|
|
|
|
DISPATCHES FROM
AMERICA
Cindy,
Don and George
By Tom Engelhardt
Retired four-star Army
General Barry McCaffrey said to Time
Magazine:
"The army's
wheels are going to come off in the next 24
months. We are now in a period of considerable
strategic peril. It's because [Pentagon chief
Donald] Rumsfeld has dug in his heels and said, 'I
cannot retreat from my position.'"
Cindy Sheehan testifying
at Representative John Conyers' public hearings on
the Downing Street Memo:
My son, Spc Casey Austin Sheehan,
was KIA [killed in action] in Sadr City Baghdad
on 04/04/04. He was in Iraq for only two weeks
before [Coalition Provisional Authority head] L
Paul Bremer inflamed the Shi'ite militia into a
rebellion which resulted in the deaths of Casey
and six other brave soldiers who were tragically
killed in an ambush. Bill Mitchell, the father
of Sergeant Mike Mitchell, who was one of the
other soldiers killed that awful day, is with us
here. This is a picture of Casey when he was
seven months old. It's an enlargement of a
picture he carried in his wallet until the day
he was killed. He loved this picture of himself.
It was returned to us with his personal effects
from Iraq. He always sucked on those two
fingers. When he was born, he had a flat face
from passing through the birth canal and we
called him "Edward G", short for Edward G
Robinson. How many of you have seen your child
in his/her premature coffin? It is a shocking
and very painful sight. The most heartbreaking
aspect of seeing Casey lying in his casket for
me was that his face was flat again because he
had no muscle tone. He looked like he did when
he was a baby laying in his bassinet. The most
tragic irony is that if the Downing Street Memo
proves to be true, Casey and thousands of people
should still be alive.
Rumsfeld testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee in
March:
"The
world has seen, in the last three-and-a-half
years, the capability of the United States of
America to go into Afghanistan ... and with
20,000, 15,000 troops working with the Afghans do
what 200,000 Soviets couldn't do in a decade.
They've seen the United States and the coalition
forces go into Iraq ... That has to have a
deterrent effect on people." (Ann Scott Tyson, "US
Gaining World's Respect From Wars, Rumsfeld
Asserts", the Washington Post, March 11.)
Bush on arriving for a
meeting with families of the bereaved, including
Cindy Sheehan and her husband on June 17,
2004:
"So, who are we
honoring here?"
A teaser at the "careers
and jobs" screen of GoArmy.com:
"Want an extra
$400 a month?" Click on it and part of what comes
up is: "Qualified active army recruits may be
eligible for AIP [assignment incentive pay] of
$400 per month, up to 36 months for a total of up
to $14,400, if they agree to be assigned to an
army-designated priority unit with a critical role
in current global commitments."
Who is
in that ditch?
Casey Sheehan had one of
those small "critical roles" in the "current
global commitment" in Iraq that, in Rumsfeld's
words, "has to have a deterrent effect on people".
As it happens, Sheehan was one of the unexpectedly
deterred and now, along with 1,846 other American
soldiers, is interred, leaving his
take-no-prisoners mother Cindy - a one-person
antiwar movement - with a critical role to play in
awakening Americans to the horrors and dangers of
the Bush administration's "current global
commitments".
Over the past two years,
administration officials, civilian and military,
have never ceased to talk about "turning corners"
or reaching "tipping points" and achieving
"milestones" in the Iraq-war-that-won't-end. Now
it seems possible that Cindy Sheehan in a
spontaneous act of opposition - her decision to
head for Crawford, Texas, to face down a
vacationing president and demand an explanation
for her son's death - may produce the first real
American tipping point of the Iraq war.
As
a million news articles and TV reports have
informed us, she was stopped about five miles
short of her target, the presidential "ranch" in
Crawford, and found herself unceremoniously
consigned to a ditch at the side of a Texas road,
camping out. And yet somehow, powerless except for
her story, she has managed to take hostage the
president of the US and turned his Crawford refuge
into the American equivalent of Baghdad's Green
Zone. She has mysteriously transformed August's
news into a question of whether, on his way to
meet Republican donors, the president will
helicopter over her encampment or drive past (as
he, in fact, did) in a tinted-windowed black
Chevrolet SUV.
Faced with the power of the
Bush political and media machine, Cindy Sheehan
has engaged in an extreme version of asymmetrical
warfare and, in her person, in her story, in her
version of "the costs of war", she has also
managed to catch many of the tensions of our
present moment. What she has exposed in the
process is the growing weakness and confusion of
the Bush administration. At this moment, it
remains an open question who, in the end, will be
found in that ditch at the side of a Texas road,
her - or the president of the United States.
Confusion in the ranks
Ellen
Knickmeyer of the Washington Post reported last
week that "a US general said ... the violence
would likely escalate as the deadline approached
for drafting a constitution for Iraq". For two
years now, this has been a dime-a-dozen prediction
from American officials trying to cover their
future butts. For the phrase "drafting a
constitution" in that general's quote, you need
only substitute "after the killing of Saddam
Hussein's sons" (July 2003), "for handing over
sovereignty" (June 2004), "for voting for a new
Iraqi government" (January 2005) - or, looking
ahead, "for voting on the constitution" (October,
2005) and, yet again, "for voting for a new Iraqi
government" (December 2005), just as you will be
able to substitute as yet unknown similar
"milestones" that won't turn out to be milestones
as long as our president insists that we must
"stay the course" in Iraq, as he did only recently
as his Crawford vacation began.
After each
spike of violence, at each tipping point, each
time a corner is turned, Bush officials or top
commanders predict that they have the insurgency
under control, only to be ambushed by yet another
spike in violence. In May, for example, more than
three months after violence was supposed to have
spiked and receded in the wake of the Iraqi
election, chairman of the Joint Chiefs General
Richard Myers offered a new explanation - the
"recent spike in violence ... represents an
attempt to discredit the new Iraqi government and
cabinet". When brief lulls in insurgent attacks
(which often represent changes in tactics) aren't
being declared proof that the Iraqi insurgency is
faltering/failing/coming under control, then the
spikes are being claimed as "the last gasp" of the
insurgency, proof of the impending success of Bush
administration policies - those last throes that
Vice President Dick Cheney so notoriously
described to CNN's Wolf Blitzer as June ended.
Recently in a throw (not throe)
up-your-hands mode, Army Brigadier General Karl
Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry
Division, which oversees Baghdad, offered the
following, taking credit for having predicted the
very throe his troops were then engulfed in: "If
you look at the past few months, insurgents have
not been able to sustain attacks, but they tend to
surge every four weeks or so. We are right in the
middle of one of those periods and predicted this
would come ... If they are going to influence the
constitution process, they have only a few days
left to do it, and we fully expect the attacks to
continue."
You would think that someone in
an official capacity would conclude, sooner or
later, that Iraq was a spike in violence.
It's an accepted truth of our times that
the Bush administration has been the most
secretive, disciplined, and on-message
administration in our history. So what an
out-of-control couple of weeks for the president
and his pals. His polls were at, or near, historic
lows; his Iraq war approval numbers headed for, or
dipping below, 40% - and polls are, after all, the
message boards for much of what's left of American
democracy. As he was preparing for his
record-setting presidential vacation in Crawford,
Bush and his advisors couldn't even agree on
whether we were in a "global struggle with violent
extremism" or in a "global war on terror". (The
president finally opted for war.) He was, of
course, leaving behind in Washington a special
counsel, called into being by his administration
but now beyond its control, who held a sword of
judicial Damocles over key presidential aides (and
who can probably parse sinking presidential polls
as well as anyone).
Iraq - you can't leave
home without it - has, of course, been at the
heart of everything Bushworld hasn't been able to
shake off, at least since May 2, 2003. On that day
(when, ominously enough, seven American soldiers
were wounded by a grenade attack in Fallujah), our
president co-piloted a jet onto the USS Abraham
Lincoln, an aircraft carrier halted off the San
Diego coast (lest it dock and he only be able to
walk on board). All togged out in a military
uniform, he declared "major combat operations" at
an end, while standing under a White
House-produced banner reading "mission
accomplished". Ever since then, Bush has been on
that mission (un)accomplished and Iraq has proved
nothing if not a black hole, sucking in his
administration and the American military along
with neo-conservative dreams and plans of every
ambitious sort.
The Iraqi insurgency that
should never have happened, or should at least
have died down after unknown thousands of its foot
soldiers were killed or imprisoned by the American
military, inconveniently managed to turn the early
days of August into a killing zone for American
soldiers. Sixteen Marine Reservists from a single
unit in Ohio were killed in a couple of days;
seven soldiers from the Pennsylvania National
Guard were killed, again in a few days.
Thirty-seven Americans were reported to have died
in Iraq in the first 11 days of the presidential
vacation, putting American casualties at the top
of the TV news night after night. And yet the
administration has seemed capable only of standing
by helplessly, refusing to give an inch on the
"compassion" president's decision - he and his
advisors are still navigating by the anti-Vietnam
playbook - not to visit grief-stricken communities
in either Ohio or Pennsylvania, or ever to be
caught attending the funeral of one of the boys or
girls he sent abroad to die. He did manage,
however, to fly to the Sandia National
Laboratories in New Mexico to sign the energy bill
and also left his ranch to hobnob with millionaire
Republican donors.
In this same period,
cracks in relations between an increasingly angry
military command in Iraq and administration
officials back in Washington began to appear for
all to see. The issue, for desperate military
officers, was – as for Cindy Sheehan - how in the
world to get our troops out of Iraq before the
all-volunteer military goes over an Iraqi cliff,
wheels and all.
As July ended, our top
general in Iraq, George W Casey, announced (with
many conditional "ifs") that we should be able to
start drawing-down American troops significantly
by the following spring - that tens of thousands
of them were likely to leave then and tens of
thousands more by the end of 2006, and Rumsfeld
initially backed him up somewhat edgily. Then, as
Rumsfeld hedged, more military people jumped into
the media fray with leaks and comments of all
sorts about possible Iraqi drawdowns and there was
a sudden squall of front-page articles on
withdrawal strategies for a hard-pressed
administration in an increasingly unpopular war.
At the same time, confusingly, reports began to
surface indicating that, because of another of
those prospective spikes in violence, the
administration would actually be increasing
American troop strength in Iraq before the
December elections by 10,000-20,000 soldiers.
Finally, after a war council of the
Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
(Pentagon and State Department) "teams" in
Crawford last week, the president held a news
conference (devoted in part to responding to Cindy
Sheehan) and promptly launched a new, ad-style
near-jingle to explain the withdrawal moment to
the American people: "As Iraqis stand up," he
intoned, "we will stand down."
But in a
week in which the American general in command of
transportation in Iraq announced that roadside
bomb attacks against his convoys had doubled over
the past year, such words sounded empty -
especially as news flowed in suggesting that,
while the insurgents continued to fight fiercely,
the new Iraqi military seemed in no rush
whatsoever to "stand up" and that our own
commanders believed it might never do so in
significant numbers. At his news conference, our
never-never-land president nonetheless spoke
several times of being pleased to announce
"progress" in Iraq. ("And we're making progress
training the Iraqis. Oh, I know it's hard for some
Americans to see that progress, but we are making
progress.")
He spoke as well of attempts
to ease the burden on the no-longer-weekend
warriors of the National Guard and the Reserves
(who are taking unprecedented casualties in
August). He said: "We've also taken steps to
improve the call-up process for our Guard and for
our Reserves. We've provided them with earlier
notifications. We've given them greater certainty
about the length of their tours. We minimized the
number of extensions and repeat mobilizations."
Unfortunately, at just this moment, Joint Chiefs
head Myers was speaking of the possibility of
calling soldiers back for their third tours of
duty in Iraq: "There's the possibility of people
going back for a third term, sure. That's always
out there. We are at war."
"Pulling the
troops out would send a terrible signal to the
enemy," the president insisted as he turned to the
matter of withdrawal in his news conference. He
then dismissed drawdown maneuvers as "speculation
and rumors"; and, on being confronted by a
reporter with the statements of his own military
men, added, "I suspect what you were hearing was
speculation based upon progress that some are
seeing in Iraq as to whether or not the Iraqis
will be able to take the fight to the enemy."
While that may sound vague, it was,
nonetheless, the sound of a president (who, along
with his secretary of defense, has always promised
to abide by whatever his generals in the field
wanted) disputing those commanders in public.
General Casey was also reportedly "rebuked" in
private for his withdrawal comments. Our
commanders in Iraq are, of course, the official
realists in this war, having long ago given up on
the idea that the insurgency could ever be
defeated by force of US arms and worrying as they
do about those "wheels coming off" the American
military machine.
In fact, the Bush
administration's occupation of Iraq - as Howard
Zinn put the matter recently, "We liberated Iraq
from Saddam Hussein, but not from us." - is
threatening to prove one of the great asymmetric
catastrophes in recent military history. A rag-tag
bunch of insurgents, now estimated in the tens of
thousands, using garage-door openers and cell
phones to set off roadside bombs and egg-timers to
fire mortars at US bases (lest they be around when
the return fire comes in), have fought the US
military to at least a draw. We're talking about a
military that, not so long ago, was being touted
as the most powerful force not just on this planet
at this moment but on any planet in all of
galactic history.
Previously, such rumors
of withdrawal followed by a quiet hike in troop
strength in Iraq might have been simply another
clever administration attempt to manipulate the
public and have it both ways. At the moment,
however, they seem to be a sign not of
manipulation but of confusion, discord and
uncertainty about what to do next. If the public
was left confused by such "conflicting signals"
about an Iraqi withdrawal, wrote Peter Baker of
the Washington Post, "it may be no more unsure
than the administration itself, as some government
officials involved in Iraq policy privately
acknowledge." An unnamed "military officer in
Washington" typically commented to Anne E Kornblut
of the New York Times, "We need to stick to one
message. This vacillation creates confusion for
the American public."
Even administration
officials are now evidently "significantly
lowering expectations" and thinking about how
exactly to jump off the sinking Iraqi ship. The
president, beseeching "the public to stick with
his strategy despite continuing mayhem on the
ground", is, Baker commented, "trying to buy
time". But buy time for what? This is the question
that has essentially paralyzed Bush's top
officials as they face a world suddenly not in
their control.
Cindy and the media
And then, if matters weren't bad enough,
there was Cindy Sheehan. She drove to Crawford
with a few supporters in a caravan of perhaps a
dozen vehicles and an old red, white and blue bus
with the blunt phrase "Impeachment Tour" written
on it. She carried with her a tent, a sleeping
bag, some clothes and evidently not much else. She
parked at the side of the road and camped out -
and the next thing anyone knew, she had forced the
president to send out not the Secret Service or
some minor bureaucrat, but two of his top men,
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and
Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin. For 45 minutes,
they met and negotiated with her, the way you
might with a recalcitrant foreign head of state.
Rather than being flattered and giving ground, she
just sent them back, insisting that she would wait
where she was to get the president's explanation
for her son's death. ("They said they'd pass on my
concerns to George Bush. I said, 'Fine, but I'm
not talking to anybody else but him'.")
So
there she was, as people inspired by her began to
gather - the hardy women of Code Pink; other
parents whose children had died in Iraq; a former
State Department official who had resigned her
post to protest the onrushing Iraq war; "a
political consultant and a team of public
relations professionals"; antiwar protestors of
all sorts; and, of course, the media. Quite
capable of reading administration weakness in the
polls, trapped in no-news Crawford with a
president always determined to offer them less
than nothing, hardened by an administration whose
objective for any media not its own was only
"rollback", and sympathetic to a grieving mother
from Bush's war, reporters found themselves with
an irresistible story at a moment when they could
actually run with it.
Literally hundreds
of news articles - almost every one a sympathetic
profile of the distraught mother and her
altar-boy, Eagle-Scout dead son - poured out;
while Sheehan was suddenly on the morning TV shows
and the nightly news, where a stop-off at "Camp
Casey" or the "Crawford Peace House" was suddenly
de rigeur. And the next thing you knew, there was
the president at his news conference forced to
flinch a second time and, though Sheehan was
clobbering him, offer "sympathy" to a grieving
mother at the side of the road five miles away
whom he wasn't about to invite in, even for a
simple meeting, but who just wouldn't leave. ("And
so, you know, listen, I sympathize with Mrs
Sheehan. She feels strongly about her - about her
position. And I am - she has every right in the
world to say what she believes. This is America.
She has a right to her position ... ").
Talk about asymmetric warfare. One woman
against the massed and proven might of the Bush
political machine and its major media allies (plus
assorted bloggers) and though some of them started
whacking away immediately, Cindy Sheehan remained
unfazed. After all, she had been toiling in the
wilderness and this was her moment. Whatever the
right-wing press did, she could take it - and, of
course, the mainstream media had for the time
being decided to fall in love with her. After all,
she was perfect. American reporters love a
one-on-one, "showdown" situation without much
context, a face-to-face shoot-out at the OK
Corral. (Remember those endless weeks on TV
labeled "Showdown with Saddam"?) In addition, they
were - let's be honest - undoubtedly angry after
the five-year-long pacification campaign the
administration had waged against them.
But
they had their own ideas about who exactly Cindy
Sheehan should be to win over America. They would
paint a strikingly consistent, quite moving, but
not completely accurate picture of her. They would
attempt to tame her by shearing away her language,
not just the profanity for which she was known,
but the very fierceness of her words. She had no
hesitation about calling the president "an evil
maniac", "a lying bastard" or the administration
"those lying bastards", "chickenhawks",
"warmongers", "shameful cowards" and "war
criminals". She called for the president's
"impeachment", for the jailing of the whole top
layer of the administration (no pardons). She
called for American troops to be pulled out of
Iraq now. And most of this largely disappeared
from a much-softened media portrait of a grieving
antiwar mother.
And yet Sheehan herself
seems unfazed by the media circus and
image-shaping going on around her. In a world
where horrors are referred to euphemistically, or
politely, or artfully ignored, she does something
quite rare - she calls things by their names as
she sees them. She is as blunt and impolite in her
mission as the media is circumspect and polite in
its job, as most of the opposition to Bush is in
its "opposition". And it was her very bluntness,
her ability to shock by calling things by their
actual names, by acting as she saw fit, that let
her break through, and that may help turn a set of
unhappy public opinion polls into a full-scale
antiwar movement.
What will happen next?
Will the president actually attend a funeral? Will
Cindy Sheehan force him from his Green-Zone world?
Suddenly, almost anything seems possible.
However the media deals with her, she
embodies every bind the administration is in. As
with Iraq (as well as Iran), the administration
can't either make its will felt or sweep her off
the landscape. Bush and his officials blinked at a
moment when they would certainly have liked to
whack her, fearing the power of the mother of a
dead son from their war. And then, completely
uncharacteristically, they vacillated and
flip-flopped. They ignored her, then negotiated.
They sent out their attack dogs to flail at her,
then expressed sympathy. Officials, who have
always known what to do before, had no idea what
to do with Cindy Sheehan. The most powerful people
in the world, they surely feel trapped and
helpless. Somehow, she's taken that magical
presidential something out of Bush and cut him
down to size. It's been a remarkable performance
so far.
The tipping point?
Casey Sheehan died on April 4, 2004, soon
after he arrived for his tour of duty in Iraq. His
mother had never wanted him to go to a war that
was "wrong", a place where he might have to "kill
innocent people" and where he might die. ("I
begged him not to go. I said, 'I'll take you to
Canada' ... but he said, 'Mom, I have to go. It's
my duty. My buddies are going'.") In her grief -
always beyond imagining for those of us who have
not lost a child - this woman found her calling,
one that she would never have wanted and that no
one would have ever wished on her.
For
more than a year, having set up a small
organization, Gold Star Families for Peace, she
traveled the country insisting that the president
explain, but in relative obscurity - except on the
Internet, that place where so much gestates that
later bursts into our mainstream world and where
today, at Technorati.com, which monitors usage on
blogs, her name is the most frequently searched
for of all. As she has said, "If we didn't have
the Internet, none of us would really know what
was truly going on. This is something that can't
be ignored."
In March, she appeared -
thanks to prescient editors - on the cover of the
Nation magazine for an article, The New Face of
Protest?, on the developing military and
military-family inspired, antiwar movement. She
was giving a speech at the Veterans for Peace
national convention in Dallas when she evidently
decided that she had to head for Crawford, and the
rest you know.
As our president likes to
speak about "our mission" in Iraq and "our mission
of defeating terrorists" in the world, so Cindy
Sheehan has found herself on a mission. Our
president speaks resolutely of "staying the
course" in Iraq. That's exactly what Cindy Sheehan
is planning to do in Crawford (and undoubtedly
beyond). Bush prides himself on not flinching,
giving ground, or ever saying he's sorry. But he
also had remarkably good luck until he ran into
Cindy. Whether in his presidential runs, in
Congress, or elsewhere, he really hasn't come up
against an opponent who was ready to dig in and
duke it out blow for blow, an opponent ready never
to flinch, never to apologize, never to mince
words, never to take prisoners.
Now he's
got one - and like so many personal demons, she's
been called up from the Id of his own war: a
mother of one of the dead who demands an
explanation, an answer, when no answer he gives
will ever conceivably do; a woman who, like his
neo-con companions, has no hesitation about going
for the jugular. And, amazingly, she's already
made the man flinch twice.
No matter how
the media surrounds her or tries to tame her, the
fact is she's torn up the oppositional rule book.
She's a woman made in the mold of Iraq war vet
Paul Hackett, who ran in a hopelessly Republican
congressional district recently. He didn't
hesitate to call the president a "chicken hawk" or
a "son of a bitch", and to the surprise of all won
48% of the vote doing so, leading Newt Gingrich to
say that the race "should serve as a wake-up call
to Republicans" for the 2006 elections.
There's a lesson in this. Americans are
not, generally speaking, your basic
turn-the-other-cheek sorts of folks. They like to
know that the people they vote for or support
will, at the very least, stand there and whack
back, if whacked at. Whatever she may have been
before, Cindy Sheehan was beaten into just that
shape on the anvil of her son's death. ("I was
stunned and dismayed when the United States
invaded Iraq. I didn't agree with it. I didn't
think it was right, but I never protested until
after Casey was killed.") Some of her testimony at
the Conyers hearings on the Downing Street Memo
catches this spirit and it's well worth quoting:
There are a few people around the US
and a couple of my fellow witnesses who were a
little justifiably worried that in my anger and
anguish over Casey's premeditated death, I would
use some swear words, as I have been known to do
on occasion when speaking about the subject. Mr
Conyers, out of my deep respect for you, the
other representatives here, my fellow witnesses,
and viewers of these historic proceedings, I was
able to make it through an entire testimony
without using any profanity. However, if anyone
deserves to be angry and use profanity, it is I.
What happened to Casey and humanity because of
the apparent dearth of honesty in our country's
leadership is so profane that it defies even my
vocabulary skills. We as Americans should be
offended more by the profanity of the actions of
this administration than by swear words. We have
all heard the old adage that actions speak
louder than words and for the sake of Casey and
our other precious children, please hold someone
accountable for their actions and their words of
deception. Last week, the Pentagon
relieved a four-star general of his command
allegedly because he had an affair, while
separated from his wife, with a woman not in the
military or the government; and yet not a single
top official or high-ranking officer (except for
scapegoat Brigadier Gen Janice Karpinski) has
suffered for American acts at Abu Ghraib, or
murder and torture throughout our imperium, or for
torture and abuse at our prison in Guantanamo, or
for any of the disasters of Iraq. In such a
context, the words "please hold someone
accountable" by the mother of a boy killed in
Iraq, a woman on a mission who doesn't plan to
back down or leave off any time soon - well, that
truly constitutes going directly for the
president's political throat. It's mano a
mano time, and while I would never
underestimate what this administration might do, I
wouldn't underestimate the fierce power of an
angry mother either. The Bush administration is in
trouble in Iraq, in Washington, and in Crawford.
Note on sources: Cindy
Sheehan is first and foremost an Internet
phenomenon. Those of you who want to read her
writings since 2004 should visit her archive at
the always lively libertarian site,
LewRockwell.com. (Rockwell seems to specialize in
strong women, publishing as well the writings of
retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski.) For
the Sheehan phenomenon in its present incarnation,
check out a new website www.meetwithcindy.org, but
then go to the must-visit site,
Afterdowningstreet.com, which has a fascinating,
ever-updated Sheehan subsection.
Tom
Engelhardt is editor of Tomdispatch and the
author of The End of Victory Culture.
(Copyright 2005 Tomdispatch. Used by
permission.)
(Copyright 2005 Tom
Engelhardt) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
