Tuesday, June 03, 2014

Guantanomo


Norman Pollack has another great column at CounterPunch and this is from it:
With this background, we move to last week in illustration of Obama’s full-court press toward incipient if not also actualized fascism. I say “Obama,” because in this case the FBI but more important a discussion to follow on NSA, one finds a direct projection of/from the government; neither one, again, especially NSA, can be dismissed simply as a “rogue” agency, and instead reflect the pith of Administration policy: pursuit of continued global hegemony through solidification, beyond obviously powerful military forces, of a National Security State, a prime requirement being the practice of surveillance at home and abroad. One of the tests of a democratic polity is accountability at the very top—and regrettably America has neither, the lack of the latter testifying to the absence of the former.
Conversely, the situation now worsens, each daily flagrancy, as in the violation and near-destruction of privacy, equally, rule of law, in government’s working toward that end, reveals the deadly metastasizing of American institutions in general, the courts, Congress, ultimately the people: ramifying consequences of cynicism, corruption, and, to be more charitable than the situation warrants, false consciousness, all in the service of ruling groups integrated in the form of financial-industrial-commercial-military elites, with what is now termed the political class (a designation I find, as to its role and independent power, a nifty slogan yet wholly inadequate ) merely their man/maid servants, for an older generation of radicals, then, following Veblen, the Swiss Guards of the Vested Interests, servicing their needs in domestic and foreign policy.



Great column.

Today's big news has been the fallout from Barack's negotiation with terrorists (he released five prisoners from Guantanamo to secure the release of 1 American soldier).  In doing so, he broke the law by not informing Congress.

He also did something else.  Glenn Greenwald catches it:


Both Serwer and a new Washington Post article this morning note the gross and obvious hypocrisy of Obama and his Democratic loyalists now using Article-II-über-alles signing statements to ignore congressionally enacted laws relating to the War on Terror. Quoting an expert on signing statements, the Post – referencing Obama’s Bush-era condemnation of signing statements — sums up much of the last six years of political events in the US: “Senator Obama had a very different view than President Obama.”
But the eagerness of many Democrats to radically change everything they claimed to believe as of January 20, 2009 is far too familiar and well-documented at this point to be worth spending much time on. Far more significant are the implications for Obama’s infamously unfulfilled pledge to close Guantanamo.
The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?
But once you take the position that Obama can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees, then what possible excuse is left for his failure to close the camp?

That's so true.

He promised to close Guantanamo in his first term and never did.

He broke his promise and blamed it on Congress.

But now he's shown that he could do it all along.

He chose not to.

Barack's revealed himself -- yet again -- as a liar.



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Tuesday, June 3, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri continues targeting civilians, Nouri continues bombing hospitals, the VA scandal has many components, and much more.



US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  His office issued the following today:

Miller Demands VA Comply with HVAC-Issued Subpoena, Threatens Additional Legal Action

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527
Jun 3, 2014


WASHINGTON, D.C.— After writing Acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson regarding VA’s repeated failure to comply fully with an HVAC-issued subpoena, Chairman Jeff Miller released the following statement.  

 “Today’s VA is a case study in how to stonewall the press, the public and Congress. And as we found out last week, often times officials from across the department have routinely sought to hide information about some of VA’s most pressing problems from the department’s own senior leaders. I am hoping Acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson will put an immediate stop these disturbing trends. To that end, I have asked Sec. Gibson to provide our committee with any and all remaining documents responsive to our May 8 subpoena no later than June 9, 2014. Right now, Sec. Gibson has a chance to begin to repair the reputation of a department that has gained notoriety for its secrecy and duplicity with the public and indifference to the constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities of Congress. I am hoping he makes the most of this chance.” Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

 Related
Chairman Miller Letter to Sec. Gibson Regarding VA’s Noncompliance with Committee-Issued Subpoena
June 2, 2014




This isn't a minor issue that Miller is raising.  This is a major one.  As we noted in Friday's snapshot, a culture of secrecy has taken hold at the VA.  Congress has been rebuffed on requests, has had to resort to subpoenas and those get rebuffed as well.  The people are represented by the Congress, the legislative branch is a co-equal branch of government to the executive branch (and to the judicial branch).  Congress is tasked with laws and oversight and it can't do its job if the executive branch is not providing accurate information.

In Friday's snapshot, I made a number of people angry when I stated (yes, "stated," the snapshot are dictated, I don't type them up) the following:

 It was about Congressional requests that are not being honored.  Congress is supposed to provide oversight. But since 2009, the VA has stonewalled Congress and outright ignored requests for information.
You can blame the White House for that since it's over the VA.  I don't know that I would or wouldn't.  But it is a problem and everyone should be aware of it now and the White House should order the VA to start complying with all Congressional requests as, in fact, they're legally supposed to.

"You can blame the White House for that since it's over the VA.  I don't know that I would or wouldn't."  That's what made people angry.

I had no problem calling for Eric Shinseki's resignation.  When he revealed to Congress October 14, 2009 that he'd known since January that the rollout on the Post-9/11 GI Bill would not go smoothly, that he'd been told of that when he became VA Secretary, that he hired an outside consultant to review the situation and the consultant said the same thing, that's when I called for Shinseki's resignation.  He knew there would be a problem.  He did not give veterans a heads up.  He did not give Congress a heads up.  When the problems started with checks not being received, he allowed VA officials to publicly blame education institutions and to blame veterans.  He should never have allowed that.  I have no problem calling him out and veterans suffered because of him.

Barack?

I've got six years demonstrating I have no problem calling out Barack as president.  And I may end up calling him out on the VA issues.  I have no problem stating that he's ultimately responsible.  But Shinseki making one mistake did not turn me against Shinseki.  It was finding out that he knew veterans were going to suffer and he not only didn't inform veterans or Congress but he also allowed his Department to lie to the public.  That's a crossed line.

I can call Barack out for Iraq (and have and will) and I can call out for The Drone War, for the illegal spying, for any number of things.  And I'm fine with that.  But I have no idea what information he received.  I thought he was willfully ignorant of some VA issues.  The big one was the seamless transition -- an electronic medical record created for a service member which would follow them from the Pentagon to VA when they left the service and became a veteran.

Congress poured billions into that.  It is still not up and running.

We have called out the 'progress' on that repeatedly.  The press has ignored it, we haven't.  The VA Secretary and the Secretary of Defense had to first agree on which computer system to use -- they currently use two different systems.  Once that's decided, things move forward.

I knew for a fact that Leon Panetta had listened to Shinseki's argument for which system to use (Shinseki wanted to use VA's system) and Leon told him, "Fine.  Use it.  Let's move on to the next step."  When I wrote about that here, a friend wanted me to know that this was basically Robert Gates' response as well.  (Robert Gates was Barack's first Secretary of Defense.  Leon Panetta became his second.  Chuck Hagel is currently the third.)

So I began noting that Gates had also agreed so that the program could move forward.

But it never did.  And I would call Barack out for that here.  Especially when, less than two months after Hagel became Secretary of Defense, Ranking Member Mike Michuad asks Shinseki about the progress on this issue and Shinseki, who's been working on it for five years now, blames Hagel.  He says Hagel's adjusting to his job and so nothing's been done.

I blamed Barack -- here and in loud conversations with friends in the administration.  Fortunately, Hagel was offended (who wouldn't be?) by Shinseki using him as a scapegoat and Hagel insisted on a meeting with Barack -- Hagel, Shinseki and Barack.  At that meeting, a system was decided on and things were supposed to move forward.  Did Barack not know about the foot dragging before that meet-up was scheduled?  Possibly he didn't.  I don't know.  I do know when he finally got involved, the issue was resolved.

I don't know at present how much honesty on the VA reached Barack.  So I'm not comfortable making him the focus of my VA critiques.  If others are, they should do so.  I'm not saying he's off-limits.  I am saying that, for me, I'm not there yet.  If others are, more power to them.

My focus in calling for Shinseki's resignation was because Shinseki was clearly and repeatedly failing.  Veterans deserved better than they were getting.

Barack hasn't lived up to his promise to veterans.  That's a fact as far as I'm concerned.  But, barring a revelation from a friend in the administration (I don't see one coming -- I know Leon Panetta, if Barack was intentionally failing veterans, Leon wouldn't have stood for it and would have been publicly critical of Barack), I can see this as Barack not getting the needed information to know what was going on.  By that, I mean Shinseki gave happy talk presentations that were not rooted in fact.

And we can all be fooled and tricked.  (I'm not trying to bring anyone over to my way of thinking, I'm merely explaining where I stand on the issue.)

There is a culture of secrecy at the VA.  They have not been transparent.  They have quibbled over word choice with the Office of the Inspector General (an "error" is an error, the VA needs to stop splitting hairs).  They have flat out lied and they're running about three shell games right now.

All of the problems with the VA go to the culture of secrecy.


Melinda Henneberger (Washington Post) had  a strong article on the VA which noted:

When he put new guidelines in place requiring that veterans be seen quickly, the response was to fake the paperwork to make it look as though wait times had disappeared.
But with nothing less than the lives of our veterans at stake, how could employees do that, and why would they lie?
Nickolaus’s answer to that question is that after years of being “told to shut up or retire,” most people eventually do one or the other. “You see the dead wood and get exasperated.”Overwhelmed, she said, you despair of actually changing anything, in other words, and give up.

That's the culture and it needs to end.

Barack should now be aware of it.  He should be calling for the VA to be transparent, to use the same terms with the same definitions as the Office of Inspector General and for the VA to comply will all Congressional information requests.

If Barack doesn't do that after the failures of the Shinseki period, I will have no problem calling him out.  And I will do it loudly and mockingly and any way I feel at that moment.

But for me this primary issue was Shinseki was too quick to believe anything he was told and provided too little oversight and, most of all, his actions were harming veterans.  I wanted him gone and now he's gone. The problems aren't going to disappear.  They're going to have to be addressed and I hope Barack addresses them.  If someone who is as critical of Barack as I am can hope that he will demand real accountability at the VA and end the culture of secrecy, this could be a big win for him with others because I'm not a Barack fan.  I didn't vote for him either time.  (In 2008, I voted for a candidate not with the duopoly and in 2012 I didn't vote for the office of president.)   But I will be the first to applaud him if he can end the culture of secrecy.  Hell, I'd applaud if he could even just make a strong dent in it.

Because the secrecy is what is harming the veterans.  It's what caused the problems with the tuition checks, it's what causes people with Post-Traumatic Stress being stripped of their diagnosis.  It's behind every scandal under Shinseki and all the ones to come if this is not addressed.  If the secrecy is removed, then Congress and the American people can know the truth and work on solutions.  If the culture of secrecy continues, expect more press exposes.

The VA is not going to meet a number of goals they set for FY 2015.  It would be really smart for them to stop lying and admit it's not happening so they and the Congress could work together to figure out how to improve.

That's where I am on the issues and why I'm there.  Here's where Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are via a statement they issued yesterday:


This is a defining moment in American history. After decades of neglect, years of failure and weeks of controversy, all of America is focused on our nation’s veterans. As a result of the scandal that began in Phoenix, the sacred trust at the VA has been broken. But it can be rebuilt. With leadership, creativity and tenacity, the VA can be stronger in the broken places. 
Now can be the time when America can finally turn the corner on decades of failures at the VA—and for our veterans of all generations more broadly. 
The national membership of IAVA calls on President Obama to move quickly to create and execute a bold, comprehensive plan to support all generations of American veterans. It must be a top priority for the President for the duration of his term and involve the entire federal government, Congress, the private sector, philanthropy, veterans groups, the medical community and every resource our great nation can muster. It’s time for a Marshall Plan for veterans. 
America’s veterans are depending on strong leadership from the President and are standing by to support in any way needed. 
The plan should include the following 8 steps as recommended by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA):  
1. Appoint a Post-9/11 veteran, or someone very familiar with our community, who is a proven, dynamic leader capable of making dramatic changes and inspiring the turnaround VA needs. The VA needs a proven reformer at the top who can end the crisis and drive the VA to become the 21st Century organization our veterans deserve. America needs a unique brand of hybrid leader--a proactive change-agent who understands Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, technology, healthcare and Congress. The new Secretary must also be an effective communicator who can level with the public, operate effectively in the midst of a growing scandal that may span dozens of cities and continue for months, and inspire the best talent in America to answer the call to serve at VA.
2. Initiative a full criminal investigation and punish all violators to the full extent of the law. The IG has revealed a full system failure. An unknown number of bad actors have ruined the reputation of the VA. Those who have violated America’s sacred trust with our veterans must be rooted out nationwide and held accountable. Only if these people are cleansed from the system will the VA workforce, IAVA members and the rest of America ever have faith and trust in the system again. 
3. Implement the recommendations of interim IG report for Phoenix. The interim IG report recommended that the VA: (1) do a nationwide review of all facilities, (2) audit new requests for appointments across the system to ensure all veterans are on the list to be seen, and (3) reach out to veterans affected in Phoenix to get them into care. The VA must now to implement these recommendations immediately.
4. Pass the VA Management Accountability Act. The Senate must act now to pass the VA Management Accountability Act. The bill (endorsed by Secretary Shinseki in his final public remarks) gives the Secretary of the VA the authority to remove under-performing Senior Executive Service employees from their jobs. Without the ability to fire poor-performing managers, the next VA Secretary will struggle to restore a culture of accountability throughout the VA. 
5. Support the recommendations in IAVA’s 2014 Policy Agenda that focus on building a 21st Century VA. For years, IAVA has demanded a 21st Century VA, an organization able to find problems, respond decisively, and provide the quality of care veterans of all generations deserve. This is especially urgent for IAVA veterans who present new healthcare needs, more gender diversity, and significant geographic shifts. To move towards a 21st Century VA, Congress and the VA must: 



A. Mandate best practices for managing VA medical facilities. There is a saying that when you’ve seen one VA hospital, you’ve seen one VA hospital. But there are best management practices that can improve care at the VA if implemented across the entire system.
B. Overhaul the training and technology of the VA’s scheduling system. The nationwide audit of VA facilities exposed many problems in the training of VA scheduling employees. The VA must re-establish scheduling guidelines, improve training for staff, and invest in new scheduling technology.
C. Change performance metrics to focus on quality of care. The VA scandal has exposed what many veteran organizations have talked about for years: accountability is lacking at the VA. The VA must realign its performance metrics and performance incentives to encourage and deliver quality care.
D. Smooth the Transition between the Department of Defense and the VA. Too much is lost between the DoD and VA. Despite significant investment, there is still no interoperable health record and many veterans never enroll in VA care. The DoD and VA must improve collaboration to adequately care for today’s veterans. 
E. Invest in Technology to Transform the VA. The technology underpinning all of the VA’s work, including the disability claims process and appointment scheduling, is woefully outdated. Without 21st Century technology, the VA can never be a 21st Century organization. 

6. Fully Fund the VA to the levels recommended by the Independent Budget. Despite consistently claiming otherwise, it is clear that the VA does not have the resources it needs to meet the demand for care. The VA currently relies on outdated and inadequate formulas to project their needs. Congress should fully fund the VA to the levels recommended by the Independent Budget, a budget written by leading veteran service organizations including IAVA. In FY2014, the IB recommended $4 billion more for discretionary medical services funds than the President requested or Congress appropriated. 

7. Support best-in-class non-profit organizations that the fill gaps. The VA can not meet all of the needs of America’s veterans alone. And some vets will never go to the VA. Non-profits fill the gaps and are often there for vets when VA can’t be. The VA is also often most effective when it partners with non-profits, as demonstrated by the tremendous progress made toward ending veteran homelessness. Innovative programs like IAVA’s Rapid Response Referral Program (RRRP) assist veterans in reaching private, local and VA resources in times of crisis. They also serve veterans who are not eligible for VA services--like those with “other than honorable” discharge status.
The public must donate their time, money and talent to trusted, effective, best-in-class non-profit organizations who continue to face growing demand with extremely limited resources. Philanthropy, corporate leaders, and all Americans must donate as generously as possible now to support these essential groups supporting veterans. The Iraq and Afghanistan Deployment Impact Fund (IADIF), the Schultz Foundation, the recent First Lady's donor initiative, and Robin Hood have all created effective blueprints for national support that must be replicated, expanded and scaled. 
8. Combat suicide by passing the bi-partisan Suicide Prevention for America’s Veterans (SAV) Act, enacting an Executive Order, and connecting 1 million veterans with resources by the end of 2014. According to VA data, 22 veterans die by suicide each day. Many of these men and women never reached the VA. Only bold, comprehensive action will prevent suicide and ensure that veterans have access to quality mental health care. Congress must act by passing the Suicide Prevention for America’s Veterans Act (SAV Act). The President must issue an Executive Order as outlined by IAVA. And all American can help by promoting suicide prevention resources in their local communities. 


Mike Prysner is an astute person.  We'll provide a link to his piece at Global Research (Mike is also an Iraq War veteran.)  But I can't quote from it because it's premise is Congress isn't funding the VA adequately.

I'm sorry, Mike's too intelligent to make that assertion.

The VA, like every other Department in Barack's Cabinet, creates their own budget request.

So stop this generic underfunding claims garbage.

Show me where the VA requested X and wasn't given it by Congress, show me that or stop this nonsense.

Beto O'Roarke is a Democrat from Texas in the US House of Representatives. Last Wednesday night, he did what members of the House and Senate Veterans Comittees do over and over: Ask VA officials present for the hearing if they needed more funding, if they needed more anything.

As happens over and over and over at these hearings, VA begged off requesting more funds.

I'm tired of hearing this nonsense.

If VA is underfunded -- no one's demonstrated that it is for all their graphs and claims -- then that falls on VA.  VA submits its own budget.  I can't think of any other department -- can you? -- that got mandatory overtime (and is still getting it).

I like Mike but this is nonsense: "Meanies denied VA the money it needed!"

It's a wonderful talking point, it's just not an accurate one.  Do I need to -- because I damn well can, I have a memory like an elephant (in college, Rebecca and Elaine nicknamed Memorac because of my memory) -- list every House and Senate Committee member who's asked the VA in a Congressional hearing if they needed more money, if they needed anything else?  I can do that.  I can do that going back to 2006.  It's Democrats and Republicans.   I can also tell you which VA officials insisted to Congress that they didn't want more employees that, for example, adding new employees for the claims backlog would only increase the backlog -- they insisted -- because it takes so long to train a claims worker.

I'm going to say it again, it's a talking point, it isn't reality.

I'm kind of disturbed to see someone of Mike's political background basically insist the answer is to throw more money at the VA.

I think he can make an argument that the VA has been underfunded -- if he's taking into account that leadership at the VA is responsible for the underfunding.  But to blame Congress is going to be ridiculous to anyone who's followed the topic and attended hearings.

I'm really bothered by Mike's argument.  The reason I'm bothered by it is the easiest thing in the world is to give money.  Someone comes up to you, for example, on the sidewalk and asks for change or whatever, you give them money and then you walk away, you walk away under the impression that you've really done something and, self-satisified, you focus on something else.

The Office of the Inspector General found systemic problems and issues.  Tossing money at the problem will certainly allow all of us in America who don't use the VA to feel better about ourselves and focus on something else.  But money isn't the problem.  It may be part of the problem and Mike may be able to make that case if he includes the VA's own budget requests.  But as it is, the argument isn't sound and it's actually dangerous because if the answer is just more money, America will accept that (on veterans) and find the money.  But money alone will not solve systemic problems.

I think IAVA is on the strongest ground with their list of proposals.

And if money's the problem -- and only money -- let's certainly toss aside the first proposal IAVA makes:



1. Appoint a Post-9/11 veteran, or someone very familiar with our community, who is a proven, dynamic leader capable of making dramatic changes and inspiring the turnaround VA needs. The VA needs a proven reformer at the top who can end the crisis and drive the VA to become the 21st Century organization our veterans deserve. America needs a unique brand of hybrid leader--a proactive change-agent who understands Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, technology, healthcare and Congress. The new Secretary must also be an effective communicator who can level with the public, operate effectively in the midst of a growing scandal that may span dozens of cities and continue for months, and inspire the best talent in America to answer the call to serve at VA.


I agree with that proposal.  We've called here for Shinseki to resign since 2009.  We've called for Patrick Murphy to be named Secretary of the VA since 2011.  He's an Iraq War veteran, he's a member of Congress.  He was tricked in Congress and given basically a fool's mission.  When he got that, he didn't say, "I was tricked!  I'm the latest left to argue to end DADT! And they set me up!"  No, he made the impossible happen and did so in the last month of the 111th Congress.  I think he would bring that same drive and determination to the office of Secretary of the VA.  But if it's not Murphy, I do agree that it needs to be a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan because the country needs someone with a fresh approach and strong dedication.  Anyone on the board of IAVA would be fine in the role.  US House Rep Tammy Duckworth could easily do the job as well.  I would hesitate on Duckworth only because it's a two-year position unless the next president carries the person over.  So I'd hate for Duckworth to have to leave Congress, become Secretary and then try to run for her old seat.  (Of course, she could instead run for the Senate or start working on a run for the presidency.)  But she could do a strong job as Secretary of the VA and I'm sure she'd see it as a honor if Barack asked her to be the nominee.  (I'm tabling an issue right now because I don't want it impacting whomever the nominee is.  It has nothing to do with the VA or veterans.  It has everything to do with the people who are getting nominated for posts.  Barack needs to be vetting people for this post and once he makes his nomination, I'll probably stop biting my tongue on another issue.)

Again, IAVA has made the best list of proposals and done the best job identifying what's at stake and what's now needed.


Iraq never needed Nouri al-Maliki.  The man fled the country in the 80s and only returned after the US-led invasion of 2003.  But Bully Boy Bush insisted he be named prime minister in 2006 and Barack Obama insisted Nouri get a second term in 2010.  Since then, Barack's provided Nouri with immense weapons and non-stop cover.

The results of all this heavy petting?

Alsumaria reports Nouri has again bombed Falluja General Hospital -- 2 nurses are dead and eight more injured.  In addition, his bombing of the residential neighborhoods of Falluja left 50 civilians injured.  In addition, Tarek Ammar (Alsumaria) notes Falluja General Hospital later received 2 corpses of civilians killed by Nouri's bombings as well as five more injured.  AFP later updated the toll to note that 18 people died from these bombings in Falluja with another forty-three injured.


Nouri kills Iraqi civilians right now and Barack ensures that (a) Nouri gets away with it and (b) Nouri doesn't get called out.


As Human Rights Watch noted in last week's  "Iraq: Government Attacking Fallujah Hospital:"

 Iraqi government forces battling armed groups in the western province of Anbar since January 2014 have repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital with mortar shells and other munitions, Human Rights Watch said today. The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.
Since early May, government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). These indiscriminate attacks have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to flee.


Today, AFP notes, "Human Rights Watch also said last month that authorities have likely violated the laws of war by targeting Fallujah hospital."

Also today, Nouri's out of control forces were active in Basra.  Alsumaria reports a peaceful protest was taking place in Basra and that Al Baghdadi journalist Haider Abbas Hilfi and his brother (who is his media assistant) were attempting to cover the protests when security forces grabbed them.

This is who Bully Boy Bush installed in 2006.  This is the tyrant the Iraqi people tried to kick out in 2010 but Barack Obama decided should have a second term.

The assault on Anbar was only supposed to last a couple of weeks.  Nouri said that.  Said it again.  And again.  And . . .

It began December 30th.  It's now June and the assault on Anbar continues.  Asharq Al-Awsat reports:

Widespread opposition has grown up against Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki’s plan to hold a “national unity” conference aimed at resolving the ongoing security crisis in Iraq’s restive Anbar province—even among tribes from the region that nominally support the government in its battle against the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group.
A number of tribal sheikhs in Anbar who are allied with the government met in Baghdad yesterday. The head of the tribal Anbar Awakening Council, Wessam Al-Hardan, told a press conference in Baghdad after the meeting that “our small meeting came to discuss the initiative of Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki to resolve the Anbar crisis, unify efforts, and to bury differences.”
He added: “We welcome all political and social forces, unions, and clerics to join us in finding a solution to the Anbar crisis—except [ISIS].”


Nouri has provided a steady flow of violence in Iraq.  Not much else thought.

National Iraqi News Agency reports an Alraqqah roadside bombing left 1 police member dead and three more injured, a Higgag Village attack left 4 Iraqi soldiers dead, and a Baghdad sticky bombing killed 1 person.  Alsumaria adds security forces say they killed 14 suspects, 1 person was shot dead in Tarmiya, and a Baghdad mortar attack killed 1 child and left another civilian injured.

He's also fueled and hardened divisions within Iraq.  This is especially harmful if you're a minority group in Iraq.

The Yazidis are a religious minority in Iraq.  They have suffered internally and externally for a 'shorthand' of their religion which wrongly portrays them as worshipers of the devil.  Laura Cesaretti (Al-Monitor) reported last month:


 According to this minority Kurdish group, Lucifer, the beautiful and vain angel of heaven, did not betray God and create evil, but simply manifested himself to the world, becoming the bridge between humans and the Creator. Melek Taus, as the Yazidis call him, is still worshipped in the Temple of Lalish, the sect's holy site in northwestern Iraq. Yazidis consider themselves the direct descendants of Adam and perceive good and evil as the same faces of the same reality. Choosing the right side is up to each person’s soul. 
This approach has caused nothing but pain for the Yazidi Kurds, who have been subject to many stereotypes in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran, such as their supposed reluctance to education. Pir Mamo Othman, a consultant at the Yazidi Regional Council, told Al-Monitor, "In the past, there were no governmental schools but just religious ones. This is why many Yazidi families cut short their children’s education, fearing they are being converted to Islam." Further, the Yazidi representation of Melek Taus as a peacock has led Muslim and Christian travelers alike to misperceive certain aspects of Yazidi beliefs. The beautiful flying bird, in fact, was considered a manifestation of the devil’s power by many ancient communities and followers of the old Zarathustrian faith.
“There is no evil in the Yazidi thought,” Birgul Acikyildiz Sengul, lecturer of art history at the Merdin Artuklu University in Turkey and an expert on Yazidi culture, told Al-Monitor. For 10 years, she has conducted extensive research on Yazidi traditions and in 2010 published her book, "The Yazidis: History of a Community, Culture and Religion." “Even some famous orientalists and philosophers from the past have misunderstood their faith,” Birgul said. “People saw in them an interest about the Satan-oriented culture without focusing on the reality of their beliefs.”
 
Thursday, Christine van den Toorn and Nawaf Ashur (Niqash) reported on the Yazidis and how they usually spend this time of the year as farm workers, harvesting "on nearby Arab-owned farms" but due to the targeting and killing Yazidis in May, most ended up skipping out on the harvest.   They note:

Over the past year, there has been a revival of threats targeting Yazidis and other minority groups in and around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Mosul remains one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq for outsiders, as it is considered a base for ISIS.


Yazidis – who make up a small but significant ethno-religious minority in Iraq and who have strong links to Iraq’s Kurdish ethnicity - cannot help but fear the return of the “bad years”. Between 2005 and 2008, hundreds of Yazidis were killed in and around Mosul; the Sinjar district, west of Mosul and close to the Syrian border is home to a large number of Yazidis and in 2007, it experienced one of the worst attacks in recent history when huge truck bombs killed over 500 people and injured thousands more.


After an eight-year hiatus due to security concerns, Sinjar’s Yazidis finally resumed their work in Rabia – an agricultural area forty-five minutes northwest of their own district – in 2012. Before 2003, tens of thousands of Yazidis use to make the annual migration to work in the fields. As one local remarked, the agricultural migration meant that, “if you go into villages in Sinjar right now they will be totally empty”.



But that was before this series of attacks. Now local Yazidis fear that as the Iraqi Army tries to eradicate ISIS from Anbar, that they will move further north into Sinjar. The district is already surrounded by threats: To the east lies Mosul, ISIS’ safe haven, and to the west is the border with Syria, over which extremist fighters cross into Iraq.


















Posted by at