Sunday, November 20, 2011
Editorial: The silences that enable and kill
In the photo above, the top US commander in Iraq, General Lloyd Austin, and US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey accompany Dennis McDonough (Deputy National Security Advisor) and Antony J. Blinken (National Security Advisor to the US Vice President) to a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani yesterday. McDonough and Blinken are part of a US delegation visiting Iraq to talk about diplomatic issues like grain and wheat and . . .
Oh, wait, they're not.
They're both national security types.
They were present to continue negotiations on US troops in Iraq.
Somehow the US press missed that story. In Friday's "Iraq snapshot" had as its first item, "Starting with breaking news out of Iraq, Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports a mixture of White House officials and US military officials arrived in Baghdad Friday for a three day visit to discuss a number of issues including to "provide immunity to American trainers."
The US press was no where on Friday. And no where Saturday morning, afternoon or evening. The photo is from the President of Iraq's website.
Strange, isn't it, how The Common Ills could cover it Friday and Saturday while US outlets ignored it. The same way US outlets either ignored or trivialized the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday which explained that negotiations for US troops in Iraq continue, that some new agreement is expected by January, that 47,000 US troops will remain in the region (with at least 27,000 in Kuwait), that the Defense Department will maintain ten "enduring" bases in Iraq and will have soldiers housed there (soldiers under their umbrella, not the US State Department), that these bases will be protected by contractors and so much more.
Or maybe not so strange. As a former New York Times correspondent (from when papers ruled and the internet was yet to be funded by Congress) pointed out in a phone call late Saturday night, "How is this silence any different than the silence on the US lying about body counts during Vietnam or the silence on Nixon's ordering the dikes bombed?"
It really isn't any different at all.
Silence among vested parties is how illegal wars continue. Obviously a large number of people in the US are vested in the continuation of the Iraq War.