Tuesday, December 02, 2014

Secretary of Defense . . .

Press TV offers:



An investigative journalist says former US defense secretary Chuck Hagel resigned because he did not understand President Barack Obama’s policy against the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria.
“Hagel resigned because he did not understand what the policy was in Syria,” Wayne Madsen told Press TV on Monday.
“It was really this Syria mess and now the mess with ISIL in Iraq that forced Hagel to resign,” he added.
He was commenting on a recent article by former US presidential candidate Ron Paul, titled “Who wants to be Defense Secretary?”
Paul wrote, “It seems nobody wants to be Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration. The president’s first two Defense Secretaries, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, both complained bitterly this month about their time in the administration.”



What's more shocking?  That in the midst of multiple wars, Barack's now going to be on his fourth Secretary of Defense in six years?

Or that no one wants the job?

He should just give it to Susan Rice.  She's always acted as if she was Secretary of Defense.

And we know she loves war.

She even supported the Iraq War -- though she tried to lie about it afterwards.

Okay, new content at Third:




And it was written by Dallas and the following:




The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.



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

 
Monday, December 1, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the UN lowballs the death toll yet again, Iraq's new prime minister makes efforts to address corruption, a US service member has died while deployed in Barack's war against the Islamic State, and much more.

Let's start in the US where two people don't have a grip on the facts: Jason Ditz and Medea Benjamin.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) argues the US focus keeps shifting with regards to the Islamic State.

That's a solid observation.

This isn't:


At the start of the war, Mount Sinjar was the clear focus, and the conflict was even couched as a humanitarian intervention specifically for the refugees there. When the refugee situation turned out to be dramatically overstated, the focus shifted toward ISIS in Iraqi Kurdistan and then Syria.

Mount Sinjar?

Never solved.  Yazidis are still held hostage -- at last count, it was 400 families.

The US didn't rescue anyone.  Those who were rescued by the Peshmerga (elite Kurdish force).

In October, Susan Rice went on Meet The Press.  Pressed to cite a 'success' for the White House in Iraq, she declared it was the rescue of the hostages on Mount Sinjar.

Less than 36 hours later, it was revealed that thousands of Yazidis remained hostages on Mount Sinjar.

Antiwar.com could have run with that.

Except it's the home of the pig-headed male.

I am not 100% right.

I'm wrong often.

When I am, I say so.

The head of Antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo, decided to mock the Yazidis and their plight.

And that became the default position of Antiwar.com.

We pointed out here that nothing was going to be accomplished by Raimondo's nonsense except turning people off to what was being dubbed an "isolationist" position.  The American press wanted more war and was already ridiculing and admonishing those of us against more war on Iraq.

And then comes Justin playing into every stereotype of Ugly American.

Children are being terrorized -- as were adults -- and Justin's mocking it.

Nothing did more damage to the position of 'antiwar' than Justin's bulls**t.

He wanted to stop further war?

Well his ridicule of those suffering wasn't the way to do it.

For those making up their minds and those with a stance that was weak, the response to Justin's mocking of the suffering of the Yazidis was to recoil in disgust.

He did real damage to the 'antiwar' group.  (I belong to the peace movement.)

Justin staked out a position and he's too pigheaded, even now, to admit he was wrong.

This attitude?  It's not antiwar.

It's exactly why the world has so many wars.

People stake out a position and refuse to modify it or to admit they were wrong.

Justin can pretend to be antiwar all he wants but the reality is his mocking of the Yazidis did real damage.

Jason Ditz could probably write the truth, but this is Jason who praised Nouri al-Maliki, remember?

The thug and War Criminal was hero worshiped by Scott Horton (dee jay, not Harper's writer and college professor) and when Jason was a guest on the show, he'd join in on the grooviness of Nouri.

Even though Ned Parker had already exposed the torture chambers Nouri was running, even though Nouri had already launched a witch hunt on Iraqi's LGBT community and much more.

Let's move over to Medea Benjamin.  At the Guardian, she has a column noting the press' inability to question the war claims of the White House.  That's a good topic.  It's one we cover repeatedly.  Medea points out how fear was used to frighten people -- yeah, we covered that months ago.  Thanks for catching up, Medea.

We've also been covering the killing of civilians in the US-led air bombing campaign.

We've noted the inability of the western media to cover those deaths and how, if they were being covered, some of the public support for the bombings -- support in the US -- would erode.  So by all means, Medea, please work your way over to that part of the topic real soon.

Medea writes:

Day after day, night after night, the press relied on propaganda from both Isis and the US government to whip up fear and a thirst for revenge in the American public. Gruesome beheading videos distributed by Isis were played over and over. The media not only regurgitated official US messages but packaged them better than the government itself ever could. 

What is she saying, what does she mean?

We've covered this.

The US press did not cover all the beheadings.  They only cared about Americans and the first death horrified them because of their own huge egos and vanity run amok.


Once upon a time, when the press was supposed to strive for objectivity and to be impartial, there were questions about women reporters and abortion.  Could women cover the topic and be impartial?

Regardless of what camp you fall into on that question (I don't think most people impartial on the topic -- I'm firmly pro-choice), the reality is the press is not impartial.

Steven Sotloff and James Foley got attention -- got round the clock attention -- from the US media because they were reporters.

You did not, as a news consumer, get coverage of those beheadings.

You got obsessive cries from a self-interested group that doesn't give a damn when it's an aid worker beheaded by the Islamic State.

We made that comment in real time, we were correct as demonstrated by the deaths that followed and the lack of media coverage of them.

The press loves war, no question.

But the beheadings resulted in overheated 'coverage' that was nonstop and the reason for that was that the press was having a panic attack, a guttural cry of, "It could have been me!"


When that happens, when the media makes themselves the story, it's not just embarrassing, it's bad journalism.

If Stoloff and Foley's lives (and deaths) mattered (and I believe they did), then so did the others who were beheaded but were reduced to a single sentence in a generic report because they weren't reporters.

There was no grand conspiracy (unless Medea's arguing that the White House gave orders to the Islamic State to kill the two reporters).

The deaths just played into the US press' own vanity and they went crazy with it.


Today the arrest of federal police chief Abdul Hadi Saleh was ordered.  Iraq Times reports Minister of the Interior Mohammed Salem Ghaban ordered the arrest due to corruption with regards to salaries.  Corruption has been the focus of the last days in Iraq.  Loveday Morris (Washington Post via Stars and Stripes) reports:

The Iraqi army has been paying salaries to at least 50,000 soldiers who don't exist, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Sunday, an indication of the level of corruption that permeates an institution that the United States has spent billions on equipping and arming.
A preliminary investigation into so-called "ghost soldiers" — whose salaries are being drawn but who are not in military service — revealed the tens of thousands of false names on Ministry of Defense rolls, Abadi told parliament Sunday. Follow-up investigations are expected to uncover "more and more," he added.


And today brought news of the Ministry of Interior, not just the arrest warrant already noted but also the firing of other members.  Al Arabiya reports:
 
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Monday said he has retired 24 senior interior ministry officers, a day after he vowed to widen a crackdown on corruption in the crisis-stricken country.

According to Abadi's official Twitter feed, the move is part of “efforts to reform and rebuild Iraq’s security institutions.”

Who can you blame the corruption on?

There is one person you can blame the corruption.

He was the last Minister of Defense.

He was also the last Minister of the Interior.

Nouri al-Maliki, forever thug and former prime minister of Iraq.

In 2010, the White House got him a second term by ignoring the votes and the voters and using a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement) to give Nouri a second term.  To get political leaders to sign that contract, it also included promises for them.  But Nouri never honored those promises.  He used the contract to get a second term and then refused to implement the legal promises he made in the contract.

By the start of 2011, he still hadn't nominated people to head the security ministries.  While the western press -- especially US 'reporters' -- rush to insist it was only a matter of weeks until he nominated people for the posts, Ayad Allawi declared it wouldn't happen.  He called it a power grab.

Who was right?

The press or Allawi?

Allawi.

Nouri's second term ended this past summer.

And Iraq had no Minister of Defense, no Minister of Interior.

Had he nominated people for those posts and Parliament confirmed them, the individuals would be in charge of the ministries and Nouri couldn't get rid of them.  Only Parliament could remove them.

So instead Nouri put his flunkies into the unconstitutional post of 'acting ministers.'  This allowed him to control the two ministries.

During this period, violence increased.

That's on Nouri.

The Constitution of Iraq did not make one person prime minister and Minister of Interior and Minister of Defense -- and Minister of National Security -- another post Nouri refused to fill.  For those who missed it, back in July of 2012,  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."

Nouri instituted a power grab and he should have been held accountable.

That sadly didn't happen.

But he can be held accountable now.

Corruption in the two ministries?

Nouri was the one in charge of them.  The blame falls on him.

Al Quds' Said Arikat raised the corruption issue in today's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki.
QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq? I wonder if you have any comments on the ghost soldiers that apparently have been on the payroll in Iraq and whether the United States of America has raised this issue.

 MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Said, as you know, this is an issue that, in fact, the prime minister raised in terms of his concerns about the number of ghost soldiers in the Iraqi army. We’ve seen his comments. We’re certainly encouraged that he continues to take steps to establish a more professional military force in Iraq. This follows his announcement – and there’s been a series of steps he’s taken, one on November 12th of the relief or retirement of 36 army officers, and the appointment of 18 new commanders as part of an effort towards rooting out corruption in Iraq’s defense establishment. We’re encouraged by these steps that follow other military realignments in September and the disbanding of the Office of the Commander-in-Chief. So we’ve seen him take a series of steps to create a more professional and unified military force, and that certainly is encouraging.

 QUESTION: Okay. Now the United States being the primary trainer of the Iraqi military, how do they go about conducting or knowing that these units are good to train and these units are not good to train and so on? Is there – what is the criteria? How do they determine whether these are actual soldiers?

 MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’ve seen the Department of Defense – and this is really a question more appropriately directed to them – speak to the assessment that they did over the last several months in terms of the needs of the Iraqi Security Forces and who needed more training, what different units may have been up to par and ready to move forward. But I’d point you to my colleagues over at the Defense Department.

 QUESTION: Yeah. But I ask because it’s also a policy question since the United States is planning to organize or create a national or – national guard from the Sunni tribes.

 MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s not the – let me be clear, Said. It’s not the United States. It certainly is an initiative we support, but the Government of Iraq is leading the initiative --

 QUESTION: The Government of Iraq. Okay.

 MS. PSAKI: -- to form a tribal force that would be part of the Iraqi Security Forces structure to counter ISIL.

 QUESTION: Okay. Because back in 2007 when – during the surge and one of the awakenings that were established, they were conducting themselves quite well. But then they inflated – I mean, the tribes inflated their numbers and so on to get basically a lot of money and a lot of funds which ushered in the collapse of the Iraqi army. I’m saying: How would you guard against this happening again?

 MS. PSAKI: Well, obviously, a number of steps have already been taken by the prime minister and by the central government to address this, and we certainly encourage those and will continue to have a discussion with them about what more can be done.

 QUESTION: And finally, President Masum, the Iraqi president, met with the Iranian ambassador yesterday and he, of course, acknowledged the role of Iran, that Iran plays a good role in terms of aiding Iraq in its fights against ISIS and al-Qaida. Do you have any comment on that?


 MS. PSAKI: I don’t. I would point you to them.


Actually, Jen Psaki, the State Dept was put over the training of Iraqi forces by US President Barack Obama as far back as October 2011.  So even if DoD has been put in charge as of July or August of 2014, you should be able to offer some form of comment.



Violence?  UNAMI released the following earlier today:

Baghdad, 1 December 2014 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 1,232 Iraqis were killed and another 2,434 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in November 2014.
The number of civilians killed was 936 (including 61 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1,826 (including 71 civilian police).  A further 296 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed (including Peshmerga, SWAT and militias fighting alongside Iraqi Army / not including casualties from Anbar Operations) and 608 were injured. 
“With nearly 12,000 people killed and nearly 22,000 injured since the beginning of 2014, Iraqis continue to be daily subjected to the unspeakable horrors of killing, maiming, reign of terror, displacement, extreme forms of intolerance and poverty”, Mr. Mladenov said.  “I take this opportunity to continue encouraging the Iraqi political, religious and social leaders to act decisively to rise above their differences in order to resolve the pending political, social and economic problems, and restore confidence among Iraq’s communities, more particularly those disaffected groups, as part of consolidating the democratic process”.
Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 1,253 civilian casualties (332 killed, 921 injured).  According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the Governorate suffered a total of 1,026 civilian casualties (402 killed and 624 injured).  This included 71 killed and 437 injured in Ramadi and 331 killed and 187 injured in Fallujah.  Salah al-Din recorded 74 killed and 114 injured while Diyala recorded 37 killed and 71 injured.
CAVEATS: In general, UNAMI has been hindered in effectively verifying casualties in conflict areas.  Figures for casualties from Anbar Governorate are provided by the Health Directorate and are noted below.  In some cases, UNAMI could only partially verify certain incidents.  UNAMI has also received, without being able to verify, reports of large numbers of casualties along with unknown numbers of persons who have died from secondary effects of violence after having fled their homes due to exposure to the elements, lack of water, food, medicines and health care.  For these reasons, the figures reported have to be considered as the absolute minimum.
Disclaimer: The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq undertakes monitoring of the impact of armed violence and terrorism on Iraqi civilians in accordance with its mandate.  UNAMI relies on direct investigation, along with credible secondary sources, in determining civilian casualties.  UNAMI figures are conservative and may under-report the actual number of civilians killed and injured for a variety of reasons.  Where different casualty figures are obtained for the same incident, the figure as verified by UNAMI is used.


UNAMI and the UN have become a joke when it comes to Iraq.
And if you want to know stupidity?  It's saying, "Figures for casualties from Anbar Governorate are provided by the Health Directorate and are noted below" when, in fact, they are not noted below.
Who proofs these press releases?  
The Anbar figure is always kept out of the headline total and reduced to the equivalent of a footnote.  That was clearly the plan again today.  But today, they couldn't even provide the figures even though they insisted they were "noted below."
We used to note the daily violence and we'd do our monthly total and demonstrate how off the UN total was.  Events have allowed us to focus on other things.  We generally try to cite Margaret Griffis on the violence and include the Antiwar.com monthly total these days.
But if you're not getting what an undercount that is, let's note some deaths today.

AFP reports, "At least 16 Iraqi border guards were killed on Monday (Dec 1) in a dawn assault by the Islamic State militant group on their post near the Syrian frontier, provincial and security officials said."  AP adds, "Another five officers were wounded as the group continues its control of most of the border crossings between the two countries."  Alsumaria notes a mortar attack to the south of Tikrit left 2 people dead and five more injured.  Mu Xuequan (Xinhau) reports 7 militants were killed in Sarha, 12 were killed north of Maqdadiyah, the Islamic State killed "12 Shiite militiamen" in a battle, and 1 Islamic State member was shot dead outside Duluiyah.

Now those are just some of the reported deaths.

And Xinhua counts 67 dead from violence today.  This wasn't a typical day, it's actually a slow day.

Multiply the slow day times 30 and realize what a joke the UN's November death toll is.

Let's stay with deaths.

Another US service member has died in Barack's never-ending wars.  AP reports DoD spokesperson Steve Warren announced a Air Force pilot's F-16 crashed yesterday killing the pilot who was "returning to its base in the Middle East."  The Defense Dept insists this doesn't qualify as a death in Iraq or Syria.

That is shameful.

The pilot died on a mission, the pilot was deployed.

Stop being so disgusting, so craven, that you'll dishonor the dead by lying.

He or she is a fatality in the ongoing wars.

And there may be more.   Jon Harper (Stars and Stripes) reports:

 Paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division will soon head to Iraq to participate in Operation Inherent Resolve, the Pentagon announced Monday.
About 250 soldiers from the division’s 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment — based at Fort Bragg, N.C. — will begin to deploy later this month.

Their assignment will be “to conduct security operations in support of the mission to protect U.S. personnel and facilities,” Defense Department spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters.

And if you want to be more discouraged, let's return to today's State Dept press briefing.  We've noted the upcoming diplomacy meet-up which the State Dept has failed to promote.

Why?

Apparently because they don't know a damn thing about it.

When Jen Psaki should be selling this as a major push towards the political solution Barack has insisted was needed, she's instead stumbling and unsure of what's about to take place this week.  When will she brush up on the meet-up?

QUESTION: Can we stay on Iraq, please?

 MS. PSAKI: Sure.

 QUESTION: I’d like to ask about the meeting in Brussels this week. The first --

 MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. The coalition meeting?

 QUESTION: The coalition meeting, yeah. This is the first ministerial level meeting of the coalition?

 MS. PSAKI: Yes, mm-hmm.

 QUESTION: Could you just give us a bit more on what you’re hoping --

 MS. PSAKI: Well, there was – I think yes, it is.

 QUESTION: There was --

 MS. PSAKI: There was the meeting --

 QUESTION: -- in Kuwait.

 MS. PSAKI: -- in Kuwait.

 QUESTION: Yeah.

 MS. PSAKI: And there was also the meeting that took place – I believe it was earlier, even before Kuwait, that was sort of an early meeting --

 QUESTION: Right, yes.

 MS. PSAKI: -- of some of these European members. Just to be totally clear.

 QUESTION: New York.

 MS. PSAKI: Correct. There have been a couple of meetings, but go ahead.

 QUESTION: All right, okay. So it’s not the first ministerial meeting, then. It’s the --

 MS. PSAKI: Well, this is the first – this is significant in that you have representatives from the 60 coalition partner countries, or many of them, who will be attending. Obviously, we’re now a couple of months in, still early into this effort to degrade and defeat ISIL. It’s an opportunity to take stock of where things stand, obviously, discuss what needs to happen from here, provide updates on where countries stand. Certainly, General Allen will be playing a prominent role in this meeting. The Secretary will also be delivering remarks and I believe kicking the meeting off. So it’s an opportunity to do that where many of the countries will be already in the region for – whether it’s NATO or other meetings happening this week.

 QUESTION: Do you expect something concrete to come out of it in terms of sort of where we go, a timetable, or deliverables, as you like to say?

 MS. PSAKI: Well, I certainly don’t want to get ahead of the meeting, but I think the purpose is more to take stock and to determine – continue to coordinate from here. As we all know, we – the Secretary participates in a great deal of phone diplomacy, but always doing that in person he finds to be more effective. That’s true I think of many of these countries as well, and so this is an opportunity to have them all there in person.

 QUESTION: And you mentioned again about the 60 coalition countries. Have any more come on board since the last list that you --
MS. PSAKI: We regularly update on our website. I don’t have any new countries to update, but I would point you to there and we can certainly check. I expect as we get closer to the meeting we’ll have a more specific list of the participants.


Again, the State Dept should be hard selling this meet-up.  They've done damn little with regards to efforts at diplomacy.  This meet-up should be big news.  So why is it that it's not treated as such?





iraq






cnn











Posted by at

Saturday, November 29, 2014

Idiot of the week: Joel Wing

We've long known Joel Wing was an idiot and a crackpot.

He's been wrong about Iraq repeatedly.

And now we know why: He's a cum dump for neocons.

That's all he is, just a cum dump for neocons.

The always wrong about Iraq Joel Wing was asked by breasty Thomas Ricks to guest post (guess Ricks didn't have any nude photos of women left to post at his 'political' blog) and Cum Dump Wing decided to offer a list of the top ten best Iraq sites.

Charting the list?

Kim Kagan's Institute for the Study of War.

We all know Kim, right?

Wife of Frederick Kagan, sister-in-law of Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan.

She's not just a neocon, she's an in-bred one.

And she preaches war.

And for Neocon Cum Dump Joel Wing, that's not just a go-to in order to understand Iraq, it's the top of his list.

Joel Wing's an idiot.

He's always wrong about Iraq -- whether announcing the end of KRG President Massoud Barzani (his career continues) or explaining how Nouri al-Maliki's the best thing that ever happened (Nouri is and was a thug), Joel's always wrong.

Thanks for outing yourself, Cum Dump Wing.



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


 
Saturday, November 29, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, more civilians are killed in the US-led air campaign, despite announcements no budget bill is read in Parliament, corruption remains rampant, and much more.



In a letter to the editors of the Houston Chronicle, Carl Schiro asks a question no one seems able to answer:

Regarding "Corruption hobbles Iraq's military efforts" (Page A1, Monday), why is our government still sending our troops and money to such a corrupt country?


Can anyone answer that question?  The article Schiro's referring to is David D. Kirkpatrick (New York Times via Hamilton Spectator) report on Iraqi forces:

                             
The Iraqi military and police forces had been so thoroughly pillaged by their own corrupt leadership that they all but collapsed this spring in the face of the advancing militants of the Islamic State — despite roughly $25 billion worth of U.S. training and equipment over the past 10 years and far more from the Iraqi treasury.                         


Now maybe if there had been work on the political solution -- the one US President Barack Obama has spent months giving lip service to -- corruption could have been dealt with.

Instead, Barack's planning a work-around.  Francesca Chambers (Daily Mail) notes:


The U.S. military has decided against rebuilding the entire Iraqi army and will instead focus on training a handful of brigades to take on Islamic radicals, initiating a shift in the Pentagon's decade-long approach to the handling the country.
'The idea is, at least in the first instance, to try and build a kind of leaner, meaner Iraqi army,' a senior U.S. official told the Washington Post.
Officials who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity said the military plans to create nine new Iraqi army brigades of up to 45,000 light-infantry soldiers over the course of the next two months and team them with other Kurdish and Shiite fighters. 

So the problem is being labeled as "corruption" and the US government thinks the way to handle/address that is to just make smaller units?

That 'solution' -- laughable as it is -- certainly makes more sense than the Iraqi government's response.


Michael Gregory (Reuters) reports that Minister of Finance Hoshyar Zebari has stated that the military will take up about 23% of the proposed budget for 2015 and he's also calling "for deep-rooted reforms to stamp out corruption in a military that collapsed in the face of an Islamic State advance."

Yes, by all means, put nearly a quarter of your annual budget into a military machine known for its corruption.

Don't root out the corruption, just toss more money at it.

A quarter of your budget, for example.

Since the US isn't planning on any major actions until at least February, there's nore than enough time to address graft in the Iraqi military.

In fact, doing so would expose a mountain of corruption because as members of this political party or slate go down, you can rest assured they will take others down with them.  Meaning?  A State of Law military official goes down for corruption, they'll rat out someone in the Ministry of Transportation and so on and so on.

Corruption is rampant in Iraq.


That's why Transparency International ranks Iraq the 171st least transparent country or territory on a list of 177 for 2013.  This is not a new development.  In 2009, Barack was sworn in as president.  Transparency International's finds for 2009?  Iraq was ranked the 176th least transparent. (For those who want to trumpet the 'success' in Iraq moving from 176 to 171, please note that the 2009 list included 180 listings.They dropped three.  So Iraq really just moved one spot.)

In 2009, Patrick Cockburn (at CounterPunch) pointed out, "Iraq is the world’s premier kleptomaniac state. According to Transparency International the only countries deemed more crooked than Iraq are Somalia and Myanmar, while Haiti and Afghanistan rank just behind. In contrast to Iraq, which enjoys significant oil revenues, none of these countries have much money to steal."  Bill Van Auken (World Socialist Web Site) also noted the Transparency International 2009 report:

In relation to Iraq, the report found rampant corruption as well, with corrupt government officials operating with impunity. It cited a recent study by the Bertelsmann Foundation stating that in Iraq “non-security institutions remain weak and debilitated. The Iraqi leadership faces many structural constraints on governance, such as a massive brain drain, a high level of political division, and extreme poverty.”

Across the political spectrum, the corruption has been noted repeatedly and consistently.  For example, early this year the right-wing Heritage Foundation noted of Iraq:

Corruption is pervasive at all levels of government. There are widespread reports of demands by officials for bribes, mismanagement of public funds, payments to “ghost” employees, salary skimming, and nepotism. Although judicial independence is guaranteed in the constitution, judges are subject to immense political and sectarian pressure and are viewed by the public as corrupt or ineffective. Property rights are not well protected.


And if you need a government source, here's the US Embassy in Baghdad:

Corruption remains a salient feature of the political and economic landscape of Iraq and poses and threatens its full economic and social development.  Mitigating corruption’s corrosive effects on Iraq’s reconstruction requires continued USG engagement – both in terms of programs and in terms of bringing political and diplomatic pressure to bear on Iraqi leaders. 


With all the above in mind, let's return to the question that opens Carl Schiro's letter to the editors of the Houston Chronicle:

Regarding "Corruption hobbles Iraq's military efforts" (Page A1, Monday), why is our government still sending our troops and money to such a corrupt country?


It's not a hidden factor.  In June, Richard Engel (NBC News -- link is text and video) interviewed Iraqi forces and they repeatedly cited corruption as the country's "biggest enemy."

And as Patrick Cockburn (at the Independent) pointed out last year, the corruption was predicted at the start of the Iraq War:

 A few months before the invasion, an Iraqi civil servant secretly interviewed in Baghdad made a gloomy forecast. “The exiled Iraqis are the exact replica of those who currently govern us… with the sole difference that the latter are already satiated since they have been robbing us for the past 30 years,” he said. “Those who accompany the US troops will be ravenous.”
Many of the Iraqis who came back to Iraq after the US-led invasion were people of high principle who had sacrificed much as opponents of Saddam Hussein. But fast forward 10 years and the prediction of the unnamed civil servant about the rapacity of Iraq’s new governors turns out to have been all too true. As one former minister puts it, “the Iraqi government is an institutionalised kleptocracy”.

Cockburn spent the last years worshipping the Shi'ites and spitting on the Sunnis so it's really hard for him to name names when covering the continued disintegration of Iraq.

But there are names to be named.

Chief among them Nouri al-Maliki.

In 2006, the White House demanded Nouri al-Maliki be named prime minister (the Iraqi Parliament wanted Ibraham al-Jafaari).  In 2010, the White House demanded Nouri get a second term and, having lost the election, the White House offered a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement) to give Nouri a second term.

Which means from spring 2006 to summer 2014, Nouri al-Maliki ruled Iraq.

And corruption thrived.

This despite Nouri insisting he would take on corruption -- repeatedly insisting.  But it's kind of hard to do that when you're part of the corruption.  Pennies found in sofa cushions don't buy all the sports cars Nouri's son zips around London in nor did they buy the swank home.

Back in June, Zaid al-Ali (Foreign Policy) explained:


Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki established a new political alliance, the State of Law alliance, which campaigned on a platform of re-establishing strong state institutions, reducing corruption, and providing adequate services to the people. The Iraqiya alliance, another large and newly formed coalition, backed a similar platform. The tantalizing prospects of establishing a new political environment and creating a stable state seemed within reach.
It never happened. Rather than consolidating these gains, several factors began working against Iraq's national cohesion as early as 2010. Maliki's government used "de-Baathification" laws, introduced to keep members of Saddam Hussein's regime out of government, to target his opponents -- but not his many allies, who also had been senior members of the Baath Party. The 2010 government formation process turned out to be yet another opportunity for politicians of all stripes to grant themselves senior positions which they could use to plunder the state. When tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in February 2011 to protest corruption, they were branded terrorists and were attacked and beaten by security forces and hired thugs. Dozens were killed and thousands arrested and tortured until the protests fizzled. Meanwhile, though terrorist groups were not operating as openly as before, hundreds of civilians continued to be killed every month, particularly in Baghdad, denying Iraqis in many parts of the country even a brief period of normalcy.

At that time, Maliki began referring to himself publicly as Iraq's preeminent military leader. When the 2010 electoral results did not conform to his expectations, he demanded a recount in his "capacity as commander in chief." When he forced senior anti-corruption officials from their positions, he once again inappropriately invoked his military credentials. He called officers on their mobile phones to demand specific actions or that individuals be arrested, circumventing the chain of command. After the new government was formed in November 2010, he refused to appoint ministers of the interior and of defense, preferring to occupy both positions himself. He appointed senior military commanders directly, instead of seeking parliamentary approval as required by the constitution. 


Nouri should be in prison.

Instead, he's now a vice president of Iraq -- one of three.

And he's visiting Shi'ite enclaves and denouncing the current prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, denouncing him as an appeaser to the Kurds and Shi'ites, trying to sew unrest.

Some in the intelligence community are saying the answer is "bullet to the head."

Regardless, having destroyed Iraq, Nouri's not content.  He's attempting to start a revolt against the current government.

And his attempts grow only more desperate as he sees some of his cronies kicked to the curb.  From the November 12th snapshot:

The Iraq Embassy in DC issued the following today:


 Prime Minister Dr. Haider Al-Abadi in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces visited Baghdad Operations Command on November 10, 2014 and held an extended meeting with commanders and officers from various units of the Armed Forces.
He hailed the efforts of Baghdad Operations Command, calling on its officers to firmly deal with organized crime and enforce severe measures against criminals who seek to undermine Baghdad’s security environment.
The Prime Minister also stressed the need to work hard to address serious challenges that threaten our society. He confirmed that the Ministry of Interior would resume responsibility for the management of security in Baghdad and noted the government’s determination to remove all concrete barriers in the city of Baghdad. The Prime Minister announced plans to remove road blocks that do not contribute to enhanced security and noted that the issue must be dealt with professionally and thoughtfully in order to ease traffic for the residents of Baghdad. In addition, the Prime Minister noted intentions to open access to parts of the Green Zone and stressed the need for vigilance against terrorists who seek to exploit these new measures.
Prime Minister Al-Abadi also discussed a number of issues related to living conditions and traffic accidents in the city of Baghdad, and issued several executive orders in this regard.
On November 12, 2014, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Dr. Haidar Al-Abadi issued executive orders to relieve 26 military commanders from their posts and retire an additional 10 commanders. He also appointed 18 military officers to senior posts within the Ministry of Defense as part of ongoing efforts to professionalize Iraq’s military institutions and root out corruption in its various forms.
Prime Minister Al-Abadi also met in his office today a number of military commanders from the Armed Forces. During the meeting, he stressed the need for Iraq’s military leadership to exhibit efficiency, integrity and courage so that soldiers can rally behind their commanders and fight effectively, adding that any assessment of the armed forces should be based on these merits.
Prime Minster Al-Abadi said that the Iraqi Army’s losses were the result of many complicated internal, external and political factors, stressing the need to restore confidence in the security forces through real action and by combating corruption at the individual and institutional levels. He emphasized his strong support for this approach, stressing the need to act swiftly, particularly given that the military enjoys considerable political and popular support, in addition to backing from the religious establishments.
The Prime Minister noted that the army is the defender of the homeland, and in the near future will seek to limit its task to defending Iraq's borders, while transferring security responsibilities to the Ministry of Interior and other security agencies.

The Prime Minster highlighted the great victories achieved by our armed forces on various fronts and their determination to liberate every inch of Iraqi territory in cooperation with the people of the provinces. 

Many outlets reported on the above -- AFP, the Associated Press, etc.  But no one pointed out the obvious re: firing the commander over Anbar.
Since January, the Iraqi military has been bombing residential neighborhoods in Falluja (and in other Anbar cities, but Falluja's been bombed daily since the start of the year).  September 13th, Haider al-Abadi announced that the bombings would cease.  (The bombings fit the legal definition of War Crimes.  They are collective punishment.)  Despite that announcement, the bombings have continued.
Anbar's military command has refused to follow the orders of al-Abadi who is supposed to be commander in chief of the Iraqi military.
That's kind of a key detail and one that everyone left out in their so-called reports.
David D. Kirkpatrick (New York Times) reports on the firings and forgets the issue of the bombing of Falluja's residential areas.  But he gets credit for noting that al-Abadi appears to have ignored the role Parliament is supposed to play in this sort of action and that he mirrors Nouri al-Maliki in that.  He also gets credit for this:


Mr. Abadi was elected three months ago, with strong American backing, on a pledge to build a more inclusive and responsive government after the divisive eight-year rule of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
Mr. Maliki is a senior leader of a political faction based in the Shiite Muslim majority, and he is widely blamed by many Iraqis and the White House for cronyism, nepotism and police abuses that alienated the Sunni Muslim population, opening doors to the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State. As prime minister, he was a strongman who kept tight control of the security services, and he stacked the military’s top ranks with loyalists rather than the most competent officers, contributing to the erosion of the military’s fighting ability.

It's a detail that, for example, AP leaves out. 


Barack's small, mobile units choice (it's not a plan) is based in part on sidestepping Nouri's flunkies and sidelining Nouri.


What happens if you call out corruption?

Thursday may have provided an answer.

 All Iraq News reported:

The Representative of the Supreme Religious Authority, Ali al-Sistani,and the headmaster of the Jaafariya Religious School in the Pakistani Capital, Islam Abad, was killed by the criminals of the terrorist Jaish Sahaba organization.


The murder can be seen as retaliation.  Dropping back to the November 8th snapshot:

Friday, Raheem Salman (Reuters) reported major news:

 Iraq's most influential Shi'ite cleric said on Friday that corruption in the armed forces had enabled Islamic State to seize much of northern Iraq, criticism that will pressure the government to enact reforms in the face of an insurgency.
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has become increasingly critical of Iraqi leaders since Islamic State's lightning advance created Iraq's worst crisis since a U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.
al-Sistani could determine elections, so great is his influence.  And he's a key figure the United States government seeks out whenever they attempt (half-assed or fully) an effort in Iraq.
While he remains politically neutral for the most part, he can remain pointedly politically neutral.
By 2011, it was clear al-Sistani was done with Nouri al-Maliki.  The protesters' demands were being ignored and that appeared to bother al-Sistani a great deal.  By the time the spring of 2012 rolled around and with Nouri facing real trouble, al-Sistani pointedly sat out on the issue of a no-vote in Parliament. 
Though he was asked to weigh in and call for the proposal to be set aside, he pointedly refused to comment one way or another allowing the measure to move forward.  (Then-Iraqi President Jalal Talabani would kill the effort at the end of May 2012.)
His remarks today are significant in the timing.  While many others say similar things privately (Ammar al-Hakim, to name but one), al-Sistani is going public and doing so very early in Haider al-Abadi's tenure as prime minister which can be seen as al-Sistani putting the new government on notice that it needs to get its act together and do so quickly.
The Grand Ayatollah wasn't the only one making statements today.  All Iraq News reports, "The Religious Authority represented by Sheikh Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalayi, called Authority called politicians to understand their huge responsibility at current critical stage."


The US-led air strike campaign continued in Iraq today.

It's just supposed to kill 'militants' or 'terrorists' but that's how it works in a video game, not in the real world.  Michael Gregory (Reuters) reports on the latest civilians killed by this 'plan' to bring 'freedom' to Iraq, the dead included 17 civilians from the Albu Hishma tribe -- a tribe which is fighting the Islamic State.

In news of other 'liberation' and 'freedom,' Iraqi Spring MC reports security forces shot dead an elderly woman in Bahgdad. On Friday, Iraqi Spring MC notes, 14 civilians were killed or injured by the Iraqi military continuing to bomb residential neighborhoods in Falluja.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 126 people killed throughout Iraq on Friday with another 38 left injured.




Turning to the political . . .





    • What a great picture -- all those men and one token woman.  That's the way Nouri's State of Law has always been.


    Dropping back to yesterday:



    All Iraq News reports Speaker of Parliament Saleem al-Jobouri states the budget should be received by Parliament on Saturday.  This is the fourth time he's announced that, for those keeping track.
    In addition, Parliament has still not received the 2014 budget.
    National Iraqi News Agency adds, "MP, of the Citizen bloc , Hashim al-Moussawi said the House will extend its legislative term in the session of the House of Representatives session will be held on Saturday." al-Moussawi believes that they will receive both the 2015 budget and the 2014 one.


    So what happened?

    All Iraq News notes 225 MPs showed up for today's session.

    And?

    No budget.


    All Iraq News notes al-Jobouri declared today that the budget will be read tomorrow.

    It could happen.

    It could also turn out that the bill for the proposed budget doesn't get read.

    But, if you're keeping track, this is the fifth time the Speaker of Parliament has announced the budget law would be read.












    bill van auken





    Posted by at

    Thursday, November 27, 2014

    Is Lucy Liu pregnant?

    Elementary has been off its game this season.  Mainly because the CBS hit has split up Holmes (Jonny Lee Miller) and Watson (Lucy Liu).  Tonight's episode should have been a solid one.

    How To Get Away With Murder has been destroying Elementary in the ratings. 

    There are no new episodes of that show until January 29th which means Elementary has the chance to rebuild the audience.

    But we not only got another episode of Holmes and Watson apart, Lucy Liu wasn't even on the episode.

    What the hell?

    I don't follow gossip. 

    For example, reader Barney e-mailed to tell me Maggie Q and Dylan McDermott are a couple.  I cover Stalker but I had no idea they were a couple off screen.  Good for them.

    But that had me wondering is Lucy Liu pregnant or something?

    If so, that would explain her not being on the episode and the need for the new storyline.

    If not, the show runner needs to get it together because Elementary is sucking these days.

    The show really needs a sense of direction and to grasp that Holmes and Watson are a team.

    Next week, Lucy Liu's back so maybe things will pick up.



    At The Common Ills, the following went up today:



    We'll all be noting Isaiah's latest tomorrow.  I love it.

    And here's the most recent community posts:



    As you can see, Schumer was a popular topic.

    Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.



    Posted by at

    Schumer's right

    Roberta Rampton (Reuters) reports:
    According to Schumer, the party lost because the White House messed up on "a cascade of issues," starting with the healthcare reform push in 2009, at a time when Americans were more preoccupied with the recession.
    Also on Schumer's list of White House errors: the rollout of insurance marketplaces, fixing wait lists for veterans' hospitals, dealing with the first case of Ebola in the United States, and even security at the White House itself.
    His remarks illustrated how some Democrats are trying to start to move apart and away from Obama.
    "At this point now, Obama is not running for president again," said Matthew Green, associate professor of politics at the Catholic University of America. "But Democrats in the Senate are, and they want to get back the majority at some point. They are going to be thinking about, what can we say and do to help ourselves in next election cycle?" Green said.

    Instead of addressing the issues, Schumer's critics want to attack him.

    Which doesn't speak well to chances for the Democrats to exit their current slump before the 2016 elections.

    And if Hillary's top of the ticket, things will be bad enough.

    8 years after her last run, she really looks sick, like her kidneys are failing or something.

    She's also got nothing to run on and no hope to provide.

    Dems need to get serious.

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

     
    Wednesday, November 26, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the US gears up to provide more weapons to Iraq, this despite the fact that the Iraqi military continues to bomb civilians in Falluja, and more.

    Victoria A. Brownworth (SheWired) offers:

    We are still at war in Afghanistan. Last week  the Obama Administration quietly announced, to almost no media fanfare, that it was continuing that war, when it was supposed to be ending at the beginning of next year. President Obama is also sending  more troops back into Iraq. This too was met with a shrug by Americans.
    Revving up America’s two longest wars has not spurred a single protest march in this country, but the failure of a grand jury to indict Darren Wilson on even the charge of involuntary manslaughter has brought thousands into the streets, from Ferguson itself to New York, LA, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston and beyond. Record numbers of tweets have gone out over Twitter, which many consider responsible for drawing attention to the case of Michael Brown and subsequent events in Ferguson after his killing.

    The breadth of the protests versus the crickets over Afghanistan and Iraq makes cleat that the real war America is fighting, the one that many of us feel threatened by, is the fight between marginalized communities and law enforcement. 


    Interesting but inaccurate.

    Black Agenda Report has been calling for action the minute the grand jury released their findings.  The Center for Constitutional Rights has weighed in repeatedly.  Activists have been working overtime on this issue -- United For Peace and Justice, CodePink, on and on.

    There's been an enemy named -- the White police officer Darren Wilson -- a focal point to fuel anger.

    Whereas, with Iraq, these same people haven't done a damn thing.

    In fairness to Black Agenda Report, they've at least called Barack out.

    But they haven't led on Iraq.

    As Iraqis have been killed in Falluja for 11 months straight now, I've not seen Black Agenda Report object once to the bombings of the residential neighborhoods in Falluja -- despite the fact these bombings are War Crimes.

    Where has anyone in the US been when it comes to calling these out?

    It didn't start yesterday.

    It started in January.

    For eleven months now, residential neighborhoods -- that's where people's homes are -- in Falluja have been bombed by the Iraqi military.

    It is a legally defined War Crime to attack civilians for the actions of fighters in an area.  It's known as Collective Punishment -- the US, all of Europe, most of the world recognizes Collective Punishment as a War Crime.

    Where is the outrage?

    September 13th, Iraq's new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced the bombings were over.  But let's drop back to September 14th:




    Third's "Editorial: The bombing of civilians continues in Iraq" notes Iraq's new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, ordered an end to the military bombing civilian targets on Saturday -- or that al-Abadi said he gave that order -- yet Falluja General Hospital was bombed today.
    Iraqi Spring MC notes the bombings of residential neighborhoods in Falluja also continued today with 6 civilians left dead  and 22 more injured.
    A very important question needs to be asked:  Did al-Abadi give the order he said he did?
    If he didn't, he lied.
    If he did, the military is not listening to the new prime minister.
    The media needs to be asking was it a lie or is the military refusing to obey orders?
    This is why the media exists in the first place.
    Either is a story but the military refusing orders would be a huge story.  (While a politician lying would be seen as typical behavior.)


    But there was no interest in that either.

    Iraqi forces are attacking civilians.  US President Barack Obama wants a waiver so he can violate the Leahy Amendment (which bars providing weapons and aid to governments who carry out attacks on civilians).

    He wants.

    He hasn't gotten it yet.

    But he wants it.

    Despite not getting the waiver, the US government's announcing more arms to Iraq.  Aaron Mehta (Military Times) notes, "The State Department has approved an $800 million sustainment deal for Iraq's fleet of C-130E and C-130J cargo aircraft, the government announced Tuesday."


    The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency issued the following notice:

    Media/Public Contact: 
    pm-cpa@state.gov
    Transmittal No: 
    14-46
    WASHINGTON, Nov 26, 2014 – The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Iraq for C-130E/J sustainment and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $800 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.
    The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale for a five-year sustainment package for the C-130E/J fleet that includes operational, intermediate, and depot level maintenance, spare and repair parts, support equipment, repair and return, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $800 million.
    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner. This proposed sale directly supports the Government of Iraq and serves the interests of the people of Iraq and the United States.
    The proposed sale of a C-130E/J sustainment package would allow the Iraq Air Force (IAF) to continue operating its C-130E/J aircraft beyond 2015. The IAFs limited maintenance capability necessitates the need for continued contractor logistics support. The continued support will assist the IAF in continuing to use the aircraft to provide humanitarian relief operations in various locations.
    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
    The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Iraq.
    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
    This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.
    All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.
    -30-



    Where's the outrage?

    Even Senator Patrick Leahy doesn't speak out.

    What happened to Michael Brown is very sad and, yes, an outrage.

    It doesn't need to be 'spruced up' with lies and misinformation to make it an issue of concern.

    When you lie to advance an argument, people stop supporting you.  Stop lying that he was shot in the back. There is more than enough reason to see the events as tragic and to debate whether or not the grand jury made the right determination.  When you tell lies or just repeat them to advance your side of an argument, people start to think you must have a weak case or you wouldn't result to lying.

    Equally important, grasp the lesson everyone should have already known.

    When someone has a loaded gun, you shouldn't try to grab it -- but if you do try to grab it you better pull it from the person holding it.

    Forget the two people involved, replace them with generic Smurfs.  If someone tries to grab a loaded gun, it is highly doubtful that the situation ends peacefully.

    For me, my  opinion only, feel free to disagree, the minute a gun was pulled (by the police officer), violence became a very real possibility.  Might have been one even if Michael Brown had, at that moment dropped to the ground and put his hands behind his back.

    People want to talk racism.

    One reason is because racism is real and it exists and it's a serious problem in the US and all around the world.

    Another reason?  These days it's easy to 'contribute' when you know nothing about an issue by just insisting 'racism.'

    Racism is an iffy thing to prove.

    If Michael Brown's family wants justice, they need to focus on the gun.

    Why was the gun pulled?

    Because of racism?

    Maybe but you most likely won't be able to prove it.

    What you can prove is a climate where citizens are no longer citizens but potential threats.

    I was shocked, doing research for a project, in 1990 and 1991, to observe police trainings in several different cities where officers were told that everyone was a threat and blah blah blah.

    We think the police are there to help.

    But that's not what they're always being trained for.

    A gun was pulled.

    An examination of the trainings the police officer participated in should reveal if this was the case for the officer.  It would also explain to the country that something's gone seriously wrong and police officer or peace officers are being trained not to resolve issues but to approach citizens as potential threats.


    This can be demonstrated in court.  You can subpoena the trainers, the training material and much more.

    The press always prefers the 'a few bad apples' storyline to a truer narrative that would indict the system itself.  But when people are being killed, like 12-year-old Tamir Rice for the 'crime' of having a toy gun, the problem is the system itself.

    But making that argument is too much for our so-called left leaders who'd rather abandon efforts at real change to instead try to get rage to boil over into violence.

    In fact, any real work is too much for our so-called left leaders.

    Instead of doing real work, they scan the horizon for any craze or event that they can latch onto and pretend to be a movement -- on they started and fostered.

    That's why they latched onto Barack, it's why they latch to everything.

    They're too lazy to do the work required

    So they rush here and there, where ever they think a media spotlight is and latch on like a leech.

    For six years now, Barack has carried one war after another and most of the so-called leaders can't even call him out.

    He spends the second half of this year sending more troops into Iraq and there's no leadership from so-called peace leaders in the US.

    They can't call him out.

    They can't call out the War Crimes against the civilians in Falluja.

    They can't do much of anything.


    You'll find more criticism of Barack's 'plan' coming out of Iraq than out of the US.  For example, Press TV reports:

    “The airstrikes cannot defeat ISIL and liberate the cities. We hear that in some places the warplanes drop weapons for ISIL... What we know is that the victories achieved on the ground are done by the Iraqi army and volunteers,” Iraqi State of Law Coalition MP Hanan Fatlawi told the Press TV correspondent in Baghdad.
    On October 22, the US admitted that one of the weapon airdrops intended for Kurds fighting in the Syrian town of Kobani was almost certainly intercepted by ISIL terrorists.


    I'm no fan of State of Law, as the archives establish, but they're right that the air bombings are not accomplishing much of anything -- except physically destroying Iraq and intimidating and terrorizing the people.

    Since this summer, Barack has repeatedly said Iraq requires a political solution but little has been done to facilitate anything political.  Instead, the US government has overseen two major meet-ups of defense ministers and has spent forever recruiting other countries to take part in the air bombings of Iraq and, less successfully, to send troops into Iraq.

    How's that creating a political solution?

    It's not.

    Today's Zaman reports:

    Foreign ministers from up to 60 countries forming the US-led coalition against Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) militants will hold their first meeting next week in Brussels, US officials said on Wednesday.
     
    The Dec. 3 meeting, chaired by US Secretary of State John Kerry, is expected to review progress in the fight against ISIL and to discuss how coalition members will coordinate politically in future.


    It's taken months for them to plan the above.  Hopefully, it's not too late for a meet-up like the above to make a difference.


    We were noting State of Law earlier.  It is the political slate of thug Nouri al-Maliki who was prime minister of Iraq until a few months ago and who is now one of Iraq's three vice presidents.  Of Nouri, Ya Libnan reports:


    In an unprecedented development the Iranian Foreign Ministry adviser, Mohammad Ali Sobhani, yesterday blamed the Iraqi regime of  Nouri al-Maliki, and the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad for the creation of the islamic State of Iraq  and Syria  ( ISIS)
    In an interview with a local Iranian website «telltale News» Sobhani said  the sectarian policies during the reign of former PM Maliki   led to the formation of an incubator for the«Daash» or ISIS  organization .

    Sobhani said that the economic and social problems that plagued Iraq, in addition to sectarian policies practiced  by the al-Maliki  regime led to the formation of a popular base for the emergence of ISIS  in the region.













    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)