t an insurgent , then why did it kill you ?
A great many of the 42,000 were truly innocent civilians .
If there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Afghanistan Papers , which the mainstream corporate media have already ceased talking about , it ’ s that ending these immoral , illegal , repulsive wars can not be left to our breathtakingly incompetent and corrupt ruling elite , who have probably been lying to us about them for decades .
So it ’ s up to you and me to stop them .
Lee Camp ’ s new book “ Bullet Points and Punch Lines ” with a foreword by Chris Hedges is available for pre-sale at LeeCampBook.com .
This column @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote and performed on his TV show “ Redacted Tonight.
” Feature photo | Blank military dog tags hang in a memorial honoring fallen soldiers from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan , on the grounds of Old North Church , in Boston , Nov. 7 , 2018 .
Steven Senne | AP Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian , writer , actor and activist .
Camp is the host of the weekly comedy news TV show “ Redacted Tonight With Lee Camp ” on RT America .
He is a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huffington Post and has been a touring stand-up comic for 20 years .
This article was published with special permission from the author .
It originally appeared at Truthdig .

Bombs have numbers. Humans have names. Our American military boasts a skill and passion for using numbers to turn names into yet more numbers. But these numbers have grown so gargantuan and out of control that one struggles to comprehend them.
In just 10 months in 2018—the latest numbers made available—our military dropped 5,982 munitions on Afghanistan, turning many thinking, living and loving names into cold, lifeless numbers. Over the span of the war, 43,000 Afghan civilians have been numberized. We, as Americans, essentially never even notice when it happens. Statistically speaking, it will happen again many times today, and no one in America will really care. (At least not while the game is on.)
64,000 Afghan security forces have been numberized since 2001.
Our government has known for years that the war in Afghanistan is a jaw-dropping disaster on the level of “Cats”: the movie. How do we know they knew? The Washington Post actually just published some impressive reporting, taking a step back from its lust for pro-war propaganda. (The last time it achieved such a feat was during the O.J. Simpson trial. The first one. The one with the glove.) The Post unearthed a trove of thousands of internal government documents that expose the catastrophic war. And it turns out there are Tinder dates between a young neo-Nazi and an old Jewish lady that have gone better than this war.
“ [The document trove] reveals that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable,” the paper reported.
Let me translate The Washington Post’s fancy-pants language: U.S. officials didn’t “fail to tell the truth”; they fucking lied. The phrase “failed to tell the truth” oozes around the brain’s neural pathways, strategically dodging the anger receptors. “Failed to tell the truth” sounds like veracity is a slippery fish U.S. officials just couldn’t catch.
424 humanitarian aid workers have been numberized.
Let’s take a moment to consider the motivations and goals of the war in Afghanistan. The U.S. ostensibly invaded the country to stop al-Qaida from attacking us in any way, namely by flying large planes into our buildings. We achieved this goal within the first couple months. With al-Qaida essentially decimated, it seems logical that we should have left the country, reserving the right to return if any other big passenger airplanes came after us.
But we didn’t leave. We never leave. Rule No. 1 of the American empire is “Never Truly Leave a Country After Invading.” In order to explain our continued presence, we had to move the goal post. To what? We weren’t sure. We’re still not sure. Nearly 20 years later, if you ask a U.S. general or president (any of them) what the goal is in Afghanistan, they’ll feed you a word salad so large it’ll keep you regular for months. In fact, we now know that even during some of the earliest years of the war, the Pentagon and the Bush administration didn’t know who the bad guys were. (Right now you’re thinking it’s rather juvenile and uninformed of me to refer to enemy forces as “bad guys,” but, as you’ll see in a moment, our government literally spoke about them in those terms. Side note: This is because murderous rampages by war criminals are always juvenile. Murder, by definition, is unevolved.)
According to the Post’s Afghanistan Papers, an unnamed former adviser to an Army Special Forces team said, “They thought I was going to come to them with a map to show them where the good guys and bad guys live. It took several conversations—[a]t first, they just kept asking: ‘But who are the bad guys, where are they?’ ”
Yet we Americans were instructed in the early years that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had everything under control. To imply otherwise was to make a mockery of tens of millions of yellow ribbons. But in reality, Rumsfeld, too, had a sizable bad-guy problem.
“I have no visibility into who the bad guys are,” he said behind closed, locked, soundproof doors. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld publicly and boldly led the nation in a well-defined and decisive victory in the land of the Afghans.
In 2003, he said, during a press conference alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai, “General Franks and I … have concluded that we’re at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction and activities.”
Yep, no more major combat—just 17 years of reconstruction (and activities). Apparently, most U.S.-backed “reconstruction” is done from the air, via bombs. Let that be a lesson to you, rest of the world: You better not screw with us or we’ll reconstruct you and your whole family!
67 journalists have been reconstructed during the war in Afghanistan.
Is two decades too long for an utter, unmitigated disaster? Maybe we can stretch it to three? We’ve been funding warlords and extremist jihadis and hoping they will play nice. Yet American presidents have continually told us we’re making progress. “Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general who served as Afghanistan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, told government interviewers in 2015, ‘What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.’ ”
I imagine that quote particularly upsets many Americans, because if there’s one thing we’re good at, it’s having a foggy idea of what we’re doing.
Vietnam: foggy idea.
Iraq: very strong foggy idea.
Libya: one hell of a foggy idea.
Unfettered capitalism: the foggiest idea.
To put it simply, we are the best at bad ideas. But these Afghanistan Papers unveil a pretty terrible picture. One we need to confront as a nation and not just sweep under the rug (and not just because the rug would have to be the size of the Pacific Rim).
Upon hearing these revelations, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer did his best impersonation of someone who gives a shit. He said:
A bombshell series of investigative reports from The Washington Post exposing heartbreaking truths about the U.S. war in Afghanistan, which has claimed some 2,400 U.S. lives and cost nearly a trillion dollars. The Post says … officials routinely lied to the American people about the war. … This is truly a bombshell.
Yes, it’s a bombshell—despite the fact that much of the information in the Afghanistan Papers has been known for a decade or more. Back in 2012, I myself was doing poorly written standup comedy bits about how our government funded both sides of the war in Afghanistan. This goes to show that the mainstream media has two priorities—one is to spout the U.S. government’s talking points, and the other is to distract us all from the whitewashing of history.
They help Americans believe that we just found out about the failures in Afghanistan; that we just started McCarthyism, and it didn’t happen before in the 1950s to horrific consequences; that we just now discovered the breathtaking environmental consequences of factory farming. (I’m kidding—corporate media will never report on that. You could have a CNN anchor tied up in a sack in Gitmo, and he would still refuse to admit factory animal farming is killing the planet at an aggressive pace.)
But Blitzer wasn’t content pretending to be shocked that the Afghanistan War isn’t going well, so he put his acting chops to the test by further postulating that there also might be flaws with the war in Iraq. He said, “I can only imagine and brace for a similar report about the long U.S. war in Iraq as well. I suspect that could be some horrifying news as far as that is concerned also.”
That’s right: As of last month, Blitzer thinks there might be some problems with the war(s) in Iraq. (Blitzer strikes me as the type of guy who wouldn’t notice if you stole his pants off him in negative-10-degree weather.) Yes, Wolf, not only has there been similar mismanagement and mass war crimes committed in our invasion of Iraq, but you, in fact, helped manufacture consent for that war as well. You are complicit in the deaths of millions of people who will never come back from numberization.
Throughout the past 20 years, the mainstream media reiterated the lies told by our various presidents. They beat those lies into our heads with impressive frequency. Lies like those told by President Obama, when, in 2012, he said on national television: “Over the last three years, the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. … Our troops will be coming home. … As our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty thrilled for the war to be over in 2014—whenever 2014 may come.
3,800 contractors have died in Afghanistan for these lies.
The Afghanistan Papers show that not only has the 20-year war been wasteful of human life, it’s also been wasteful of money. Of course, this is the point when you think, “The military— wasteful?! Well, paint my nipples and call me Phyllis Diller; that’s the damnedest thing I ever did hear!”
Yes, this is hardly shocking, since $21 trillion has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon over the past 20 years. That’s two-thirds of the amount of money wrapped up in the entire stock market. Money has been flowing into Afghanistan so fast that officials aren’t even able to waste it quick enough! (I wish that were a joke.)
From the Post’s report, again: “One executive at USAID guessed that 90 percent of what they spent was overkill: ‘We lost objectivity. We were given money, told to spend it and we did, without reason.’ … One contractor said he was expected to dole out $3 million daily for projects in a single Afghan district roughly the size of a US county.”
The contractor said he couldn’t conceive of how to spend $3 million a day for people literally living in mud huts. Well, I guess USAID should start handing out furniture built out of blocks of shrink-wrapped hundred-dollar notes. Maybe fill bean bag chairs with small bills. (If you aren’t yet outraged enough, please keep in mind that, according to The New York Times, adjusting for today’s dollars, it would take less than eight days of the Pentagon’s stated budget to give the entire world clean water for a year, thereby saving millions of lives and turning the U.S. into the most beloved nation on earth.)
But rather than accept our own corruption and war profiteering, our military placed the blame squarely on the Afghan people. Per The Washington Post, “The U.S. military also accused Afghan commanders of pocketing salaries—paid by U.S. taxpayers—for tens of thousands of ‘ghost soldiers.’ ”
Although ghost soldiers sound like an incredible and tough-to-defeat resource, I think they meant the Afghan commanders claimed they had a certain number of soldiers, but most weren’t real. So America can’t fund the health care of our own goddamn real soldiers who get home and wait in line for months to secure any semblance of care, but we can fund ghost soldiers half a world away?!
Donald Trump just cut food stamps to 700,000 people, impacting more than a million children, but we’re funding fucking ghosts? Maybe we could start a campaign asking the ghost soldiers to donate some of their supper to the starving kids of America.
Ghosts seem to be an ongoing difficulty for the U.S. In the same issue of The Washington Post containing the Afghanistan Papers, there was an unrelated article titled, “The U.S. Wasted Millions on Charter Schools” that said, “A report found that [during the Obama Administration] 537 ‘ghost schools’ in America never opened but received more than $45.5 million in federal start-up funding.”
Apparently we’re funding ghost schools and ghost soldiers, and almost nobody in our government seems to give a shit! I guess you could say they give a ghost shit—it’s not really there.
Yet the problems in our forever war don’t stop at the walking dead. The Post says, “The US has spent $9 billion to fight the problem [of opium] over the past 18 years, but Afghan farmers are cultivating more opium poppies than ever. Last year, Afghanistan was responsible for 82 percent of global opium production.”
But what The Washington Post doesn’t tell you is that a lot of that opium was for use inside the U.S., to fuel our opioid epidemic.
An American becomes a number every 11 minutes from an opioid overdose.
So how does our government respond when revelations like the Afghanistan Papers come out? A few senators pause in the middle of their T-bone steaks and red wine to say, “This needs to be looked into, I daresay.” But then a few days pass and they just give the Pentagon more money to sink into a black hole.
The spending bill just passed by Congress sends $738 billion to the Pentagon. And, as RootsAction stated, it contains “almost nothing to constrain the Trump administration’s erratic and reckless foreign policy. It is a blank check for endless wars, fuel for the further militarization of U.S. foreign policy, and a gift to Donald Trump.”
To put it mildly, asking the Democrats to stand up against endless war is like asking Anne Hathaway to bench-press a Chevy Tahoe. It’s not going to happen, and she has no interest in even trying.
42,000 Taliban and insurgents have been numberized.
That may sound like a successful war to some, but keep in mind that the U.S. military likes to categorize anyone it kills “an insurgent.” The Pentagon goes by the theory that if it kills you, then you’re an insurgent—because if you weren’t an insurgent, then why did it kill you? A great many of the 42,000 were truly innocent civilians.
If there’s one thing we should learn from the Afghanistan Papers, which the mainstream corporate media have already ceased talking about, it’s that ending these immoral, illegal, repulsive wars cannot be left to our breathtakingly incompetent and corrupt ruling elite, who have probably been lying to us about them for decades. So it’s up to you and me to stop them.
Lee Camp’s new book “Bullet Points and Punch Lines” with a foreword by Chris Hedges is available for pre-sale at LeeCampBook.com.
This column is based on a monologue Lee Camp wrote and performed on his TV show “Redacted Tonight.”
Feature photo | Blank military dog tags hang in a memorial honoring fallen soldiers from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the grounds of Old North Church, in Boston, Nov. 7, 2018. Steven Senne | AP
Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor and activist. Camp is the host of the weekly comedy news TV show “Redacted Tonight With Lee Camp” on RT America. He is a former comedy writer for the Onion and the Huffington Post and has been a touring stand-up comic for 20 years.
This article was published with special permission from the author. It originally appeared at Truthdig.


mintpressnews--2020-01-10--Bolivia’s New Right-Wing Government Intensifies Crackdown on Journalists, Doctors

The U.S.-backed right-wing coup government of Jeanine Añez continues its moves against media and other dissenting voices .
The latest victim of the crackdown was Marcelo Hurtado , president of the ATB media network .
Hurtado was paraded before cameras ; handcuffed and forced to wear a vest labeled “ arrested.
” He was flanked by two black clad , masked and armed members of the country ’ s infamous police , who led a successful coup against socialist president Evo Morales in November .
The Añez administration justified Hurtado ’ s public arrest on the grounds that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garcia Linera , in what new Communications Minister Roxana Lizarraga has called the “ dismantling of the propaganda apparatus of the dictatorial regime of Evo Morales.
” Since November , the new government has begun systematically destroying all voices opposed to it .
TeleSUR , Bolivia TV and RT en Español have already been taken off the air , journalists have been shot , detained and tortured .
Meanwhile , Al-Jazeera correspondent Teresa Bo was tear-gassed in the face live on air at point-blank range by riot police as she stood alone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of journalists has brought back memories of previous eras when most of Latin America was ruled by fascist dictatorships .
But unlike in Argentina or Chile , where the governments “ disappeared ” dissenting voices , refusing to confirm or deny their involvement , the Bolivian government is doing so openly ; in fact , making pains to publicize their treatment of their opponents .
Another group the Añez administration is targeting is doctors .
On Monday the same armed , masked police conducted a press conference displaying Mirtha Sanjinez , a hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treat injured opponents of the government .
“ I am innocent .
Gentlemen of the Civic Committee : stop persecuting innocent people , I am an honorable person , I have worked honorably , ” said the elderly lady to the cameras of pro-Añez media attending , as she was taken away to an uncertain fate .
Cuban doctors provided the backbone of Bolivia ’ s universal healthcare service .
However , upon gaining power , Añez immediately expelled the entire cadre , over 700 in total , closing down health facilities aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In more than a decade of partnership with the previous socialist government , Cuban doctors had carried out over 72 million consultations across Bolivia .
This week MintPress News ’ Ollie Vargas visited a hospital in the city of Cochabamba where 143 Cuban staff provided free healthcare to those who needed it , finding it closed and abandoned .
He also reported that Bolivian doctors who had previously collaborated with Cuban colleagues had been arrested .
In November , after military generals and police appeared on television demanding his resignation , President Morales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the military picked Añez , a lesser-known senator .
Añez ’ s right-wing Democrat Social Movement Party won just four percent of the vote in the October elections that sparked the unrest and , eventually , the coup .
In contrast , Morales ’ Movement to Socialism ( MAS ) party received 47 percent .
Añez immediately exonerated the military of all previous and future crimes , giving them a carte blanche to kill anyone opposing the new military-approved government .
Medea Benjamin was on the scene of the Senkata massacre for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morgues were overwhelmed so local church pews were filled with blood-soaked corpses .
Despite labeling itself an “ interim government , ” in classic “ shock doctrine ” style the new administration has also planned a mass privatization program and reoriented Bolivia ’ s foreign policy , pulling out of several regional organizations .
New elections are scheduled for May .
However , with Morales and others in the MAS banned and labeled “ terrorists ” by the current administration , it is difficult to see how they will be free and fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must prevent the “ savages ” ( i.e .
the indigenous majority ) returning to power .
An eight-person team from the United States government agency USAID arrived in Bolivia Thursday purporting to be experts in electoral systems aiming to strengthen and support the May elections .
The U.S. government immediately welcomed the November coup and has supported a number of previous attempts at dislodging Morales from power .
The MAS has set a date of next weekend to choose their candidate .
While the left is united around MAS and against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four roughly equal factions , opening up the possibility of a serious vote-splitting problem for the current administration .
But regardless , without a free and independent press , the May elections will surely lack legitimacy .
Feature photo | A press conference announcing the arrest of Hospital Administrator , Mirtha Sanjinez , center , in La Paz , Bolivia .
Screenshot | YouTube Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

The U.S.-backed right-wing coup government of Jeanine Añez continues its moves against media and other dissenting voices. The latest victim of the crackdown was Marcelo Hurtado, president of the ATB media network. Hurtado was paraded before cameras; handcuffed and forced to wear a vest labeled “arrested.” He was flanked by two black clad, masked and armed members of the country’s infamous police, who led a successful coup against socialist president Evo Morales in November.
ATB (private outlet) was one of the only Bolivian TV channels that provided balanced coverage before the coup. This is Marcelo Hurtado, their director. pic.twitter.com/uXPlzXusCk — Ollie Vargas (@OVargas52) January 5, 2020
The Añez administration justified Hurtado’s public arrest on the grounds that he was linked to Morales and ex-Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, in what new Communications Minister Roxana Lizarraga has called the “dismantling of the propaganda apparatus of the dictatorial regime of Evo Morales.” Since November, the new government has begun systematically destroying all voices opposed to it. TeleSUR, Bolivia TV and RT en Español have already been taken off the air, journalists have been shot, detained and tortured. Meanwhile, Al-Jazeera correspondent Teresa Bo was tear-gassed in the face live on air at point-blank range by riot police as she stood alone, talking to the camera.
Al Jazeera's @TeresaBo has been intentionally tear-gassed in the eyes by Bolivian police while on air. She was simply trying to report what was happening. And, being a total pro, she kept right on doing it. pic.twitter.com/74foN7tvRF — Barry Malone (@malonebarry) November 16, 2019
The repression of journalists has brought back memories of previous eras when most of Latin America was ruled by fascist dictatorships. But unlike in Argentina or Chile, where the governments “disappeared” dissenting voices, refusing to confirm or deny their involvement, the Bolivian government is doing so openly; in fact, making pains to publicize their treatment of their opponents.
Another group the Añez administration is targeting is doctors. On Monday the same armed, masked police conducted a press conference displaying Mirtha Sanjinez, a hospital administrator who had disobeyed orders not to treat injured opponents of the government. “I am innocent. Gentlemen of the Civic Committee: stop persecuting innocent people, I am an honorable person, I have worked honorably,” said the elderly lady to the cameras of pro-Añez media attending, as she was taken away to an uncertain fate.
The arrests continue in #Bolivia. The Montero Hospital administrator who had staff provide medical care to the wounded Argentine citizen, accused of being a FARC member. So much for the Hippocratic Oath, due process, justice, truth. It's getting worse.https://t.co/8ZiMeQkceB pic.twitter.com/KRcDUTidH3 — AndeanInfoNet (@AndeanInfoNet) January 7, 2020
Cuban doctors provided the backbone of Bolivia’s universal healthcare service. However, upon gaining power, Añez immediately expelled the entire cadre, over 700 in total, closing down health facilities aimed at the country’s poor. In more than a decade of partnership with the previous socialist government, Cuban doctors had carried out over 72 million consultations across Bolivia. This week MintPress News’ Ollie Vargas visited a hospital in the city of Cochabamba where 143 Cuban staff provided free healthcare to those who needed it, finding it closed and abandoned. He also reported that Bolivian doctors who had previously collaborated with Cuban colleagues had been arrested.
Cuban doctors in Bolivia provided free healthcare until they were pushed out by the US-backed coup. The hospitals they worked at are still closed, leaving working class communities vulnerable. Report from @OVargas52 pic.twitter.com/s3m0K8E3v7 — MintPress News (@MintPressNews) January 8, 2020
In November, after military generals and police appeared on television demanding his resignation, President Morales fled to Mexico. In his place, the military picked Añez, a lesser-known senator. Añez’s right-wing Democrat Social Movement Party won just four percent of the vote in the October elections that sparked the unrest and, eventually, the coup. In contrast, Morales’ Movement to Socialism (MAS) party received 47 percent. Añez immediately exonerated the military of all previous and future crimes, giving them a carte blanche to kill anyone opposing the new military-approved government. Medea Benjamin was on the scene of the Senkata massacre for MintPress News, where she noted the morgues were overwhelmed so local church pews were filled with blood-soaked corpses.
Despite labeling itself an “interim government,” in classic “shock doctrine” style the new administration has also planned a mass privatization program and reoriented Bolivia’s foreign policy, pulling out of several regional organizations. New elections are scheduled for May. However, with Morales and others in the MAS banned and labeled “terrorists” by the current administration, it is difficult to see how they will be free and fair. Añez has already declared that Bolivia must prevent the “savages” (i.e. the indigenous majority) returning to power.
In dictatorship, laws are meaningless. Bolivia's coup govt has hurriedly put together some fake charges against Romero, Evo's former minister, following less than a day of pressure by far-right activists camped outside his house. https://t.co/He3YcOOqKD pic.twitter.com/AjnVrkZ8EO — Ollie Vargas (@OVargas52) January 9, 2020
An eight-person team from the United States government agency USAID arrived in Bolivia Thursday purporting to be experts in electoral systems aiming to strengthen and support the May elections. The U.S. government immediately welcomed the November coup and has supported a number of previous attempts at dislodging Morales from power. The MAS has set a date of next weekend to choose their candidate. While the left is united around MAS and against the coup, the right has fractured into four roughly equal factions, opening up the possibility of a serious vote-splitting problem for the current administration. But regardless, without a free and independent press, the May elections will surely lack legitimacy.
Feature photo | A press conference announcing the arrest of Hospital Administrator, Mirtha Sanjinez, center, in La Paz, Bolivia. Screenshot | YouTube
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.


mintpressnews--2020-01-10--Study Finds Bots and MAGA Supporters Pushing #IraniansDetestSoleimani Hashtag

The hashtag # IraniansDetestSoleimani has been trending on Twitter this week , as users voiced their opposition to the recently assassinated Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani .
The hashtag remained one of the most popular amongst users in the U.S. and Western Europe .
But similar viral sentiment was not expressed across the Middle East , least of all on Iranian Twitter , leaving one to wonder , who are these Iranian Soleimani haters ?
The story became stranger still after Middle East and social media disinformation expert Professor Marc Owen Jones of Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar analyzed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from nearly 10,000 accounts using the hashtag and found that the most common phrases in those users ’ biographies were “ Make America Great Again ” and “ Trump ” – not somebody noted for his support among Iranians , or Muslims more generally .
He concluded that “ once again that the online right wing MAGA movement is boosting the trend that seeks to indicate that Iranians actually hated Soleimani.
” Jones also studied the most frequent users of the hashtag , those who were most vociferously voicing their opposition to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had typical machine-generated usernames with a common first name followed by a string of numbers , and had extremely generic profiles , with little personal data and default , plain displays on their page .
This is an increasingly common occurrence in conflicts , as groups attempt to control the narrative on the new online battlefront .
In November , during the midst of a U.S.-backed coup against President Evo Morales , thousands of newly created bots boosted a Spanish-language hashtag # BoliviaNoHayGolpe – in English meaning “ there is no coup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ouster of a democratically-elected leader .
In Venezuela , too , the local U.S.-supported opposition attempted to increase their popularity and reach through manipulation of Twitter .
In October , a senior Twitter executive , Gordon MacMillan , who was the editor for the Platform for the Middle East and North Africa ( including Iran ) , was unmasked as an officer in the British Army ’ s 77th Brigade , a unit dedicated to psychological operations , propaganda and online warfare .
These incidents are some of many that underline how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Internet as a battlefield for public opinion .
Although major American media have labeled Soleimani as a monstrous “ blood-soaked , ” “ terrorist mastermind , ” “ as evil as Osama bin Laden , ” there is little evidence to suggest most Iranians share the same opinion .
A 2019 survey by the University of Maryland found that “ General Soleimani remains the most popular Iranian public figure , ” with 59 percent of the country viewing him “ very favorably ” and over four in five of his country folk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This was true across age ranges .
The tense Iran situation threatens to spill over into war .
While backing away from military retaliation , President Trump has vowed to place further sanctions on the country .
The U.S. also accuses Iran of shooting down a Ukrainian International Airlines flight that crashed near Tehran Wednesday .
A poll published Wednesday by Morning Consultant showed that a plurality of American respondents ( 47 percent overall ) supported the drone assassination of Soleimani , although they agreed it made America less safe .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran on a map of the world and only 28 percent could find the country on a zoomed-in map of the region .
Soleimani had traveled to Baghdad at the invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi , who had organized peace talks between Iran , Saudi Arabia and others in the region .
Abdul-Mahdi revealed that Trump had personally thanked him for his efforts before using the opportunity to kill Soleimani , thwarting any chance at decreased tensions .
On the president ’ s actions , linguist and public intellectual Noam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rogue state ” conducting “ reckless international terrorism , ” with Trump ’ s actions giving ISIS “ another lease on life.
” But former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka “ welcomed ” the president ’ s actions and Iran ’ s retaliation , firing dozens of missiles at a U.S.-occupied military base in Iraq , as “ now there can be no question that Iran is a threat to American national security.
” 41 percent of Americans agree .
Recent polling from Reuters and Ipsos found that 39 percent of Americans “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s overall handling of the Iran situation and last weekend saw anti-war protests in more than 70 locations across the United States .
Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the U.S. will attack Iran , if not imminently , within the next few years .
If the anti-war movement wishes to stop another conflict , it had better get going .
Feature photo | A young girl holds a poster displaying a portrait of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani who was assassinated by the U.S. during a protest against the U.S. in Mumbai , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rafiq Maqbool | AP Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News .
After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books : Bad News From Venezuela : Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age : Still Manufacturing Consent .
He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting , The Guardian , Salon , The Grayzone , Jacobin Magazine , Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary .

The hashtag #IraniansDetestSoleimani has been trending on Twitter this week, as users voiced their opposition to the recently assassinated Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani. The hashtag remained one of the most popular amongst users in the U.S. and Western Europe. But similar viral sentiment was not expressed across the Middle East, least of all on Iranian Twitter, leaving one to wonder, who are these Iranian Soleimani haters?
The story became stranger still after Middle East and social media disinformation expert Professor Marc Owen Jones of Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar analyzed the trend. Jones studied 60,000 tweets from nearly 10,000 accounts using the hashtag and found that the most common phrases in those users’ biographies were “Make America Great Again” and “Trump” – not somebody noted for his support among Iranians, or Muslims more generally. He concluded that “once again that the online right wing MAGA movement is boosting the trend that seeks to indicate that Iranians actually hated Soleimani.”
Some strange, but unsurprising things about the incredibly voluminous hashtag "Iranians Detest Soleimani" (via @maasalan ), I sampled around 60,000 tweets from around 9753 account using the hashtag. The most common noun among biographies was "Make America Great Again" & "Trump" pic.twitter.com/I0uqq5WuEo — Marc Owen Jones (@marcowenjones) January 7, 2020
Jones also studied the most frequent users of the hashtag, those who were most vociferously voicing their opposition to the recently slain general. He found that they had typical machine-generated usernames with a common first name followed by a string of numbers, and had extremely generic profiles, with little personal data and default, plain displays on their page.
4/ Network graph of the hashtag "Iranians Detest Soleimani". Interestingly, the 3 most vociferous accounts tweeting on the hashtag are shown here as the largest nodes, mirammiran, nadiaNadia98232560 and noname71888129. All of them have generic looking profiles. No dp, no banner pic.twitter.com/Sd1sQZxuMs — Marc Owen Jones (@marcowenjones) January 7, 2020
This is an increasingly common occurrence in conflicts, as groups attempt to control the narrative on the new online battlefront. In November, during the midst of a U.S.-backed coup against President Evo Morales, thousands of newly created bots boosted a Spanish-language hashtag #BoliviaNoHayGolpe – in English meaning “there is no coup in Bolivia” – attempting to legitimize the ouster of a democratically-elected leader. In Venezuela, too, the local U.S.-supported opposition attempted to increase their popularity and reach through manipulation of Twitter. In October, a senior Twitter executive, Gordon MacMillan, who was the editor for the Platform for the Middle East and North Africa (including Iran), was unmasked as an officer in the British Army’s 77th Brigade, a unit dedicated to psychological operations, propaganda and online warfare. These incidents are some of many that underline how governments and other powerful organizations increasingly see the Internet as a battlefield for public opinion.
Although major American media have labeled Soleimani as a monstrous “blood-soaked,” “terrorist mastermind,” “as evil as Osama bin Laden,” there is little evidence to suggest most Iranians share the same opinion. A 2019 survey by the University of Maryland found that “General Soleimani remains the most popular Iranian public figure,” with 59 percent of the country viewing him “very favorably” and over four in five of his country folk having a positive opinion of him overall. This was true across age ranges.
The tense Iran situation threatens to spill over into war. While backing away from military retaliation, President Trump has vowed to place further sanctions on the country. The U.S. also accuses Iran of shooting down a Ukrainian International Airlines flight that crashed near Tehran Wednesday. A poll published Wednesday by Morning Consultant showed that a plurality of American respondents (47 percent overall) supported the drone assassination of Soleimani, although they agreed it made America less safe. Despite this, only 23 percent could locate Iran on a map of the world and only 28 percent could find the country on a zoomed-in map of the region.
Soleimani had traveled to Baghdad at the invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, who had organized peace talks between Iran, Saudi Arabia and others in the region. Abdul-Mahdi revealed that Trump had personally thanked him for his efforts before using the opportunity to kill Soleimani, thwarting any chance at decreased tensions.
On the president’s actions, linguist and public intellectual Noam Chomsky claimed that the U.S. was a “rogue state” conducting “reckless international terrorism,” with Trump’s actions giving ISIS “another lease on life.” But former Trump advisor Sebastian Gorka “welcomed” the president’s actions and Iran’s retaliation, firing dozens of missiles at a U.S.-occupied military base in Iraq, as “now there can be no question that Iran is a threat to American national security.” 41 percent of Americans agree.
Recent polling from Reuters and Ipsos found that 39 percent of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the Trump administration’s overall handling of the Iran situation and last weekend saw anti-war protests in more than 70 locations across the United States. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the U.S. will attack Iran, if not imminently, within the next few years. If the anti-war movement wishes to stop another conflict, it had better get going.
Feature photo | A young girl holds a poster displaying a portrait of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani who was assassinated by the U.S. during a protest against the U.S. in Mumbai, India, Jan. 9, 2020. Rafiq Maqbool | AP
Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, Common Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.