U.S. Tells Iraq Oil Ministers Not to Act Without Its Approval. But first some background:

The brain center of Iraqi oil exports, a sprawling state organization that controlled the shipments from the Persian Gulf to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea, is dark and quiet.

Wind gusts through gaping glassless windows of the second-floor shipping room of the agency, the State Oil Marketing Organization, known by its acronym, SOMO. Just last month hundreds of workers had bustled around here.

But after American troops landed in Baghdad, looters used rolling office chairs like wheelbarrows to roll away computers and furniture. All the records, going back to 1971, have been burned.

"No one tried to stop it," said Abdul Jalil Hammadi, who was in charge of crude oil sales at SOMO. Since the looting, "Americans have not contacted us; the ministry has not contacted us."

About two miles away, though, the Oil Ministry, nine stories of glass and sand-colored concrete, stands as if new. It was virtually the only government building to emerge from the war unscathed and was heavily guarded by American troops. That fact evokes a hollow laugh among Iraqis, who suspect that America was only after oil when it invaded.

The two buildings offer a clue to the future shape of this country's vast but rudderless oil industry. The once-powerful SOMO was the backbone of the oil export system. For decades it served as the point of contact for oil traders, as well as for the United Nations, which oversaw trading under the terms of economic sanctions it imposed after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But now SOMO appears to be obsolete.

The Bush administration contends that the United Nations sales mechanism is no longer needed, as Saddam Hussein no longer runs the country.

The new heart of the oil industry is the ministry, where, heavily guarded by American troops, a small coterie of Iraqi technocrats awaits a council of Americans handpicked by the Bush administration and Iraqi exiles, that is to arrive this week. The decisions that are made affecting Iraq's oil industry over the next months will be important because they will determine who will get control of Iraq's rich oil fields.

"People are waiting to see what new policy is coming," said Kahtan al-Anbaki, former director of a giant oil refinery in northern Iraq and now ad-hoc coordinator of the ministry. As for who will be making the policy, he added, "I would not like to comment on this."

It is unclear exactly what role the council will have. The administration is believed to have offered posts to Philip J. Carroll, the former chief executive of the Shell Oil Company, the American unit of Royal Dutch/Shell, as well as to several Iraqis in exile. Mr. Anbaki said he had not been officially briefed on the composition of the new team. He said a deputy minister, a former leader of a technical college in Baghdad, Mazan Muhammad Ali-Juma, had also joined the team.

There is no open hostility to the prospect of an American-led council, but resentment of exiles — who lived safely away from the repression of Mr. Hussein's government — runs deep among ordinary Iraqis. Mr. Anbaki was vague about whether foreign companies are needed to revive Iraq's oil industry. Concerns linger about how much local people will control.

Oil industry experts praise the rank and file of Iraq's oil industry as very capable, highly experienced technocrats and specialists. Many in top management were schooled abroad in Russia and Britain. Traders and international department directors speak English.

Even so, Iraq has been encumbered by the economic sanctions for a decade. Few have the experience of having dealt in the aggressively free-market world of oil, which even governments with monopolies, like Saudi Arabia, have learned to navigate. ...

New York Times, "Iraqis Anxiously Await Decisions About the Oil Industry" by Sabrina Tavernise, April 28, 2003

And more recently:

An American official met today with Iraq's two most senior deputy oil ministers for the first time and warned them not to make any changes in their hierarchy without the approval of the allied forces in control of the country.

The meeting between Gary Vogler, an officer on the coalition forces' reconstruction team, and the Iraqi deputy ministers, Mazen Muhammad Ali Jumaa and Hussain Suliman al-Hadithy, occurred in the still-darkened halls of the Iraqi Oil Ministry — one of the very few government buildings to have survived the looting of Baghdad intact — and came as American planners continue to assemble a team that will oversee the reconstruction of Iraq's vast but worn oil industry.

Iraqis expected to take a leading role are Thamer al-Ghadhban, who most recently worked as the ministry's director for planning, as well as an expatriate, Hashem al-Kharasan, former general director of the northern part of Iraq's state-owned oil company. Reached by telephone today in Tunisia, the American-educated Mr. Kharasan declined to comment on whether he had been offered the leading role in Iraq's oil future.

In an interview, Mr. Ghadhban, who was educated in part in England and speaks fluent English, laid out his views on the oil industry, where the key question is whether it will remain in state hands, as under Saddam Hussein, or be privatized. Mr. Ghadhban said the path of privatization would not be alien to Iraq, where the ministry last year had planned to sell off small parts of the industry, like filling stations.

Still, he cautioned against moving too quickly. The laws on the books, written during the nationalization of the oil industry in the early 1970's, still require oil to be owned by the state, he said. The law would have to be rewritten by a new government before any type of privatization could begin.

"We are not against cooperating with the Americans — they are the only recognized power here now," he said, in his office stripped of phones by looters. Still, "we have intellectual people in Iraq and very nationalist people," he continued, adding: "The oil issue is not simple. It has to be carefully handled."

Particularly sensitive is the issue of expatriate Iraqis who will be central to the American team. Resentment runs deep among local Iraqis, who say they endured Mr. Hussein's rule, while exiles were safely offering criticism. "Many people stayed in Iraq," Mr. Jumaa said. "Most Iraqi people think those people deserve to take the positions. They suffered more than the others. We were under pressure. It doesn't mean because we stayed we were within the top regime and now should be second-class citizens. For myself, I wouldn't accept this fact."

Mr. Vogler shifted uncomfortably in his seat, and added, "That's human nature." One exile likely to be more palatable to Iraqis is Mr. Kharasan. General director of Iraq's vast Northern Oil Company for years, he was known as an efficient and fair manager who was well liked by his staff, said a former colleague, Amir Allous.

"He's a good manager and a leader," said Mr. Allous, who worked with Mr. Kharasan in the northern oil field. Mr. Kharasan smoked cigars, liked to play golf and was married to a Briton. ...

Mr. Jumaa said the country's refineries were now working at about 30 percent capacity. Oil has yet to start pumping in the large northern fields, but gas flows that power electricity plants have resumed, he said.

American officials will meet with the heads of all parts of Iraq's state-owned oil sector in two or three days, Mr. Vogler said. The Bush administration's choice to head the oil team — widely believed to be Philip J. Carroll, the former chief executive of the Shell Oil Company in the United States — is not expected in Iraq for at least several more days, he said.

New York Times, "U.S. Tells Iraq Oil Ministers Not to Act Without Its O.K." by Sabrina Tavernise, April 30, 2003

Who is in charge at the Oil Ministry will be of the highest importance. As is made explicit in the article, the issue of privatization will be key. The U.S. will only place people in the Oil Ministry who will support the denationalization and privatization of Iraq's vast oil reserves for American and British oil firms. Only in this way can the American government and through it American corporatists both profit extensively from those reserves and control production so as to ensure control over rival economies. Phillip J. Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil Company, an American corporation, will be brought in to help accomplish these ends. And, of course, it will require a compliant Iraqi "provisional government" hand-selected by the U.S. to pass the laws necessary to recognize the privatization of and disassociation of the state from oil.

The decision by Iraqi delegates in Baghdad to try to cobble together a transitional government at the end of May has been prompted in part by a push from the Bush administration, which wants to move swiftly to put an Iraqi face on power, according to senior American officials.

The delegates' plan to convene a national conference sooner than planned was pressed by the United States from behind the scenes in what the officials described as a marked acceleration of efforts to forge a new Iraqi government. ...

The Iraqi delegates' decision to refer to a new governing body as a "transitional government," instead of an interim authority, the phrase favored by the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, seemed to reflect the administration's new approach, which officials said had been endorsed by the White House in the last week. American officials who organized the conference accepted the wording change, said administration officials.

The turning point in deciding to push swiftly for Iraqi government, officials said, came at a National Security Council meeting early last week and was fueled by concerns that a power vacuum inside Iraq was increasingly being filled by anti-American voices, including those sympathetic to Iran.

"We needed the Iraqis to step up to the plate," said a senior administration official, who said American officials had conveyed the sense of urgency to the handpicked Iraqi delegates at Monday's meeting, sponsored by the United States and Britain. ... The Iraqi delegates on Monday called for a national conference in late May to select the transitional government and determine whether it would consist of a leadership council or a single head of state, said the Bush administration's envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad.

The administration will try to keep the process on track without being perceived as its primary architect, senior officials said. "There continues to be a view that this shouldn't look like a solution imposed on the Iraqis from the coalition," a senior American official said.

At the same time, a second official said, the United States would prefer that the Iraqi delegates endorse a structure that would include a single central decision-maker.
"I think we need to defer to them if they have a clear point of view," the official said. "If they don't have a clear point of view, I think our point of view is that it is probably better to have someone who has an ultimate tiebreaking decision-making authority."

Until last week, the State Department and the C.I.A. had argued that the United States should wait "some months" to create an interim Iraqi authority, several administration officials said. To move too quickly, the officials argued, would allow Pentagon-backed exiles like Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, to gain undue influence, to the exclusion of candidates from inside the country. But the Pentagon, apparently with support from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, had always urged as rapid a transition as possible. Pentagon officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, had weighed the possibility of establishing a provisional government even before the war, and have argued that exiles like Mr. Chalabi are well organized, know what they need to do, and could integrate with emerging leaders from inside. ...

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that the United States will not tolerate an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq, the majority of whose population, like that of Iran, is composed of Shiite Muslims.

Administration officials said they were reluctant today to spell out just what a transitional Iraqi government might entail, and how its powers might exceed those of the interim authority envisioned. ...

The Iraqi ministries of defense, state security and intelligence "would stay with the coalition for a while," a period that some American officials said could also last years. But other ministries, like health, education and agriculture, could be handed over to Iraqi control more quickly. Such a transfer could give a transitional government some political momentum and tangible things to do, besides beginning to draft a new constitution, Pentagon officials said.

New York Times, "U.S. Reported to Push for Iraqi Government, With Pentagon Prevailing" by Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt, April 30, 2003

In the face of increasing internal Iraqi resistance to American rule of Iraq, the Bush administration is speeding up the process of locking in and institutionalizing its brown-skinned puppets there so as to better conceal the pink faces pulling the strings and writing the script. The importance of the "word change" adopted by the American delegates in the Iraq convention calling for the creation of a "transitional government" rather than an "interim authority" is not clear at first from the article. The distinction is later revealed: a transitional or provisional government will have more power than a simple interim authority.

The article is quite up front about some things:

• The convention delegates responsible for creating the institutions and structure of the new Iraqi government are "handpicked" by the U.S. government. This allows the U.S. to set the ideological bounds of new Iraqi institutions. No anti-corporatists need apply. If any mainstream media outlet ever provided an ideological profile of these American delegates (deemed "Iraqi" delegates by the press), I would be thoroughly impressed.



• The U.S. government gets a veto, demonstrated by the "acceptance" of the "word change." In reality, it is transparent that the American government is running the show rather than acting as passive superviser. This is also shown by the article's reference to the American government's "preferences" with respect to whether or not the provisional government is headed by a council or by a single person. Naturally, one person is easier for the U.S. to buy off and control. And, of course, the end of the article is explicit with regard to U.S. intent to maintain complete control over Iraqi defense, state security, and intelligence. This is necessary, of course, to ensure that the U.S. can defend its puppet government from the Iraqi people themselves. Saddam Hussein was no dummy. He, like the Americans, knew how to stay in power in Iraq.



• The decision to speed up the pace of the formation and strengthening of the American-formed Iraqi provisional government is in direct response to a fear on the part of the Americans that Iraqis will make their own choices about such matters: "The turning point in deciding to push swiftly for Iraqi government, officials said, came at a National Security Council meeting early last week and was fueled by concerns that a power vacuum inside Iraq was increasingly being filled by anti-American voices, including those sympathetic to Iran." Later the article explains that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that the United States will not tolerate an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq, the majority of whose population, like that of Iran, is composed of Shiite Muslims." In other words, Iraqis will not be allowed to make decisions about what kind of government rules Iraq. The reason is simple enough. Such a government would not allow Iraq to be exploited by the U.S. and the U.K. This is unacceptable to American corporatists for whom the entire point of the invasion was to benefit themselves at the expense of Iraqis.

U.S. Troops Fire on Iraqi Protesters Again; 2 Reported Dead:

United States soldiers opened fire here today on marchers protesting a clash late Monday night in which 15 anti-American demonstrators were reported killed by American troops. The city's mayor and hospital officials said two protesters were killed in today's incident and 14 were wounded.

A United States Army officer said soldiers in a convoy passing the demonstrators were shot at, and then returned fire. There was no immediate indication of any American casualties.

About 1,000 residents marching down Falluja's main street stopped today in front of a battalion headquarters of the United States Army's 82nd Airborne Division, in a compound formerly occupied by Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. The demonstrators were carrying signs condemning Monday night's shooting. Protesters threw rocks and shoes at the compound and troops opened fire at about 10:30 a.m., scattering the demonstrators. Lt. Col. Tobin Green, commander of the Second Squadron of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is taking over from the 82nd Airborne in Falluja, said a six-vehicle convoy was shot at and responded with gunfire.

"The evildoers are deliberately placing at risk the good civilians," Colonel Green told The Associated Press. "These are deliberate actions by the enemy to use the population as cover." ...

"The number of killed was two," Ahmed al-Taha, a senior official at the main hospital in Falluja, told Reuters. "They were hit in the head." He put their ages between the late 20's and early 30's and said they had been hit by bullets or shrapnel. At least eight people were being treated for wounds, he added. After a meeting with American troops, the mayor said United States soldiers had been asked to stay away from mosques, residential areas and other sensitive places.

"Many people believe these are occupying forces," Mr. al-Alwani said. "And many of them are still cautious until they see their intentions."

Maj. Michael Marti, an intelligence officer for the division's Second Brigade, said soldiers in a passing convoy fired on the crowd after rocks were thrown at them and a vehicle window was broken by what was believed to be automatic weapons fire. "Fire came from the crowd," Major Marti said. "It was at that point that they returned fire. It was well-aimed fire."

City officials who said they witnessed the gunfire said they saw or heard no shooting from among the protesters. In Monday's incident Iraqis said the soldiers opened fire, unprovoked, while the Americans — who were positioned in a school — said they were fired on first and then carefully counterattacked.

Either way, with 65 people reported wounded during the rally on Saddam Hussein's birthday, sentiment against the American military presence jumped several notches, even as United States officials are seeking to build greater trust among ordinary Iraqis. As American military units in this city about 30 miles west of Baghdad left the school Tuesday evening, boys shook their shoes at the soldiers, an insult, pelted them with stones and yelled in English, "Down USA!"

"We won't remain quiet over this," said Ahmad Hussein, in a hospital room with his 18-year-old son, Riyadh, who was shot in the stomach and who, his doctor said, will probably die. "Either they leave Falluja or we will make them leave."

New York Times, "U.S. Troops Fire on Iraqi Protesters Again; 2 Reported Dead" by Ian Fisher, April 30, 2003

The familiar pattern. Whether or not shots were fired at American troops first is irrelevant. To the extent they were, it only serves to emphasize even more that American troops are not welcome in Iraq. And how will this Iraqi resistance be characterized? The Iraqi people are now officially, at least in the view of the U.S. military, "the evildoers" and "the enemy." Evildoers is, of course, precisely the language which our Yale-educated president uses to describe terrorists.

Later in the same article it is revealed that:

In a separate development, another senior Iraqi official on the American military's most-wanted list has reportedly surrendered. The Iraqi Free Forces, an opposition group, reported that Walid Hamid al-Tikriti, the former governor of the southern city of Basra, had surrendered to them in Baghdad. The group said Mr. Hamid, No. 44 on the most-wanted list, would be handed over to American forces.

And the American proxy army, the "Iraqi Free Forces," is now in the media's view apparently merely "an opposition group" with no connections to the Pentagon. If one is going to attach a descriptor at all to the forces, such as "an opposition group," would it not be pertinent to specifiy whose opposition group? This is, of course, the American trained army under the direction of the banker and probable future American puppet ruler of Iraq, Chalabi. The New York Times feels no need to reenforce this connection.

On to the oil, the preeminent cause of the invasion:

The Bush administration plans to introduce next week a U.N. Security Council resolution that would lift more than a decade of international sanctions on Iraq, while limiting U.N. involvement in Iraq's foreseeable future to a consultative role, senior administration officials said yesterday.

The resolution would direct U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to name a special representative who can work with U.S. officials in Baghdad on humanitarian and reconstruction programs, and on the formation of an Iraqi Interim Authority, officials said. But it would firmly endorse control by the United States and its military allies over international involvement in Iraq until a permanent, representative government is in place.

President Bush said last week that the United Nations should lift the sanctions "now that Iraq is liberated," but the Defense and State departments were divided over how to accomplish it. The resolution decision, made at a meeting of top Bush national security advisers on Wednesday, essentially adopted the Pentagon's proposal for a broad elimination of all U.N. control over Iraq, rather than the State Department's preferred step-by-step approach. ...

While still being drafted, current versions of the resolution offer specific plans for the Iraqi oil industry, moving its profits from U.N. control to an Iraqi Central Bank fund to be spent on reconstruction activities designated either by the Pentagon-run Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance headed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner or by the Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA), once it is in place, according to officials involved in discussions over the wording.

Distributions from the fund would be monitored by an international financial authority, perhaps the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. ...

In a strategy that depends on a number of difficult pieces simultaneously falling into place, the administration expects that the U.N. debate and consultations on the resolution will take several weeks. While that is underway, it hopes to be able to set up the Iraqi Interim Authority (IIA) in time to take control of Iraq's trade, primarily its oil exports.

Formation of the authority has been complicated by the refusal of clergymen representing at least a portion of the Shiite Muslims making up 60 percent of Iraq's population to participate in leadership meetings being held under U.S. auspices in Iraq. The largest Shiite organization refused to send a representative to an initial meeting, held last week in Nasiriyah, and it has not responded to an invitation to a second gathering set for Monday. ...

Initial Pentagon postwar plans, drawn up long before the start of the military campaign that ousted Saddam Hussein, called for Garner's operation to administer Iraqi oil funds to pay for the reconstruction effort. The new resolution, according to diplomats who have seen some of the proposed text, endorses U.S. authority, presumably until that authority is turned over to the IIA. ...

A number of key countries that opposed the war, including Chile, Mexico and Germany, in addition to France, say they want Iraq to resume trade with the outside world. But in addition to seeking a primary postwar role for the United Nations, most council members note that the sanctions resolutions adopted in the early 1990s first call for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, to be certified by U.N. weapons inspectors.

The administration opposes the return of the U.N. inspectors to Iraq, saying they would get in the way of U.S. military and other officials already hunting for the banned chemical and biological weapons whose elimination was given as a justification for the war. No unconventional weapons have yet been found, and officials said the new resolution contains no mention of them.

Washington Post, "U.S. to Offer Resolution to End Sanctions" by Karen DeYoung and Colum Lynch, April 25, 2003

The Department of State, as the diplomatic agency of the American executive branch of government, has no policy-making power. Its job is merely to smooth over policy decisions made by corporate executives in the rest of that branch with foreign nations. Why newspapers even feel the need to pretend there is a serious policy role for State is beyond me. So Rumsfeld, with the backing of Cheney and therefore Bush, intend to cut off the UN entirely from Iraqi oil. This is of course necessary in order to accomplish the agenda of the war, which was to control that oil for economic and strategic purposes. If the UN controls it, the war will be lost, at least from the standpoint of the American elite.

Control of Iraqi oil as well as the profits from its sale will under the American plan be entrusted to an "Iraqi" Central Bank fund to be spent either by the United States Army under General Garner or by the "Iraqi" Interim Authority, two institutions controlled by the executive branch of the American government. Distributions from the fund would be "monitored" by the IMF or World Bank, two institutions also controlled by the American elite. For example, voting at the World Bank is weighted and 85% of all total votes are required to alter the charter or the capital base of the bank. Yet the U.S. possesses 17% of the vote alone, giving it the sole veto power over any changes of this type. Although voting on other matters is also weighted, 85% is not required and decisions are usually made by concensus (which is what in the end gives the institution away as a racket run by men of common interest, that of repressing the great masses of people wherever they may be found). The influence of the United States in the World Bank and the IMF, however, is clear. And because so little is understood among most people about how the IMF and World Bank works, this is the preferrable organization to use to channel profits from the sale of Iraqi oil. The U.S. will not give up control over this resource. Otherwise, what was the point?

Another account of the U.S. proposal:

The current thinking in Washington is to put future oil revenues in an account at the Iraqi Central Bank that would be overseen by some international institution or panel, probably involving either the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund.

A State Department official said today that the issue was "how you get the international financial institutions involved in safeguarding and spending the money for the oil sales, what sort of transparent and honest mechanism do you use."

The current plan, the official said, is to solicit suggestions from the World Bank, the I.M.F. and other international financial institutions for the best way to allow the Iraqi people control over their oil. "You could have Iraqis with signature authority over the oil sales, but others in charge of holding the money, accounting for it and so forth," the official said.

New York Times, "Expected U.S. Plan on Iraq Likely to Face U.N. Dispute" by Felcity Barringer, April 26, 2003

I didn't realize it was such a difficult task to "allow the Iraqi people control over their oil." Apparently the best method to do this is to get it as far away from average Iraqis as possible and place the wealth derived from it in international institutions controlled by foreign powers. What will they think of next?

Continuing:

"What they want to do is put an extremely harsh decision in front of the Council," a diplomat said. "They are not understanding well that the United Nations Security Council is in a good mood to find compromises with the United States, but not on the basis of forced decisions that other countries will find very hard to swallow."

The diplomat added, "Here in New York, what they will tell you is that handing over the oil to the United States is too much to ask, too much." Another diplomat agreed, saying, "My suspicion is that there is likely to be initial resistance in the Council mainly on control of the oil." The Bush administration moved quickly to coalesce around a proposal in part because it feared being pre-empted by countries like France and Russia, each of which floated quite different ideas this week.

France called for a suspension of civilian sanctions, which would have left the United Nations in control of the current oil-for-food program, under which the organization had supervised oil sales and purchases of civilian goods since 1996. The Russian envoy suggested putting the entire program directly under the control of Mr. Annan, who now controls only emergency aid procurement. Oil sales under the program stopped on the eve of the war, and oil traders have little interest in resuming their purchases until it is clear who has the legal title to the oil.

The French and Russian governments understand all too well that allowing unilateral U.S. control over Iraq's oil gives it a veto over their economies. France depends on Iraqi oil and Russia depends on the export of its own which can be affected by stepped up American production in the Gulf. After all, this was one of the very purposes of the war and why these two governments (along with the Chinese) opposed it so fiercly.

From Mosul to Falluhaj: this is what Col. Ted Seel was referring as the kind of "lethal activity" that the Americans wished "not to be seen" engaging in and for whom the Americans are training Chalabi's army to handle.

United States soldiers opened fire on Iraqis at an antiwar demonstration here, and according to local hospital officials killed 15 people and wounded about 75. An American officer said today that the troops opened fire after being "intentionally" shot at by some of the protesters, a claim disputed by residents.

Local people said the firing by the Americans was unprovoked as about 200 to 300 demonstrators late Monday night roamed between the United States Army headquarters and in front of a local school, which the Americans took over a few days ago.

The demonstrators "intentionally engaged American soldiers," said Capt. Mike Riedmuller, commanding officer of an Army troop with the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad. "Our soldiers returned deliberately fired shots at people with weapons, and only at people with weapons," he said.

A 15-year-old ninth grader at the school occupied by the Americans, Ahmed Mohammed Awad, was wounded in the clash. He said that after evening prayers a group of young men began demonstrating against the troops' presence in the largely Sunni Muslim town. He said that as they approached the school American soldiers were on the roof and "they just started firing at us."

"First I saw the bullet in my arm, then another one on my other hand," he said. "I felt very dizzy and lost consciousness."

Like many other Iraqis in the Nazzal neighborhood where the incident occurred, Jassim Mohammed Awad, 33, Ahmed's brother, said the Americans prevented him from getting close to the school to take his brother out for treatment. The Americans denied the assertion. "It took me three hours to get him out," Jassim Awad said. "I even walked with a white flag so they knew we only wanted to get our bodies and injured out, and they just said no, no, no!"

The residents complained in general of a cultural clash over the Americans' presence. They said that American soldiers were using binoculars to spy on their women and that they had shown pornography to children. They said that the children will not be sent to school as long as it held by the American soldiers. ...

"Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division came under fire from Iraqis armed with AK-47's," Central Command said in the statement. "The unit exercised its inherent right to self-defense and returned fire."

New York Times, "U.S. Troops Fire on Iraqi Protesters, Leaving 15 Dead" by Ian Fisher, April 29, 2003

Another account from Reuters:

The shooting outraged local people who, like many other Iraqis, welcomed the removal of Saddam Hussein by U.S.-led forces but now want the American troops to leave. It is likely to fuel anti-American sentiment elsewhere in Iraq. U.S. helicopters hovered overhead as angry mourners buried the dead on Tuesday. The white walls of houses near the school were pock-marked by bullets, bullet-riddled cars stood by the roadside and traces of blood marked the ground.

"Our soul and our blood we will sacrifice to you martyrs," hundreds of mourners chanted as they carried at least four simple wooden coffins shoulder-high through the town. ... "They are stealing our oil and they are slaughtering our people," said Shuker Abdullah Hamid, a cousin of one of the victims, 47-year-old Tuamer Abdel Hamid.

"Now, all preachers of Falluja mosques and all youths...are organizing martyr operations against the American occupiers," said a man cloaked in white, using the term often used to describe suicide attacks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There have been a few isolated suicide attacks at military checkpoints, and U.S. troops killed seven Iraqis during a violent demonstration in the northern city of Mosul on April 15, but most anti-American protests have ended peacefully. ...

A local Sunni Muslim cleric, Kamal Shaker Mahmoud, said the protesters had asked the troops to leave the school so that lessons could resume there. "It was a peaceful demonstration. They did not have any weapons," the cleric said. "They (the U.S. troops) opened fire on the protesters because they went out to demonstrate." "We are asking the Americans to leave Iraq completely but first we want them to leave residential areas," he added.

Murhij Rashid, 52, pointed to a grave where gravediggers were throwing dry earth on top and kicking up dust. His 18-year-old son Hussein had just been buried. "There was a demonstration but he did not have any weapon," he said.

Some residents said some of the dead may not have been taking part in the protest. Salah Abdullah Hamid said his cousin, a 36-year-old man employed by the Oil Ministry, was an innocent bystander. "He was not part of the protest. He did not have a weapon. He was killed by American bullets," he said. Asked why the troops had fired, he replied: "We don't know. No one knows why...We want the Americans to leave our country completely. We are a Muslim country." Mahmoud Fawzi Hamdan, 33, said one man, 32-year-old Waleed Saleh Abdel-Latif, was shot dead as he opened the gate to his house for his brother to drive in and two women in the house were hit by bullets but survived.

No matter what, the U.S. army and its proxy Iraqi army once ready will always have an "inherent right to self-defense" as Central Command puts it. How an occupying army obtains such a right is not explained. Does one have a right to defend oneself against people defending themselves from you? The developing pattern here in Mosul and Falluhaj is familiar enough. Much like the Israeli army seemingly never shoots first, so, too, with the Americans. Militaries have a penchant for shifting blame and a long history of refusing to accept accountability for their murders. Are we to believe Central Command or a nine-year old Iraqi boy with shrapnel in his hands? Must we be forced to attribute sinister and politically conniving motives to even the children in Iraq? Granted, it is possible that troops were fired on, even if doubtful. But even if true, the response is grossly disproportionate to the situation--just as in Mosul. Except this time, it was the Sunnis instead of the Shiites being repressed, which really goes to show that it's not any particular ethnicity, religion, or group that the U.S. will repress. It is democracy itself: the people.

Whether there were shots fired at the American troops or not, the writing is on the wall. The resistance is occurring, and if it gains strength, the U.S. will be in a similar position as it was in South Vietnam when it violently defended an unpopular and imposed puppet government of its choosing against the will of the South Vietnamese.