Evidence of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre continues to emerge from the earth of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the BBC reports Oct. 17. Of course our resident Chetniks will tell us this is all more imperialist lies, while their neo-Ustashe rivals (whom they mirror with perfect symmetry) meanwhile blast us for daring to suggest that maybe the Croats committed a few unpleasantries as well. Keep those rotten tomatoes coming, gang!

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said at least 464 immigrants died crossing the border from Mexico into the US during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The death toll was 43% higher than the previous year. "This total by far exceeds any year that we have on record," said CBP spokesperson Mario Villarreal in a phone call from Washington. Villarreal said the main cause of death was heat exposure; more than half the deaths took place in Arizona during a heat wave in June and July of this year. Other causes of death included drownings or car wrecks. (Reuters, Oct. 3)

Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies reaches conclusions similar to those of WW4 REPORT's recent commentary on Iraq's pending consitution. Bennis writes in "The Iraqi Constitution: A Referendum for Disaster" (online at TruthOut): "The constitutional process culminating in Saturday's referendum is not a sign of Iraqi sovereignty and democracy taking hold, but rather a consolidation of U.S. influence and control. Whether Iraq's draft constitution is approved or rejected, the decision is likely to make the current situation worse." Especially insightful are her brief discussions on the related questions of control of Iraqi oil and federalism:

Via TruthOut. Will approval (or rejection) of the new constitution similarly mark a further escalation of violence?

3,663 Iraqis Killed in Past 6 Months
The Associated Press

Friday 14 October 2005

Saturday's vote on Iraq's new constitution takes place nearly six months after the country's first elected government took power, and during that period at least 3,663 Iraqis have been killed in war-related violence, according to an Associated Press count.

The current interim government took power on April 28 after long negotiations that followed parliamentary elections in January.

Months after the fact, apparently, it is revealed that US troops have already engaged Syrian forces on the Iraqi border. Via TruthOut:

GI's and Syrians in Tense Clashes on Iraqi Border
By James Risen and David E. Sanger
The New York Times

Saturday 15 October 2005

Washington, Oct. 14 - A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.

Heavens to Murgatroid! Nuance in the pages of a contemporary left publication! Sasha Abramsky shows in the October issue of The Progressive that it is still, at least, possible. We at WW4 Report do have misgivings about some of what is stated here—for instance, his call for increasing emergency preparedness at nuclear and chemical plants, even with greater public participation, could become just another brick in the fast-consolidating wall of the new security state. But we thoroughly share his sense of alienation from the current self-deluded consensus on the left—while also recognizing the danger of following Christopher Hitchens into the pro-war camp in reaction. This one is worth a read.

A review by former intelligence analysts concludes that the Bush administration "apparently paid little or no attention" to pre-war CIA assessments warning of major cultural and political obstacles to stability in post-war Iraq. The unclassified report, completed in July 2004, now appears publicly for the first time in the quarterly journal Studies in Intelligence, published by the Center for the Study of Intelligence, an independent body within the CIA.

How are we to read this one? Is the US conniving with the Sudan regime while trying to appear not to be? Or is the US gearing up for unilateral intervention in Sudan, and trying to make the UN appear ineffectual in preparation? From Reuters, Oct. 11:

John Bolton has blocked a UN envoy from briefing the Security Council on possible human rights violations in Sudan's Darfur region, saying the council had to act against atrocities and not just talk about them.