Hump day, hump day. We were supposed to have a theme but none of us remembered. So I'm raiding C.I.'s leftovers of things pulled from the snapshot because there wasn't enough space. I know others will be doing the same. You might want to call this our theme: Iraq.
Waleed Ibrahim of Retuers reports:
Iraq has started flying unmanned aircraft or drones along its borders to stop foreign fighters and arms entering through neighboring countries, the Interior Ministry said on Tuesday.
Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul Karim Khalaf said the drones would police all Iraq's borders and their first mission took place two weeks ago.
"This is the first time Iraq has used unmanned planes to intensify the monitoring of Iraqi borders," Khalaf told a news conference. "This is a new technique to control our borders, which exceed 3,600 km (2,250 miles)."
Manned drones. No potable water for most of Iraq, still no 24 hour electricity, but, hey, al-Maliki bought some drones. You know I used to get those balsa airplanes. You put 'em together and throw 'em. Sometimes they have a rubber band propeller. I loved those things. But if you had told me, "You can have that toy or you can have something to drink that won't make you sick," nine out of ten times, I would have gone with the second choice. See, even at the age of seven, I would be a better leader than Nouri al-Maliki. But, I'm willing to bet, we all would be.
Here's China's Xinhua on the same topic:
The pilotless aircraft, started its missions two weeks ago, would police all Iraq's borders, which exceed 3,600 km, the ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul Karim Khalaf told a press conference.
Described the aircraft as "a new technique" for border control, Khalaf said that "this is the first time Iraq has used unmanned planes to intensify the monitoring of Iraqi borders."
Khalaf added that the pilotless aircraft were most useful at night, when their infrared sensors could detect the body heat of militants.
So today's announcement wasn't really fresh news -- it's been going on for over two weeks. UAE Daily News says:
Khalf showcased during the press conference an operation for Iraqi border forces who engaged with infiltrators and managed to eliminate their threat, revealing that unmanned planes had played an important role in that operation.
What does that mean? Because the way I'm taking it, it means that the drones must be weaponized. How else would they have 'engaged' and 'managed to eliminate their threat'?
That's really disturbing and the last thing Puppet Nouri needs is more ways to attack the Iraqi people. Okay, this is from World Can't Wait's "Stop Occupations & Torture for Empire!:"
Resisters with World Can’t Wait gathered in front of the New York Times building Monday March 30, to denounce U.S. torture of children and demand prosecution of the Bush Regime for war crimes.
Holding a banner reading, “The U.S. Government Tortured Children: Prosecute the Bush Regime Now!” and kneeling in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to symbolize those tortured by our government, the group created a dramatic visual for nearly 90 minutes in front of the offices of the nation’s largest newspaper.
The action was called in response to a new book by professor Michael Haas, “George W. Bush War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability For 269 War Crimes.” A particular focus was placed on the book’s exposure of our government’s kidnapping, indefinite detention, and torture of thousands of children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. As Haas details, children in detention were raped, forced to run carrying heavy buckets (and beaten when they stopped), held in solitary confinement, and denied contact with their parents for years at a time. And this only touches on the abuse these children suffered at the hands of our government.
I think I quoted something about the book earlier this week but didn't include the book title. Hopefully that helps. I'll check my campus library for it tomorrow. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, April 1, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, today kicks off sexual assault awareness month, tensions continue between al-Maliki's government and the "Awakenings" which the government's been attacking, an Iraqi Christian is beheaded, PBS airs a special for childrens of veterans and their families tonight, and more.
Tonight, first hour of prime time, PBS airs a special:
Elmo: Hi, Miss Queen Latifah.
Queen Latifah: Hey, Elmo. Hi, it's so good to see you.
Elmo: It's so good to see you too. Well what brings you here to Sesame Street?
Queen Latifah: Well I'm meeting up with some friends who've been through some pretty tough times. They were all hurt in one way or another while serving in the military. And you know those kinds of changes can be really tough on a family.
Little Girl A: When I saw my dad's legs it made me feel a little bit nervous.
Little Girl B: He doesn't have no legs and one arm.
Dad B: At first I didn't think she wanted to hug me -- because she was scared of me maybe. That hug made me feel so happy and complete inside that it made me feel like I didn't really lose anything at all.
Dad C: When I was first injured I did struggle for awhile with the idea that I may be chasing this little kid here around on crutches or in a wheel chair because I didn't know what my future held so I was, I was nervous. I was afraid it was going to change the way I was going to be a father.
Son D: I was a little worried that he was injured but I don't care if he has his whole body gone as long as he's still living.
Daughter E: I heard Mama was talking. She said that our daddy was injured. I was scared because I didn't know if he was actually going to come home or if he would just passed away.
Mom E:You know it was really hard for them to comprehend what had happened in Iraq, let alone a burn injury.
Dad E: I was in the denial stage and I didn't want to accept that I had a problem. Took awhile for me to get the pride to go away. And what it was that made me let the pride go was I was tearing my family apart.
Mom E: To see your kids and your husband have to go through that is hard.
Queen Latifah: My father actually suffered from PTSD. He was a veteran of Vietnam. I mean it was very challenging for us too as a family so I can kind of relate to what the kids have gone to. Luckily, he sought treatment, just like you guys did, and it really made a big difference because it helped him to recognize you know what was going on.
Dad D: You're not as macho as you thought you are and that you're a US soldier and you're a fighting machine. This particular fight you can't do alone. You need, you need that family.
Elmo: Is that your daddy's new hand?
Son D: Yeah.
Elmo: Well can Elmo see it? Wow. Wow. Look at that, it's like a robot hand.
John Mayer: It's really important that families talk about the change and say what's on their minds.
Elmo: Oh, you mean (singing) "Say what you need to say."
[John Mayer begins performing "Say"]
Queen Latifah: Please join us for Coming Home: Military Families Cope with Change and meet some parents and kids who are pulling together.
The special airs tonight. It's a Sesame Street special, it is geared towards childen and one of the few programs thus far -- all this way into the Iraq and Afghansitan Wars -- to note the effects on the families, especially young children. For example, a wounded veteran who suffered from extreme depression for over a year shares his story as does his son who explains, "He'd be laying there like a lump on a couch. I'd go upstairs and get mad." Again, that's PBS tonight. First hour of prime time. (Unless your local stations are playing it at a different time or not at all. Check your local listings.) The challegned/disabled community and their families rarely get coverage. Their ranks have increased due to two wars this decade.
Another rarely covered topic was given a full hour on NPR today. USA Today's Susan Page filled in as guest host on The Diane Rehm Show and, for the second hour, explored the topic of sexual assaults in the military with guest Helen Benedict and whack-job Kaye Whitley making a brief appearance that was as fact-free as her Congressional appearances are.
Susan Page: Since March 2003, nearly 200,000 American women in Iraq -- more than in any other war since WWII. They are participating in combat more than ever before but they can feel isolated in a military culture that seems hostile to females. Helen Benedict is a novelist and journalist who interviewed forty soldiers and veterans about the struggles and challenges they experienced in Iraq. Their stories are part of a new book titled The Lonely Soldier.
Helen Benedict's The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq is out today, published by Beacon Press. Benedict explained the book started when she attended a townhall with veterans discussing their experiences and all the ones up front were men. She found a female soldier at the back who explained her experiences serving in Iraq. Women service members and veterans groups allowed Benedict to find others who wanted to share their stories. Liar who needs to be fired Kaye Whitley appeared briefly on the show as a call-in and let's deal with that liar first off.
People seem unaware that Kaye Whitley helps no one. She does her soft purr and creates 'facts' as she goes along and offers cover for the sexual predators. That's what she does. If that surprises you, you need to own up to the fact that you haven't been paying attention. In July of 2008, she refused -- REFUSED -- to testify before Congress. When she finally did appear (and you can check out this Feminist Wire Daily News item from September 12, 2008 if you were caught napping when that was going on) she refused -- REFUSED -- to provide an answer as to what allowed her to legally refuse. Kaye Whitley NEEDS TO BE FIRED. Is that clear? She is paid by the US tax payer. Barack Obama should have immediately fired her upon taking office -- and it's a sign of how useless so many 'leaders' are that they didn't ask for this easy, quick (and probably cosmetic) change to take place. She insults victims who testify before Congress by getting in little digs after they've offered their testimony. She makes up figures and facts as she goes along. Congress needs to confront her -- each time she provides testimony -- with her previous testimony because the two never, ever mesh. She's a liar. And she can sell make up door to door and be as big a liar as she wants to be. But right now she's the director of DoD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office and, in that capacity, her lies are hurting a lot of people.
Susan Page asked the little liar about the increase in reported assaults and, being the liar she is, Kaye Whitley tried to assert that there was no increase in actual assaults, it was just that there was so much more comfort these days with reporting . . . thanks to the work she (Whitley) had done. That woman is a menace.
And so is the idiotic PSA she's so thrilled with. Prepare to be disgusted in mere seconds.
Male voice: My strength is for defending my nation and my fellow service members.
Female voice: Preventing sexual assault is part of that duty.
Male voice: So when I saw my buddy's date was drunk, I told him, ask her when she's sober.
Female voice: When some guy went way too far with my friend, I got her out of there.
Male voice: Sexual assault can be prevented when friends and co-workers look out for each other.
Female voice: If you see a situation headed in the wrong direction, do your duty.
Male voice: Say something, do something.
Female voice: Get help.
Male voice: Find out more at myduty.mil.
Note, it's not when a man goes too far, it's when he goes "way too far." Hopefully, Whitley will explain the difference between the two. And the first offense was probably "ask her when she's sober." Because surely sexual assaults are fine and dandy when someone's sober. "Do you mind if I sexually assult you?" When drunk, a woman is so apt to immediately say, "Yes, please sexually assault me." Right? Because sexual assault is nothing but 'good times' gone bad, right? That's what that insulting and appalling PSA is saying and Kaye Whitley's proud of it?
Whitley then wanted to bring up "restricted reporting" and forgot to note that it was a pilot program. She also -- yet again -- revealed how stupid she is, how inept she is and how fired her ass needs to be immediately. Pimping her stupid "restricted reporting" program, she claimed that if you were in the corporate world and were sexually assaulted, you could choose whether or not to participate and "certainly" no one would phone the CEO about it. If a sexual assault takes place at any corporation, everyone knows about for legal reasons. Kaye Whitley is an idiot. We could go on and on about how she twsited reality to convey a false impression. It's past time she was fired. She should have been canned on day one of the new administration for her refusal to testify to Congress. Her job does not permit her to make such a refusal. The tax payers pays her salary and when Congress wants her front and center, her ass plops down before them. That's how it works.
She praised her stupid "restricted reporting" program insisting it was a "success" and that "the reason I say that" is because, since 2005, she's had "over 2,500" victims come forward ("and last year alone over 700"). How many of those went on to file charges? That's the question she refuses to answer when Congress asks her. That was the point of the "restricted reporting" option -- how it was sold. It would provide counseling and work the victim towards filing charges. Kaye never provides an answer -- even when asked by Congress -- how many "restricted reporting" have gone on to file charges. And "over 2500"? That's not a lot. Especially when she was claiming before Congress January 28th of this year that 1,896 was the number. Again, her numers change at random -- based apparently on whom she's speaking to. When she walked that 1,896 number out before Congress, US House Rep Niki Tsongas pointed out, "It means a significant number of people who committed these assaults are not accountable." Whitley was too busy whining to that Congressional hearing (chaired by US House Rep Susan Davids) that reporting rape (not using restricted reporting -- and this was for rape, that was the topic, not sexual assault which can be attempted and can be verbal, this was reporting actual rape) "tears a unit apart." You want to explain where this woman's loyalties are because anyone who, interviewed about the huge increase in rape, that would want to whine about how the unit is harmed doesn't need to be the director of DoD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. It's Sexual Assault Awareness month and there's no indication that Kaye Whitely has any; however, firing her might increase awareness nation-wide.
When Kaye left the show, the broadcast improved tremendously and similar effects would no doubt happen at the Pentagon. When Kaye Whitley was gone, Susan Page asked Helen Benedict for her take on Kaye and her 'efforts' at the Pentagon?
Helen Benedict: One is she said that even if you report your assault anonymously, they call "restricted," the commander is still told that there was an assault. And the thing is that platoons are very enclosed, gossipy, hiearchical organizations and everybody knows everybody's business so what this means is that it's very, very likely that she [the victim] won't in fact be anonymous and everyone will know exactly who it is. And women are aware of this so that's enormously intidimating. The other thing that worries me is how much can an ad work to really change behavior? I mean, we've seen that sometimes it works better than others but, uhm, we've had sexual prevention classes in the military for quite a long time now, we've had the unrestricted reporting -- I mean the anonymous reporting since 2005. There's no evidence that sexual assault is going down. And if the numbers of reporting go up you never know if it's actually more reporting or more rapes. The culture has to change and advertising alone isn't enough. I think all these steps are good, but they're not enough. I would like to see anybody who's ever found guilty of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, kicked out of the military altogether -- not given some demotion or slap on the wrist or letter in his file, which happens all too often. Anybody who has a record of domestic or sexual violence against women should never be admitted into the military -- some have under the moral waivers. I'd like to see civilian hotlines put in all the bases at home so that a woman who has been assaulted can call a civilian rape crisis center, not even have to deal with the military at all. And I would like to see a culture where it's really understood that rape is a war crime just like at war whether you're raping civilians of the enemy or your own kind, it's a war crime. It's that serious.
And we'll get to some current problems but Page and Benedict also discussed some what ifs and we'll note this section:
Susan Page: You know some people would look at the experience, the difficult experience many women have had in this combat situation in Iraq and say, 'Well okay, maybe women should not be put in this situation, maybe women should not be in the military in these combat support roles that put them in these isolated situations.' What would you say to that argument?
Helen Benedict: I'd say it's like the argument that was once used women-shouldn't-vote, women-shouldn't-be-fire-fighters, or teachers, or professors. We've always had to fight against the sort of predjudice, [in order] to be treated equally, but women are adults, they should be able to have any job they want. Not everybody would choose to have that kind of role -- just as not every man would -- but it should be up to women to choose what jobs they want, not up to the government or anyone else.
Susan Page: Well let's do the reverse side. What if there were no restrictions on what women could do in the military? What do you think the effect of that would be?
Helen Benedict: I think if -- if the Pentagon lifted its ban on ground combat it would help women win respect and stop this perpetuation of seeing them as second class soldiers. I think it would have a large effect on how they were treated by their male comrades because at the root of every assault and harassment is lack of respect. And if the message comes down from the top "Yes, this is a second class soldier. No, there is no reason to respect her," then things aren't going to change.
Now some realities right now. Amanda Hess (Washington City Paper) notes how difficult it is for women on bases to get emergency contraception and quotes Nancy Northup of Reproductive Health Reality Check explaining, "It's excluded from the list of what military facilities, including the primary stores where families shop, are required to stock. That can be particularly challenging for women and families who are based overseas and rely solely on those facilities to buy over-the-counter drugs." Corpus Christi, Texas' KRISTV reports a 29-year-old "military police officer" is a suspect in the "aggravated sexual assault" on "a 14-year-old Aransas Pass girl". Virginia's WDBJ7 Roanoke News reports Stephen J. Lloyd, 21-years-old, is in jail for suspicion "of sexually assaulting another cadet". Mike Gangloff (Roanoke Times) adds that allegations involve a female and states she's 20-year-old and has stated she was raped. Sunday Jane Lerner (Lower Hudson Valley Journal News) reported that Atlanta police had taken Lavell Tyrone McNutt into custody under suspicion over a recent series of sexual assaults in Atlanta. McNutt raped two women while he was a West Point cadet and faced a court-martial in 1976. Despite pleading guilty he was given only nine years -- five for one rape, four for another -- and the judge ordered that the two sentence run consecutively. This week IVAW's Jen Hogg joined with Veterans and Servicemembers Project at Urban Justice Center's director Rachel Natelson and Hogg's co-founder of Claiming Justice Anuradha Bhagwati in addressing the issue of sexual assault in a letter to the New York Times which noted:
Violence against servicewomen will continue to exist so long as sexual assault is treated as an internal military mater.
As it did in the aftermath of the Tailhook and Aberdeen Proving Ground scandals, Congress has lately renewed its demand that the military imporve the matter in which it polices itself. But why should the military be trusted to police itself at all?
Under military policy, the disposition of harassment and assault cases is left entirely to the discretion of unit commanders, who alone decide on the need for corrective action. Since service members are exempt from civilian workplace harassment laws, the military is shielded from precisely the sort of outside judicial review that could act as a real deterrent.
This lawlessness has fostered a culture of underprosecution in which only 38 percent of substantiated rape cases even go to trial.
Surely these numbers prove that it's time to stop trusting the fox to protect the henhouse.
VETWOW is an organization for female military veterans and RAAIN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is an organization serving all victims of sexual assault (civilian and military, male and female) -- RAAIN's toll free number is 1 (800) 656-HOPE or 1 (800) 656-4673.
Helen Benedict said rape should be treated like a War Crime and, if it were, that might be the saddest thing of all. That's said because what happened to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, was a War Crime and yet most outlets, including the New York Times, refused to print her name or run a photo (USA Today and the Washington Post were two exceptions -- the Associated Press repeatedly did a strong job portraying Abeer as a person and not a statistic or, worse, an 'other'). The 14-year-old girl was gang-raped at her home by US soldiers while one US soldier shot her parents and her five-year-old sister dead in the next room. Then that soldier joined the others and allegedly shot her after he raped her. He then allegedly attempted to set Abeer's body on fire to destroy the evidence. When that didn't work, they just made sure 'insurgents' would be blamed for their actions, then they returned back to the base where -- after disposing of the blood-stained clothes -- they grilled chicken wings and proceeded to get drunk while celebrating. All the US soldiers have confessed to their role in the conspiracy and rape (two soldiers confessed to their rape, others to various parts of the conspiracy where they planned to do this to Abeer and her family) except one: Steven D. Green. The others, still in the military, faced an August 2006 court-martial and then trials that were completed by last year. All fingered Steven D. Green as the ringleader. They stated Green came up with the plan(Abeer's brother told reporters that Green stroked his sister's face and had long made his sister uncomfortable), that he shot and killed the sister, the parents and then Abeer, that he participated in the gang-rape and that he set Abeer's corpse on fire. Steven D. Green has, through is attorneys, maintained he was innocent. How 'innocent' the world will soon see since his attorneys have been attempting to navigate an insanity plea with the court. The last Friday in June 2006, Green, who had already been discharged from the military before the War Crimes came to light, was apprehended by federal authorities in Kentucky. After many delays (including a postponement for a quilting fair -- that is not a joke, they actually postponed last year's trial for a quilting fair) Green's trial is now scheduled to begin April 27th at the United States District Court Western District of Kentucky. April 6th jury selection will begin. They are anticipating media interest (after the media silence on Abeer, that's an interesting prediction) and Judge Thomas B. Russell issued media guidelines March 26th including that a media room would be set aside and laptops and cell phones would be allowed there, they also restricted the press to doing all interviews outside the courthouse ("Interviews may be conducted on the sidewalk on Broadway across from the courthouse"). Well maybe they're expecting the international press? Sunday AFP noted the case: "In another case involving the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her father, mother and younger sister, four soldiers were convicted by a court martial and handed sentences of up to 110 years in prison. The last defendant, Steven D. Green, is to be tried next month in a civilian court in Paducah, Kentucky and could face the death penalty if convicted." (AP filed two stories on Green's attempt to make a motion that the prospective jury pool did not contain enough African-Americans. Green's attorneys filed paperwork today to withdraw that motion -- PDF format warning, here for that paperwork.] And, to be clear, James Barker and Paul Cortez entered guilty pleas, Jesse V. Spielman was convicted and Bryan L. Howard had made a plea agreement.
Yesterday in Basra, a ceremony was held for the 'withdrawal' of British forces which really isn't a withdrawal since 400 of the 4100 will remain behind after 'withdrawal' and which was strange since most will be leaving by May 31st and not yesterday. But, hey, any excuse to throw a party, right? Campbell Robertson and Sam Dagher (New York Times) note that a one time, British forces in Iraq numbered 40,000 and that the main thrust of the ceremony was to turn Basra over to US control. As Richard Beeston (Times of London) observes, "The British Army still knows how to perform a ceremonial withdrawal better than anyone, as the Royal Marines band and a lone piper proved at Basra airport yesterday. Thanks to decades of lowering flags and marching into the sunset on every corner of the planet, the drill is dignified and graceful -- and certainly well rehearsed." Caroline Wyatt (BBC) reports that the majority of British forces leaving will not be leaving until May 31st. She also notes 179 British troops have died and we'll add "thus far" because British troops are not home and will not be home come May 31st. Xinhua notes, "Tuesday's departure is part of an agreement signed between Iraq and Britain in November last year, in which the latter pledged to complete pullout of its last 4,100 soldiers from Iraq by late July 2009." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports of the ceremony, "Major General Andy Salmon handed over what will become known as Multinational Division South to U.S. Major General Michael Oates during a ceremony at a military base in the southern city of Basra. The pullout is a process that will culminate on May 31, the Ministry of Defence said." Alsumaria points out, "It is to be noted that senior Iraqi officers attended the ceremony and praised the British Army saying that Iraq owes them a lot for helping Iraq's Army in all its missions." The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan (at Financial Times of London) quotes US Gen Ray Odierno stating, "We have shed blood together and that is a bond that no man can break. You have restored hope where chaos reigned." Raghavan notes that approximately 7,000 US service members will replace the departing British. Terri Jud (Independent of London) explains, "Yesterday, a bright pink trailer offering 'pretzel dogs' was a sign that the Americans had begun moving into the British base, having been warned by their unofficial website that they will have to endure more spartan living conditions until the luxuries to which US forces are accustomed are built." British Maj Gen Andy Salmon tells Deborah Haynes (Times of London), "I think we have made a difference; we can see amazing progress has taken place in Basra. There is still an awful lot to do, of course. At least we can go having done our bit." He added his plans for his return to England will include, "Have a couple of beers, I think, and see my missus."
Meanwhile Anna Mulrine (US News & World Reports) notes this weekend's Baghad battle and states "the arrest of Adil al-Mashhadani" has put "the spotlight" on a long "simmering issue." The "Awakenings" are being targeted now -- the Sunni thugs the US put on the payroll after they installed Shi'ite thugs into the puppet government. Robert H. Reid (AP) observes the attack "carried big risks -- chief among them that Sunnis would view the action not as a move against a criminal but a politically motivated Shiite push against Sunnis." With the weekend violence in Baghdad which found "Awakening"s on one side and Iraqi and US forces on the other, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapes) observed, "Most Iraqis think that today's lower level of violence is the eye, not the end, of the storm, and that the decisive power struggles are just beginning. The U.S.-backed Iraqi government is widely regarded as an undeserving group of exiles who returned to Iraq on the backs of American tanks." And they're right to think that since all the high positions -- such as prime minister -- are occupied by people who fled Iraq long ago and waited until after the US declared war and began occupying Iraq to return to the country they now 'rule'. This morning, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports on the shifting ground and notes a US "military intelligence officer" who just knows the resistance is dead but "terrorism" will always remain in Iraq -- like the Tigris, I guess. Others are less sure and Iraqi and US officials echo many of the concerns Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) reported (noted in yesterday's snapshot). Is the concern realistic or not? At this point, no one knows (and Rubin doesn't attempt to present it any other way or to take sides). But, true or false, it feeds into al-Maliki's talk of why he can't let "Awakenings" be absorbed by his puppet government. (The counter-argument is that these concerns are not about potential absorbings, these concerns are that "sleepers" are already in the Iraqi security forces.) Nouri's best buddy, the Condi to his George, Mowaffak al-Rubaie (who was awarded the title of "Iraq's national seucirty adviser" following a dramatic upset in the swimsuit competition) is insistent that it's (you know it's coming) "Al Qaeda and the hard-core Saddamists" -- and you get the feeling that al Qaeda's tossed in for the international audience and "Saddamists" for all the Shi'ites in Iraq. Like Condi, Mowaffak knows how to work the room. For the article, "14 leaders of the Awakening movement" were interviewed and they see reason for concerns: "assassination attempts, homemade bombs placed near their homes or under their cars, leaflets urging them not to work with the Iraqi government." Mullah Nadhim al-Jubori goes on the record and notes kidnappings of four men serving under him (two set free when ransom was paid, the other two killed)and notes: "The ransom was picked up in Baghdad. That tells me there is good coordination and organization among Al Qaede members." Meanwhile, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, the US military and Iraqi officials were telling Rod Nordland that the Fadhil neighborhood of Baghdad was weapon free. Not quite. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports this afternoon that the approximately 250 "Awakening"s in Fadhil turned over their weapons . . . excpet for "at least 25 percent" who "escaped with their weapons." And Reid reports the figure may actually be 30%. Reid notes the weekend attack in Baghdad has other "Awakening" Council members in Iraq suspicious and wary and that they have refused to work 13 of their 21 checkpoints in Jurf al-Sakhar as a result ("The area had been a major al-Qaida staging area until the rise of the Awakenings"). Thomas E. Ricks, author of the new bestseller The Gamble, writes (at Foreign Policy) of how Col Pete "Mansoor had warned in Baghdad that signing the Status of Forces Agreement could lead the United States into fighting the Sunni 'Awakening' units also known as the 'Sons of Iraq,' or SOI" and quotes Mansoor's confirmation of that warning (confirmation to Ricks) which includes, "As I recall what I said was that the status of forces agreement would put U.S. forces into a position where they could not intervene to stop the government of Iraq from attacking SOI. If the Iraqi Security Forces needed help once engaged against the SOI, U.S. forces could be drawn into the fight against the very people who helped us turn the war around."
Back to Alissa J. Rubin who reports a new weapon being utilized, RKG-3 grenades which "weigh just five pounds and, attached to parachutes, can be lobbed by a teenager but can penetrate the American military's latest heavily armored vehicle, the MRAP." Rubin notes these inexpensive weapons cost $10 a piece. Me speaking, not Rubin, the American military has long laughed at the mortar attacks. The mortar attacks are not precise and rarely cause alarm. (Troops stationed inside the Green Zone have been injured by mortar attacks. An attack that wounded Australian troops several years ago stands out. However, the attack that frightened the US military, the attack on the Green Zone, was the 2006 late spring attack which wasn't mortars but an attempt to storm the Green Zone -- this led to the first in a series of al-Maliki's 'crack downs'.) If more precise than the mortars, the RKG-3s could become a serious source of concern. Turning to today's violence..
Bombings?
Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report an RPG7 was launched in Baghdad "during a visit by vice president Tariq al-Hashimi to Sadr City" leaving two soldiers injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing resulted in two people being wounded, a Mosul car bombing left twelve people wounded and, dropping back to last night for all that follows, a Mosul grenade attack wounded three people, a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded four police officers and an al Juboor bombing which resulted in an exchange of gun fire with the US military and house raids by the US military.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 "primary school teacher" was shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report 11 corpses discovered in Baghdad,
Today the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division - North Soldier died in a non-combat related incident in Salah ad Din province, March 31. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4263.
Yesterday's snapshot covered the hearing on Iraqi refugees US Senator Bob Casey chaired yesterday. At the hearing, Nabil al-Tikriti expressed the opinion that Iraqi Christians are not refugees of interest in the way that those who help the US military are or other (non-Christian groups -- let's be honest on that, it was his point, that Iraqi Christians get attention from the US because they can relate or think they can). It was an insulting remark and a lousy call because Iraqi Christians are repeatedly targeted for who they are. That qualifies as refugee by any standard of the term. (By contrast, some of the ones al-Tikriti considered refugees would not qualify as refugees by many definitions.) Today Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report Sabah Aziz Sulaiman was beheaded in Kirkuk yesterday. The 71-year-old man's 'crime'? Apparently being an Iraqi Christian. It's not a small point, Iraqi Christians are targeted and it is wrong to assume they get any extra attention. They don't. There are Christian groups in the US that note and support them (and their are Muslim groups in the US that do the same with Muslim Iraqis) but in terms of real recognition translating as press or governmental, they get very little. The hearing yesterday (attended by so few senators) made that point. It's foolish to be so petty about 'attention' that you deny the realities of what is going on and has gone on for Iraqi Christians. They are targeted in the same way that Jews in Germany were -- not to that length and degree yet -- by which I mean, no round ups have taken place. But they are killed, they are targeted and they are threatened. The Jews in Germany (in the lead up to and during WWII) were targeted for who they were, the Iraqi Christians are targeted for who they are. It is a bigotry and a specific hate and to deny that is to deny the reality of what's taking place. They are not the only refugees but they make up a significant percentage of them. Refugees International has issued a press release yesterday:
Washington, D.C. - As security in Iraq improves, refugees and internally displaced Iraqis are starting to return home, but the returns are slow and tentative, Refugees International told Congress today. The new security climate in Iraq has not yet translated into increases in the provision of services to displaced Iraqis and more must be done to assist and protect them. Last month, Refugees International completed a mission to Baghdad, Eskanderia, Fallujah, Karbala and Hilla to assess the humanitarian situation inside Iraq. According to the United Nations, about 20 percent of Iraq's population, or more than four million people, remain displaced. "In its strategy to encourage returns, the Government of Iraq has failed to take political, social and economic reality into consideration and examine the country's capacity to absorb large numbers of returns," said RI President Ken Bacon. "Instead, it has made the return of displaced Iraqis a component, as opposed to a consequence, of its security strategy." The testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adds that, "Assistance to returnees, property restitution, and the provision of basic services are essential for Iraqis to return home. But many will still not return until they feel the root causes of the conflict have been addressed. They need to feel accepted by the community and provided with security guarantees." Refugees International also expressed concern that the Government of Iraq is no longer registering internally displaced people in an effort to make the displacement problem disappear. Corruption within Iraq's government is widespread and makes it extremely difficult to effectively deliver assistance and for international and national aid agencies to operate. However, Refugees International met with impressive local groups, who provide assistance to thousands of vulnerable Iraqis without any support from the Iraqi government or the international community. "There is no unified process to deal with returning internally displaced persons or refugees. Property disputes will linger for many years to come and are likely to spark renewed violence," added Mr. Bacon. "While security remains the major factor in a family's decision to return home, other factors play a role - infrastructure, particularly water and electricity, employment opportunities and health care. The Government of Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations have to do a better job of working together to provide the services necessary to support returning Iraqis." Refugees International is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates to end refugee crises. Since November 2006, the organization has conducted nine missions to the Middle East to assess the needs of displaced Iraqis and work with international leaders to develop effective solutions to this crisis. RI's latest field report on displacement inside Iraq will be available on April 9, 2009. For more information, go to www.refugeesinternational.org/Iraq.
Lastly, David Solnit, author with Aimee Allison (Allison co-hosts KPFA's The Morning Show with Philip Maldari), notes this event by Courage to Resist, Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War & Unconventional Action in the Bay:
Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us!Please Invite your friends:Bay Area Premiere from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQ A Big Noise Film followed by a Public Discussion: How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama? Carl Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq. Antonia Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq. Friday April 3, 7pm ATA THEATER 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required. Obama's Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens. It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go. Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.
iraq
pbs
npr
the diane rehm show
the new york timescampbell robertsonsam daghercaroline wyattterri judddeborah taterefugees internationalcaroline alexanderthe socialist workersudarsan raghavanrichard beestondeborah haynesalsumaria
the new york timesalissa j. rubinrania abouzeidmcclatchy newspapersanna mulrinenathan hodgerobert h. reid
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
thomas e. ricks
rod nordland
sahar issa
hussein kadhim
jen hogg
aimee allisonphilip maldaridavid solnitobama's iraq
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Mandatory retirement for the Senate?
Tuesday and do you ever read something that just disgusts you? This is from something called Modern Healthcare:
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who was diagnosed with brain cancer last May and was visibly shaky at times during the hearing, lauded Sebelius on her skill as an elected official and her knowledge on healthcare. “When it comes to reform, we know that the challenges are great,” he said. “But I have confidence that Gov. Sebelius can lead the way with common sense solutions.”
Step the f**k down. That's my senator and he needs to step down. This isn't a marathon or any other private activity. He is supposed to be working. He is clearly not up to the task. He clearly needs to step down. It's not funny, it's not heart-tugging, it's not anything but sick.
He needs to leave the Senate now. We deserve to have two functioning senators. He needs to go.
He is 77-years-old. He needs to step down.
He's not coming off like Iron Man Cal Ripken Jr. He's coming off like an old fool who doesn't know when it's past time to head home.
Okay, moving over to another topic. This is something I saw at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:
People's Campaign for the Constitution
The People's Campaign for the Constitution is a broad, national, nonpartisan, grassroots movement to take back our constitutional rights. Join today and help build a coalition in your community or congressional district to hold your legislators accountable for fulfilling their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Email our organizer to learn more.
Why is this fight still so important? Here are five reasons.
And let me add a reason why the fight is still so important: It's not over!
America elected another Bully Boy! This one's named Barack.
We need to take our rights back.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 31, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US announces another death, Bob Casey holds a hearing on Iraqi refugees, tensions continue in Baghdad, and more.
Today Senator Bob Casey chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommitee hearing on the "The Return and Resettlement of Displace Iraqis." The hearing started late (one minute shy of an hour late) and lasted approximately one hour and thirty-two minutes. The turnout among senators was dreadful. On the plus side, I've never attended a hearing where witnesses were asked to be frank, given additional time to be frank, offered the chance clarify and to raise issues that they had not been asked about. Casey ran a very effective hearing and did it all by himself because no one else asked any questions. (Senator James Risch passed on speaking and Senator Edward Kaufman just noted that they were voting and had already voted on three budget proposals). Casey opened by noting the refugee crisis and called it "one of the most tragic humanitarian consequences" of the Iraq War. He entered his statement into the record and skipped reading it out loud ("for the purposes of moving" the hearing along). He noted the UNHCR numbers of 2.7 million internal refugees (IDP -- internally displaced persons) and 2 million external refugees for the total of 4.7 million refugees and wanted the three witnesses to discuss the numbers at the start. Appearing before the committee were Ellen Laipson (Henry L. Stimson Center), Nansy Aossery (International Medical Corps) and Nabil al-Tikriti (University of Mary Washington).
Ellen Laipson worries whether Iraqi refugees will be seen as the new Palestinians? That's a thread that came up throughout her responses and one she introduced in her opening remarks. She feels that countries such as Jordan and Lebanon are motivated to help the Iraqi refugees today in part because of scars from being less helpful to the Palestinians in earlier times. She noted that there were "definitional problems" regarding the refugees because some of the returnees (to neighborhoods, IDPs) are returning from pre-2003 exits. The current terminology does not help clarify the situation. She noted there were two big refugee waves since the start of the Iraq War. You had the 2003-2005 wave and then the 2006 wave which was larger and came in response to the fighting between Shia and Sunni sects.
She would like to see:
1) Work to improve conditions in Iraq and make returns viable
2) More support for host countries
3) Encouragement and support for Iraqis to find long term solutions
Nancy Aossey's International Medical Corps has been in Iraq since 2003 and they have a staff of 5,000 ("primarily outside the Green Zone"). She would touch on the issue of women and children -- which make up the bulk of the refugee population -- throughout the hearing. She noted the number of returnees from outside Iraq is small and she noted the "debt of gratitude" the international community owes those countries who have taken in the refugees. She would stress repeatedly who decides on returns: "Return, and I repeat, can only occur when Iraqi families feel it is safe to do so." She explained that even when they leave, they are in contact with "relatives and friends from the community" and they do get news and updates from them which provide a sense of how things are in Iraq, specifically in their home neighborhoods. On the numbers of refugees, she agreed with Laipson that the numbers were fluid but she pointed out that the United Nations uses the same methodology when determining any refugee crisis in the world. And she noted that some do not register for relief programs or with the UN refugee program because they fear being forced to return to Iraq. Her recommendations were:
1) US policy towards Iraq needs to develop a strategy for IDPs and refugees.
2) Increased support for humanitarian efforts
3) Additional resources should be provided to the US State Dept and USAID
4) Urge and support the Iraqi government to develop a safe and sustainable return
5) Capacity building measures within Iraqi ministries ("managing this crisis must be an Iraqi process")
Nabil al-Tirkirit stressed that the ethnic and religious identities do go back in Iraqi history but not sectarian conflict and that outbreaks of sectarian conflict have been rare in Iraq's history. He would stress various groups (including MEK which he wrongly stated at the end had not been mentioned) in his opening statements -- bascially the entire demographics of Iraq -- and note that the three divisions most utilized and noted (Kurds, Sunni, Shia) were a division that the US brings along to 'explain' Iraq when he would characterize the division in Iraq prior to the start of the Iraq War as "between Baghdad and the rest of the country." On the issue of refugee numbers, he would point out that the low is 3.8 million while the high if 5.5 million -- general range -- so 4.7 million seems to be a reasonable average. His recommendations included:
1) Property adjudication and returnee assistance
2) Radical increase in housing across
3) Ensure that all Iraqis -- regardless of where now located -- are able to vote in the upcoming Parliamentary elections
4) Make the public distribution cards easily transferable (if you move from one neighborhood to another, your rations card does not transfer in most cases and you're required to go back to your former neighborhood)
5) Increase protection for "micro-minorities" possibly through the creation of a micro security council
6) Create a look-and-see program for Iraqis to return to their neighborhoods to determine if there are improvements. If not, they should easily be allowed to leave (not always easy to enter or leave due to border policies).
7) Speed up the process for refugees applying for asylum and increase US programs.
Aossey spoke of capacity building in her opening statement and Chair Casey wanted to know if she could expand on her remarks about the Ministry of Displacement and Migration? Aossey explained, "Our expereince with this Ministry is that they do have the will. I mean, we've worked very closely with them and we do believe that they [. . .] are very interested in doing the right thing thing with their people." The issue is the capacity building she feels is needed. "We haven't seen within Iraq, throughout the country, that there's an ability for the people and for people within the ministries -- they just literally don't have any historical experience with setting up systems, with delegation . . . to not only make decisions but to implement them as well." She would touch on the historical experience in the time immediately prior to the Iraq War (Saddam Hussein period) and how there was a need for capacity skills to be increased through civilian internation and programs. Bob Casey would sum it up as "experience in operation" and she would agree with that and note that "the history there is that people there were not necessarily empowered to do these things." Bob Casey wanted to know about other agencies working to assist with the crisis and Aossey stated that bolstering "the civilian capacity is very, very important. . . . A lot of this is just management training and adminstrartive expertise."
al-Tikriti pointed out that the Ministry of Displacement and Migration was "a post-2003 cretation itself" (by Paul Bremer) and that, as late as 2007, it still "had a small staff and budget." He wasn't sure how they'd do with the issues today but stated that prior to the creation of the Displacement and Migration Ministry, the issues would have gone to the Ministry of the Interior and the Red Crescent.
Senator Casey notes that he and other senators wonder "what's happening at the senior levels of the government. One of the challenges we face is determining whether the central government, which has Shi'ites in charge, whether the govenrment is discriminating against the displaced Sunni population." Before going to the answers, note that both women's organizations interact with and are dependent upon the al-Maliki government.
Laipson felt that if there was a problem it might be that the Sunnis are "not fully testing the system." They might not, she stated, believe that the rule of law is in place and would be followed. She then made an interesting comment that Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, "sees the return of some refugees as part of Iraq's credibilty" and image to other countries but "others such as the prime minister . . . are simply enjoying being the ones on top." Really? Talabani's more concerned than al-Maliki? al-Maliki and his spokespeople have repeatedly lied and said it was safe to return to Iraq. Talabani's never publicly made those statements. Talabani's also noted he's stepping down from his figure head post at the end of his term (this December). al-Maliki would like to continue as prime minister. Again, her organization depends on al-Maliki to continue its work.
Aossey sidestepped the issue by noting, again, the networks refugees have, the ones they're in contact with, and the communication which allows them to know whether or not it is safe to return or not. She noted "it first starts with the feeling that safety must be durable" because no one's going to return if they don't believe it's safe. She then noted that, in Iraq, "people who are Sunni have a more difficult time accessing services" ("our general experience" in working in Iraq with all the populations). The Sunnis "seem to struggle more in accessing services that they need but we don't know why that is, we can't pinpoint it but there tends to be trends in that regard."
al-Tikirit pointed out "just this past weekend" you saw the tensions flare up with the move on the Sunni "Awakenings" which "may have set off the beginnings of a civil uprising in Baghdad." He also noted the rising tensions between the Kurds and Arabs "happening right now."
Casey would follow with "a more blunt question" to al-Tikriti, "is it your sense or do you have any reason to believe that Prime Minister al-Maliki is actively inhibiting the return of refugees who happen to be Sunni?" al-Tikriti responded, "No, I do not believe that. I do, however, believe -- and think there's a lot of evidence to back this up -- that those who do not want to return do not trust al-Maliki."
Bob Casey noted that the Obama administration is committed to spending $150 million on Iraqi refugees this fiscal year and he wanted to know if the United States was providing adequate resources? Assoey's response was that "additional resources are needed less for infrastructrue and more to do the things that USAID and the State Department have known all along are important: to build the capacity of the people." She explained this civilian training needed to be emphasized. "The training becomes a priority?" Casey asked and she agreed.
al-Tikriti poined out that "$160 million is not so greatly different than it was in the last couple of years" under the previous adminsitration. And that "much of the international community feels that this is a US crisis" and therefore that the US should be contributing more monies.
"Look at this problem just through the eys of a child," Bob Casey suggested noting that children make up a significant number of Iraqi refugees. He asked them to think about not just what services they receive or not but whether they would be attracted to some "harmful" ideology. Ellen Laipson's "deep concern" was Iraqi teenagers in Syria "who are idle all the time". Nancy Aossey noted that 75% of the refugee population are said to be women and children and that "Refugee populations and IDP populations children suffer disproportionately and, if I could add, women and children." She pointed out how many of the families suffering are now one-parent families due to the deaths and destruction of the war. She futher pointed out, "Children living in poverty for a whole host of reasons is always a bad situation" and that the hardships are frequently "too much for an adult to cope with [. . .] let alone a child." She stated children measure the world through their parents. "If you don't help the mother and the father, if they aren't employed [. . .] if they are deprived, if they are afraid, then chances are so are the children." Nabil al-Tikriti explained, "I'm personally uncomfortable with the paradigm of youth as a security risk." He went on to state this could translate as, "Educate me or I'll blow up a building."
In terms of neighboring countries, Ellen Laipson declared that Jordan and Lebanon "are deeply, deeply nervous" that Iraqi problems will be transferred to their regions but she feels this was "more acute in 2006 and 2007" and that the fear "is down a bit". On Syria, she stated there was frustratation on the part of Syria "that they have not been able to do business with Iraq." She noted the US attitudes towards Syria and stated that the attitudes were seen (by Syria) as having impacted Syria's chances. Nancy Aossey pointed out, "I can't think of many countries that want refugee populations in their country permanently." She then talked about general concerns regarding influxes of refugees and how those "affect their own balance."
Senator Casey floated the idea of a Special Coordinator for Refugees in the White House. Nabil al-Tikriti was in favor of this noting the government maze already existing with departments like State and Homeland Security and felt it was necessary for the issue of assistance when refugees manage to make it to the US. Ellen Laipson feels it's all already "mindboggling complex" and "I'm not sure that Czar in the White House can break through all of that." She'd prefer to see Homeland Security streamline its process and noted that the refugee process is stalled by many post-911 measures in the US. Nancy Aossey, like al-Tikriti, was in favor of the position, "I think it would show the extraordinary importance of this -- whether or not it would get muddled into bureaucratic process, it's difficult to know. She feels it's "a good idea in large part because it would be someone's only job" allowing them to focus on the issue. al-Tikriti felt there was much more the federal government could be doing with the refugees here in the US and pointed to the refugees from Vietnam and a program that allowed them to obtain jobs in which the federal government paid half the salary. It provided steady income and allowed families to set down roots. As an example, he offered Joesph Cao who was a Vietnam refugee and his family benefitted from that program. (Cao is a US House Rep today.) What of the issue of resettling the refugees, Casey wanted to know?
This led to an interesting discussion. I've tried to stay with they-said throughout but I'll be offering opinions here and it will be obvious when I do. Ellen Laipson rightly noted that "we're doing poorly across the board. I think the numbers are too low and I think once they get here we're not doing enough." "American affiliated Iraqis" getting special treatment while others waited concerned her. It concerns me as well. However it does not concern al-Tikriti who thinks they should be able to jump in line and also thinks it is bad to help Iraqi Christians. It causes problems back in Iraq. Iraqi Christians are targeted. For who they are. Not because they collaborated with an invading force, not because they went against their own country. They are targeted for who they are. When you read of a liquor store owner shot dead, that's usually an Iraqi Christian. The external refugee population has a huge number of Iraqi Christians. Inside Iraq, a huge number have left their homes and relocated to the Kurdistan Regional Government where they feel safer. (Relocated after threats and attacks.) Just last summer you saw the attack on Christians in Mosul. They are attacked for who they are. They are real refugees. Ellen Laipson was correct in her remarks and al-Tikriti was wrong in his. It's just that simple. Laispon did not say "No translators!" She did note that refugee is a classification and that the US needs to be sure that they are meeting the needs of refugees which includes determining refugee status. That goes beyond "I like ___ because they helped us with . . ."
Nancy Aossey skipped the issue and took it back to the proposal of a White House level coordinator. She stated there "needs to be some overall leadership at the highest level."
That's an overview (I've skipped PRTs -- and al-Tikriti had his best point there, we may return to it tomorrow). In closing, Senator Casey asked them to offer what they would underscore as important.
Ellen Laipson feels the "refugee story is an important test of American leadership" and she "would like the United States to pay more attention to the refugees. Having said that I want to think about this refugee problem in a more holistic way" which, she explained, means looking at it in terms of the system and not just a group of people here, a group there, but the system and how the solutions can be integrated.
Nancy Aossey wanted to stress "that we take the hard won gains and the progress that have been made over the last few years and keep things progressing so that we don't bracktrack. That is, we cannot rush the returns of the refugees or the IDPs. People need to be comfortable. [. . .] Certainly, I believe that this should be civilian led."
Nabil al-Tikriti stated that "the focus should be on the most vulnerable populations and it hasn't always been" (like in his remarks about Iraqi Christians?). He listed three groups. We'll note the Palestinain refugees -- "effectively trapped. They need to go somewhere and they're stuck." He again noted the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) although he stated thay hadn't been noted. He rightly pointed out that the US has been the only thing protecting the Irani refugees in Iraq -- since 1979 -- and that when the US leaves, what happens then?
That's the basic hearing. Staying with the MEK, Lara Logan (CBS News -- link has text and vidoe) notes Camp Ashraf is their location:
Ashraf is home to Iranian opposition members from the PMOI -- or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. These people are the reason Iran's nuclear program was exposed -- it was their intelligence that brought it to the world's attention. But in Iran's eyes, they are a terrorist organization. The current Iraqi government agrees and the group is still on the U.S. blacklist, although it has been taken off the list of terrorist organizations by the EU. Tehran wants their camp shut down, wanted members arrested and handed over for trial - and their organization destroyed. But the U.S. has an obligation to the people of Ashraf. In July 2004, the United States Government recognized PMOI members as Protected Persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, meaning that they should not be deported, expelled or repatriated, or displaced inside Iraq. Now, as U.S. influence wanes in Iraq, Iran's influence continues to strengthen and grow. Through Iran's allies in the Iraqi government, a noose has been applied around Camp Ashraf and the people living there, and is slowly tightening. So far that has meant stopping fuel supplies, cutting off logistic trucks -- allowing only limited shipments of food to the camp. This month, when Iraqi forces occupied a building that had been housing Iranian women, there were clashes with the camp's residents and several were beaten by Iraqi soldiers, until U.S. forces stepped in.
Over the weekend, the uneasy tensions between the Shi'ite government of al-Maliki and the Sunni "Awakenings" erupted as Sunni leader Adel Mashhadani was targeted and arrested. The response in his Fadhil neighborhood of Baghdad was outrage and many took up arms against the combined Iraqi and US forces. Several Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped (later released) and people were killed and wounded. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) reported yesterday:
The Baghdad neighborhood of Fadhil is on lockdown. Dozens of tanks and Humvees, and hundreds of Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces now control the area. They are conducting house-to-house searches looking for weapons and wanted men. Until this weekend, the U.S.-backed Sunni paramilitaries known as the Sons of Iraq kept security here.
[. . .]
But on the streets of Fadhil, several residents said they feel there were sectarian motives for the crackdown. Approching an NPR correspondent, an older Fadhil resident angrily denounced the raid, shouting repeatedly, "This is a war against the Sunni areas."
Iraqi army officers quickly arrested him, abruptly accusing him of planting roadside bombs.
Nearby, another woman cries out that the army arrested her son for no reason. Dozens of other residents line the street, silently watching the security operation.
In this morning's New York Times, Rod Nordland reports on yesterday's situation and the US military's claim that Fadhil was now weapon free -- the US military is presumably military spokesperson David Perkins who is quoted throughout the piece. Weapon-free, as the house-to-house raids went on. That timeline is what had a friend at M-NF laughing this morning who noted that "Awakenings" have seen this coming and have no doubt stashed weapons which, in Iraq, would include burying them and a house-to-house search (even a thorough one which would take some time -- more than was spent yesterday) wouldn't turn those up. Nordland explains, "Only a week ago, Mr. Mashhadani had complained publicly about late pay and lack of jobs, warning that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia might well return to his community." And then he was arrested. Not unlike the elderly man attempting to speak to NPR only to be seized with the 'excuse' that he was wanted for planting bombs because, after all, don't most bomb planters want to go on NPR -- I believe they all covet an hour with Terry Gross.
Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) reports today continued unease among the Sunni population over Nouri al-Maliki's latest stunt. Sheikh Hamid al-Hayess tells Time, "The Sahwa has been infiltrated by al-Qaeda. A civil war is coming." (Sahwa, "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq" are three interchangeable terms.) Abouzeid writes:
In recent months, al-Qaeda in Iraq and its affiliates have been regrouping, recalibrating their targets and tactics; they have recruited disenfranchised members of the U.S.-allied Sahwa movement, planting them as sleeper agents among the mainly Sunni neighborhood patrolmen, who number some 94,000 nationwide, according to a highly placed source close to the insurgency. "Many of the Sahwa have returned after seeking forgiveness, but they are still Sahwa," the source tells TIME. "They wear the government's uniform, but they plant explosives and sticky bombs. The Sahwa is the biggest recruiting pool for al-Qaeda." (See the most dangerous streets of Baghdad at the height of the insurgency.)
The source claims that some 40% of the Sahwa are insurgent spies. A senior source in the Interior Ministry who requested anonymity does not deny the infiltration but puts the figure closer to 20%. The Interior Ministry source says intelligence agencies are reviewing the Sahwa files. Abdel-Karim Samarraie, the deputy leader of parliament's defense and security committee and a senior member of the largest Sunni bloc, the Tawafuk, says that al-Qaeda moles represent a small minority of Sahwa but should be weeded out. "The Interior Ministry fired 62,000 of its employees because there were legal accusations against them. The same thing can be applied to the Sahwa." The U.S military did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Maybe true, maybe not. No one knows. For one thing known, we'll return to Paul Jay's interview of McClatchy's Leila Fadel for the Real News Network:
Now it isn't a 100,000 people being detained but there are hundreds of them being detained and the people that are being detained or are in exile are the ones that were the faces of the movement when it was really dangerous. When if you joined the police, you were killed. When there were headless bodies in the streets of Diyala Province. This was at a time when this was a really dangerous thing to do and those types of guys, if you look at it now, are the ones who are really getting targeted.
Author of the new bestseller The Gamble, Thomas E. Ricks, noted at Foreign Policy yesterday:I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad. Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post: "As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage." That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad mortar attacks which left five people wounded, a Mosul suicide truck bombing which claimed 4 lives and left thirty-eight injured, a Falluja sticky bombing which wounded one police officer. Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and that the Mosul suicide bombing claimed 7 lives and also a Mosul grenade attack which injured three people.
Today the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here March 31. The Marine's name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4262 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
In the US, Courage to Resist, Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War,& Unconventional Action in the Bay are sponsoring an event this Friday:
Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us! Please Invite your friends: Bay Area Premiere from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQ A Big Noise Film followed by a Public Discussion: How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama? Carl Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq. Antonia Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq. Friday April 3, 7pm ATA THEATER 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required. Obama's Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens. It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go. Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.
Lastly, as Trina ("The economy"), Kat ("Stevie Nicks, music and TV") and Elaine ("Stevie Nicks") noted last night, Stevie Nicks releases her first ever live album today. (A DVD is also available -- and I believe it is her first made for DVD. Red Rocks and others originally filmed for home video were released on videotaped and transferred to DVD years later, but this is the first one recorded for the DVD technology.) That makes it big news but the fact that it's Stevie makes it big news period. The Soundstage Sessions is the name of the CD (or album downloadable at iTunes and Amazon) and Live In Chicago is the DVD. Deborah Barrow (wowOwow) profiles Stevie today:
What's it like to be a rock goddess at the tender age of 60? "I would be lying to you if I told you it was easy. Our show is very hard and very long: two hours and ten minutes. Spinning around in seven-inch heels, it's long. You have to be in really good shape. You have to take care of yourself."
In her new DVD, Stevie Nicks takes to the stage like the gypsy that she was: blonde hair to the waist. Morgane Le Fay wedding dress under a black jacket. Top hat. Feather. Ubiquitous scarves. As The Washington Post said about the Fleetwood Mac concert, "Nicks showed she still knows how to really work a shawl."
iraq
nprall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarrothe new york timesrod nordland
rania abouzeid
lara logan
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
thomas e. ricks
stevie nicks
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who was diagnosed with brain cancer last May and was visibly shaky at times during the hearing, lauded Sebelius on her skill as an elected official and her knowledge on healthcare. “When it comes to reform, we know that the challenges are great,” he said. “But I have confidence that Gov. Sebelius can lead the way with common sense solutions.”
Step the f**k down. That's my senator and he needs to step down. This isn't a marathon or any other private activity. He is supposed to be working. He is clearly not up to the task. He clearly needs to step down. It's not funny, it's not heart-tugging, it's not anything but sick.
He needs to leave the Senate now. We deserve to have two functioning senators. He needs to go.
He is 77-years-old. He needs to step down.
He's not coming off like Iron Man Cal Ripken Jr. He's coming off like an old fool who doesn't know when it's past time to head home.
Okay, moving over to another topic. This is something I saw at the Bill of Rights Defense Committee:
People's Campaign for the Constitution
The People's Campaign for the Constitution is a broad, national, nonpartisan, grassroots movement to take back our constitutional rights. Join today and help build a coalition in your community or congressional district to hold your legislators accountable for fulfilling their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Email our organizer to learn more.
Why is this fight still so important? Here are five reasons.
And let me add a reason why the fight is still so important: It's not over!
America elected another Bully Boy! This one's named Barack.
We need to take our rights back.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 31, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US announces another death, Bob Casey holds a hearing on Iraqi refugees, tensions continue in Baghdad, and more.
Today Senator Bob Casey chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommitee hearing on the "The Return and Resettlement of Displace Iraqis." The hearing started late (one minute shy of an hour late) and lasted approximately one hour and thirty-two minutes. The turnout among senators was dreadful. On the plus side, I've never attended a hearing where witnesses were asked to be frank, given additional time to be frank, offered the chance clarify and to raise issues that they had not been asked about. Casey ran a very effective hearing and did it all by himself because no one else asked any questions. (Senator James Risch passed on speaking and Senator Edward Kaufman just noted that they were voting and had already voted on three budget proposals). Casey opened by noting the refugee crisis and called it "one of the most tragic humanitarian consequences" of the Iraq War. He entered his statement into the record and skipped reading it out loud ("for the purposes of moving" the hearing along). He noted the UNHCR numbers of 2.7 million internal refugees (IDP -- internally displaced persons) and 2 million external refugees for the total of 4.7 million refugees and wanted the three witnesses to discuss the numbers at the start. Appearing before the committee were Ellen Laipson (Henry L. Stimson Center), Nansy Aossery (International Medical Corps) and Nabil al-Tikriti (University of Mary Washington).
Ellen Laipson worries whether Iraqi refugees will be seen as the new Palestinians? That's a thread that came up throughout her responses and one she introduced in her opening remarks. She feels that countries such as Jordan and Lebanon are motivated to help the Iraqi refugees today in part because of scars from being less helpful to the Palestinians in earlier times. She noted that there were "definitional problems" regarding the refugees because some of the returnees (to neighborhoods, IDPs) are returning from pre-2003 exits. The current terminology does not help clarify the situation. She noted there were two big refugee waves since the start of the Iraq War. You had the 2003-2005 wave and then the 2006 wave which was larger and came in response to the fighting between Shia and Sunni sects.
She would like to see:
1) Work to improve conditions in Iraq and make returns viable
2) More support for host countries
3) Encouragement and support for Iraqis to find long term solutions
Nancy Aossey's International Medical Corps has been in Iraq since 2003 and they have a staff of 5,000 ("primarily outside the Green Zone"). She would touch on the issue of women and children -- which make up the bulk of the refugee population -- throughout the hearing. She noted the number of returnees from outside Iraq is small and she noted the "debt of gratitude" the international community owes those countries who have taken in the refugees. She would stress repeatedly who decides on returns: "Return, and I repeat, can only occur when Iraqi families feel it is safe to do so." She explained that even when they leave, they are in contact with "relatives and friends from the community" and they do get news and updates from them which provide a sense of how things are in Iraq, specifically in their home neighborhoods. On the numbers of refugees, she agreed with Laipson that the numbers were fluid but she pointed out that the United Nations uses the same methodology when determining any refugee crisis in the world. And she noted that some do not register for relief programs or with the UN refugee program because they fear being forced to return to Iraq. Her recommendations were:
1) US policy towards Iraq needs to develop a strategy for IDPs and refugees.
2) Increased support for humanitarian efforts
3) Additional resources should be provided to the US State Dept and USAID
4) Urge and support the Iraqi government to develop a safe and sustainable return
5) Capacity building measures within Iraqi ministries ("managing this crisis must be an Iraqi process")
Nabil al-Tirkirit stressed that the ethnic and religious identities do go back in Iraqi history but not sectarian conflict and that outbreaks of sectarian conflict have been rare in Iraq's history. He would stress various groups (including MEK which he wrongly stated at the end had not been mentioned) in his opening statements -- bascially the entire demographics of Iraq -- and note that the three divisions most utilized and noted (Kurds, Sunni, Shia) were a division that the US brings along to 'explain' Iraq when he would characterize the division in Iraq prior to the start of the Iraq War as "between Baghdad and the rest of the country." On the issue of refugee numbers, he would point out that the low is 3.8 million while the high if 5.5 million -- general range -- so 4.7 million seems to be a reasonable average. His recommendations included:
1) Property adjudication and returnee assistance
2) Radical increase in housing across
3) Ensure that all Iraqis -- regardless of where now located -- are able to vote in the upcoming Parliamentary elections
4) Make the public distribution cards easily transferable (if you move from one neighborhood to another, your rations card does not transfer in most cases and you're required to go back to your former neighborhood)
5) Increase protection for "micro-minorities" possibly through the creation of a micro security council
6) Create a look-and-see program for Iraqis to return to their neighborhoods to determine if there are improvements. If not, they should easily be allowed to leave (not always easy to enter or leave due to border policies).
7) Speed up the process for refugees applying for asylum and increase US programs.
Aossey spoke of capacity building in her opening statement and Chair Casey wanted to know if she could expand on her remarks about the Ministry of Displacement and Migration? Aossey explained, "Our expereince with this Ministry is that they do have the will. I mean, we've worked very closely with them and we do believe that they [. . .] are very interested in doing the right thing thing with their people." The issue is the capacity building she feels is needed. "We haven't seen within Iraq, throughout the country, that there's an ability for the people and for people within the ministries -- they just literally don't have any historical experience with setting up systems, with delegation . . . to not only make decisions but to implement them as well." She would touch on the historical experience in the time immediately prior to the Iraq War (Saddam Hussein period) and how there was a need for capacity skills to be increased through civilian internation and programs. Bob Casey would sum it up as "experience in operation" and she would agree with that and note that "the history there is that people there were not necessarily empowered to do these things." Bob Casey wanted to know about other agencies working to assist with the crisis and Aossey stated that bolstering "the civilian capacity is very, very important. . . . A lot of this is just management training and adminstrartive expertise."
al-Tikriti pointed out that the Ministry of Displacement and Migration was "a post-2003 cretation itself" (by Paul Bremer) and that, as late as 2007, it still "had a small staff and budget." He wasn't sure how they'd do with the issues today but stated that prior to the creation of the Displacement and Migration Ministry, the issues would have gone to the Ministry of the Interior and the Red Crescent.
Senator Casey notes that he and other senators wonder "what's happening at the senior levels of the government. One of the challenges we face is determining whether the central government, which has Shi'ites in charge, whether the govenrment is discriminating against the displaced Sunni population." Before going to the answers, note that both women's organizations interact with and are dependent upon the al-Maliki government.
Laipson felt that if there was a problem it might be that the Sunnis are "not fully testing the system." They might not, she stated, believe that the rule of law is in place and would be followed. She then made an interesting comment that Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, "sees the return of some refugees as part of Iraq's credibilty" and image to other countries but "others such as the prime minister . . . are simply enjoying being the ones on top." Really? Talabani's more concerned than al-Maliki? al-Maliki and his spokespeople have repeatedly lied and said it was safe to return to Iraq. Talabani's never publicly made those statements. Talabani's also noted he's stepping down from his figure head post at the end of his term (this December). al-Maliki would like to continue as prime minister. Again, her organization depends on al-Maliki to continue its work.
Aossey sidestepped the issue by noting, again, the networks refugees have, the ones they're in contact with, and the communication which allows them to know whether or not it is safe to return or not. She noted "it first starts with the feeling that safety must be durable" because no one's going to return if they don't believe it's safe. She then noted that, in Iraq, "people who are Sunni have a more difficult time accessing services" ("our general experience" in working in Iraq with all the populations). The Sunnis "seem to struggle more in accessing services that they need but we don't know why that is, we can't pinpoint it but there tends to be trends in that regard."
al-Tikirit pointed out "just this past weekend" you saw the tensions flare up with the move on the Sunni "Awakenings" which "may have set off the beginnings of a civil uprising in Baghdad." He also noted the rising tensions between the Kurds and Arabs "happening right now."
Casey would follow with "a more blunt question" to al-Tikriti, "is it your sense or do you have any reason to believe that Prime Minister al-Maliki is actively inhibiting the return of refugees who happen to be Sunni?" al-Tikriti responded, "No, I do not believe that. I do, however, believe -- and think there's a lot of evidence to back this up -- that those who do not want to return do not trust al-Maliki."
Bob Casey noted that the Obama administration is committed to spending $150 million on Iraqi refugees this fiscal year and he wanted to know if the United States was providing adequate resources? Assoey's response was that "additional resources are needed less for infrastructrue and more to do the things that USAID and the State Department have known all along are important: to build the capacity of the people." She explained this civilian training needed to be emphasized. "The training becomes a priority?" Casey asked and she agreed.
al-Tikriti poined out that "$160 million is not so greatly different than it was in the last couple of years" under the previous adminsitration. And that "much of the international community feels that this is a US crisis" and therefore that the US should be contributing more monies.
"Look at this problem just through the eys of a child," Bob Casey suggested noting that children make up a significant number of Iraqi refugees. He asked them to think about not just what services they receive or not but whether they would be attracted to some "harmful" ideology. Ellen Laipson's "deep concern" was Iraqi teenagers in Syria "who are idle all the time". Nancy Aossey noted that 75% of the refugee population are said to be women and children and that "Refugee populations and IDP populations children suffer disproportionately and, if I could add, women and children." She pointed out how many of the families suffering are now one-parent families due to the deaths and destruction of the war. She futher pointed out, "Children living in poverty for a whole host of reasons is always a bad situation" and that the hardships are frequently "too much for an adult to cope with [. . .] let alone a child." She stated children measure the world through their parents. "If you don't help the mother and the father, if they aren't employed [. . .] if they are deprived, if they are afraid, then chances are so are the children." Nabil al-Tikriti explained, "I'm personally uncomfortable with the paradigm of youth as a security risk." He went on to state this could translate as, "Educate me or I'll blow up a building."
In terms of neighboring countries, Ellen Laipson declared that Jordan and Lebanon "are deeply, deeply nervous" that Iraqi problems will be transferred to their regions but she feels this was "more acute in 2006 and 2007" and that the fear "is down a bit". On Syria, she stated there was frustratation on the part of Syria "that they have not been able to do business with Iraq." She noted the US attitudes towards Syria and stated that the attitudes were seen (by Syria) as having impacted Syria's chances. Nancy Aossey pointed out, "I can't think of many countries that want refugee populations in their country permanently." She then talked about general concerns regarding influxes of refugees and how those "affect their own balance."
Senator Casey floated the idea of a Special Coordinator for Refugees in the White House. Nabil al-Tikriti was in favor of this noting the government maze already existing with departments like State and Homeland Security and felt it was necessary for the issue of assistance when refugees manage to make it to the US. Ellen Laipson feels it's all already "mindboggling complex" and "I'm not sure that Czar in the White House can break through all of that." She'd prefer to see Homeland Security streamline its process and noted that the refugee process is stalled by many post-911 measures in the US. Nancy Aossey, like al-Tikriti, was in favor of the position, "I think it would show the extraordinary importance of this -- whether or not it would get muddled into bureaucratic process, it's difficult to know. She feels it's "a good idea in large part because it would be someone's only job" allowing them to focus on the issue. al-Tikriti felt there was much more the federal government could be doing with the refugees here in the US and pointed to the refugees from Vietnam and a program that allowed them to obtain jobs in which the federal government paid half the salary. It provided steady income and allowed families to set down roots. As an example, he offered Joesph Cao who was a Vietnam refugee and his family benefitted from that program. (Cao is a US House Rep today.) What of the issue of resettling the refugees, Casey wanted to know?
This led to an interesting discussion. I've tried to stay with they-said throughout but I'll be offering opinions here and it will be obvious when I do. Ellen Laipson rightly noted that "we're doing poorly across the board. I think the numbers are too low and I think once they get here we're not doing enough." "American affiliated Iraqis" getting special treatment while others waited concerned her. It concerns me as well. However it does not concern al-Tikriti who thinks they should be able to jump in line and also thinks it is bad to help Iraqi Christians. It causes problems back in Iraq. Iraqi Christians are targeted. For who they are. Not because they collaborated with an invading force, not because they went against their own country. They are targeted for who they are. When you read of a liquor store owner shot dead, that's usually an Iraqi Christian. The external refugee population has a huge number of Iraqi Christians. Inside Iraq, a huge number have left their homes and relocated to the Kurdistan Regional Government where they feel safer. (Relocated after threats and attacks.) Just last summer you saw the attack on Christians in Mosul. They are attacked for who they are. They are real refugees. Ellen Laipson was correct in her remarks and al-Tikriti was wrong in his. It's just that simple. Laispon did not say "No translators!" She did note that refugee is a classification and that the US needs to be sure that they are meeting the needs of refugees which includes determining refugee status. That goes beyond "I like ___ because they helped us with . . ."
Nancy Aossey skipped the issue and took it back to the proposal of a White House level coordinator. She stated there "needs to be some overall leadership at the highest level."
That's an overview (I've skipped PRTs -- and al-Tikriti had his best point there, we may return to it tomorrow). In closing, Senator Casey asked them to offer what they would underscore as important.
Ellen Laipson feels the "refugee story is an important test of American leadership" and she "would like the United States to pay more attention to the refugees. Having said that I want to think about this refugee problem in a more holistic way" which, she explained, means looking at it in terms of the system and not just a group of people here, a group there, but the system and how the solutions can be integrated.
Nancy Aossey wanted to stress "that we take the hard won gains and the progress that have been made over the last few years and keep things progressing so that we don't bracktrack. That is, we cannot rush the returns of the refugees or the IDPs. People need to be comfortable. [. . .] Certainly, I believe that this should be civilian led."
Nabil al-Tikriti stated that "the focus should be on the most vulnerable populations and it hasn't always been" (like in his remarks about Iraqi Christians?). He listed three groups. We'll note the Palestinain refugees -- "effectively trapped. They need to go somewhere and they're stuck." He again noted the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) although he stated thay hadn't been noted. He rightly pointed out that the US has been the only thing protecting the Irani refugees in Iraq -- since 1979 -- and that when the US leaves, what happens then?
That's the basic hearing. Staying with the MEK, Lara Logan (CBS News -- link has text and vidoe) notes Camp Ashraf is their location:
Ashraf is home to Iranian opposition members from the PMOI -- or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. These people are the reason Iran's nuclear program was exposed -- it was their intelligence that brought it to the world's attention. But in Iran's eyes, they are a terrorist organization. The current Iraqi government agrees and the group is still on the U.S. blacklist, although it has been taken off the list of terrorist organizations by the EU. Tehran wants their camp shut down, wanted members arrested and handed over for trial - and their organization destroyed. But the U.S. has an obligation to the people of Ashraf. In July 2004, the United States Government recognized PMOI members as Protected Persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, meaning that they should not be deported, expelled or repatriated, or displaced inside Iraq. Now, as U.S. influence wanes in Iraq, Iran's influence continues to strengthen and grow. Through Iran's allies in the Iraqi government, a noose has been applied around Camp Ashraf and the people living there, and is slowly tightening. So far that has meant stopping fuel supplies, cutting off logistic trucks -- allowing only limited shipments of food to the camp. This month, when Iraqi forces occupied a building that had been housing Iranian women, there were clashes with the camp's residents and several were beaten by Iraqi soldiers, until U.S. forces stepped in.
Over the weekend, the uneasy tensions between the Shi'ite government of al-Maliki and the Sunni "Awakenings" erupted as Sunni leader Adel Mashhadani was targeted and arrested. The response in his Fadhil neighborhood of Baghdad was outrage and many took up arms against the combined Iraqi and US forces. Several Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped (later released) and people were killed and wounded. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) reported yesterday:
The Baghdad neighborhood of Fadhil is on lockdown. Dozens of tanks and Humvees, and hundreds of Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces now control the area. They are conducting house-to-house searches looking for weapons and wanted men. Until this weekend, the U.S.-backed Sunni paramilitaries known as the Sons of Iraq kept security here.
[. . .]
But on the streets of Fadhil, several residents said they feel there were sectarian motives for the crackdown. Approching an NPR correspondent, an older Fadhil resident angrily denounced the raid, shouting repeatedly, "This is a war against the Sunni areas."
Iraqi army officers quickly arrested him, abruptly accusing him of planting roadside bombs.
Nearby, another woman cries out that the army arrested her son for no reason. Dozens of other residents line the street, silently watching the security operation.
In this morning's New York Times, Rod Nordland reports on yesterday's situation and the US military's claim that Fadhil was now weapon free -- the US military is presumably military spokesperson David Perkins who is quoted throughout the piece. Weapon-free, as the house-to-house raids went on. That timeline is what had a friend at M-NF laughing this morning who noted that "Awakenings" have seen this coming and have no doubt stashed weapons which, in Iraq, would include burying them and a house-to-house search (even a thorough one which would take some time -- more than was spent yesterday) wouldn't turn those up. Nordland explains, "Only a week ago, Mr. Mashhadani had complained publicly about late pay and lack of jobs, warning that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia might well return to his community." And then he was arrested. Not unlike the elderly man attempting to speak to NPR only to be seized with the 'excuse' that he was wanted for planting bombs because, after all, don't most bomb planters want to go on NPR -- I believe they all covet an hour with Terry Gross.
Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) reports today continued unease among the Sunni population over Nouri al-Maliki's latest stunt. Sheikh Hamid al-Hayess tells Time, "The Sahwa has been infiltrated by al-Qaeda. A civil war is coming." (Sahwa, "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq" are three interchangeable terms.) Abouzeid writes:
In recent months, al-Qaeda in Iraq and its affiliates have been regrouping, recalibrating their targets and tactics; they have recruited disenfranchised members of the U.S.-allied Sahwa movement, planting them as sleeper agents among the mainly Sunni neighborhood patrolmen, who number some 94,000 nationwide, according to a highly placed source close to the insurgency. "Many of the Sahwa have returned after seeking forgiveness, but they are still Sahwa," the source tells TIME. "They wear the government's uniform, but they plant explosives and sticky bombs. The Sahwa is the biggest recruiting pool for al-Qaeda." (See the most dangerous streets of Baghdad at the height of the insurgency.)
The source claims that some 40% of the Sahwa are insurgent spies. A senior source in the Interior Ministry who requested anonymity does not deny the infiltration but puts the figure closer to 20%. The Interior Ministry source says intelligence agencies are reviewing the Sahwa files. Abdel-Karim Samarraie, the deputy leader of parliament's defense and security committee and a senior member of the largest Sunni bloc, the Tawafuk, says that al-Qaeda moles represent a small minority of Sahwa but should be weeded out. "The Interior Ministry fired 62,000 of its employees because there were legal accusations against them. The same thing can be applied to the Sahwa." The U.S military did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Maybe true, maybe not. No one knows. For one thing known, we'll return to Paul Jay's interview of McClatchy's Leila Fadel for the Real News Network:
Now it isn't a 100,000 people being detained but there are hundreds of them being detained and the people that are being detained or are in exile are the ones that were the faces of the movement when it was really dangerous. When if you joined the police, you were killed. When there were headless bodies in the streets of Diyala Province. This was at a time when this was a really dangerous thing to do and those types of guys, if you look at it now, are the ones who are really getting targeted.
Author of the new bestseller The Gamble, Thomas E. Ricks, noted at Foreign Policy yesterday:I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad. Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post: "As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage." That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad mortar attacks which left five people wounded, a Mosul suicide truck bombing which claimed 4 lives and left thirty-eight injured, a Falluja sticky bombing which wounded one police officer. Reuters notes a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and that the Mosul suicide bombing claimed 7 lives and also a Mosul grenade attack which injured three people.
Today the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here March 31. The Marine's name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4262 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
In the US, Courage to Resist, Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War,& Unconventional Action in the Bay are sponsoring an event this Friday:
Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us! Please Invite your friends: Bay Area Premiere from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQ A Big Noise Film followed by a Public Discussion: How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama? Carl Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq. Antonia Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq. Friday April 3, 7pm ATA THEATER 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required. Obama's Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens. It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go. Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.
Lastly, as Trina ("The economy"), Kat ("Stevie Nicks, music and TV") and Elaine ("Stevie Nicks") noted last night, Stevie Nicks releases her first ever live album today. (A DVD is also available -- and I believe it is her first made for DVD. Red Rocks and others originally filmed for home video were released on videotaped and transferred to DVD years later, but this is the first one recorded for the DVD technology.) That makes it big news but the fact that it's Stevie makes it big news period. The Soundstage Sessions is the name of the CD (or album downloadable at iTunes and Amazon) and Live In Chicago is the DVD. Deborah Barrow (wowOwow) profiles Stevie today:
What's it like to be a rock goddess at the tender age of 60? "I would be lying to you if I told you it was easy. Our show is very hard and very long: two hours and ten minutes. Spinning around in seven-inch heels, it's long. You have to be in really good shape. You have to take care of yourself."
In her new DVD, Stevie Nicks takes to the stage like the gypsy that she was: blonde hair to the waist. Morgane Le Fay wedding dress under a black jacket. Top hat. Feather. Ubiquitous scarves. As The Washington Post said about the Fleetwood Mac concert, "Nicks showed she still knows how to really work a shawl."
iraq
nprall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarrothe new york timesrod nordland
rania abouzeid
lara logan
leila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
thomas e. ricks
stevie nicks
Monday, March 30, 2009
Dennis Loo, Isaiah, Third
Monday, Monday, sing the song. Can't trust that day. Let's get a smile in at least. Maybe a laugh. We can use Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Swinging Prez"
To be really clear, Isaiah's going to have a series of hard hitting editorial cartoons at the end of Barack's presidency. And they're going to stand with history because his fan club won't be able to fight history. I really think Barack is well on his way to being the worst president. I think he's going to be so bad that in 2012, people will be nostaligic for the GOP.
He is such a betrayal of everything the left stands for. And they spend all their time trying to prop him up instead of fighting to make things happen.
This is from World Can't Wait, "The U.S. Government Tortured Children: Demand War Crimes Prosecutions Now!:"
A new book by professor Michael Haas reveals that the Bush Regime detained and tortured thousands of children in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo. In “George W. Bush, War Criminal?” Haas—who has taught at schools including Northwestern University and the University of London—reports that, while imprisoned, these children were subjected to various forms of physical and psychological torture that included:
Rape; severe physical beatings; solitary confinement; denial of contact with parents for years at a time; use of dogs
Child Detention on a Shocking Scale:
* In May 2008, Human Rights Watch reported that the U.S. had detained 2400 children in Iraq since 2003, including 100 new children per month in 2007.
* Haas reports that, in 2002 alone, the U.S. captured “at least 800 boys, aged 10 to 15” in Afghanistan, and sent 64 of them to Guantanamo.
Prosecute the Bush Regime for War Crimes:
Torture and indefinite detention—including the horrific abuses against children described here—have their origins in the highest levels of government. Bush Regime lawyers like John Yoo wrote the key memos that authorized torture and indefinite detention. In April 2008, ABC News reported that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and George Tenet met repeatedly in the White House to plan specific “enhanced interrogation techniques” to use on specific detainees. George W. Bush himself admitted to approving these meetings.
Dick Cheney has admitted to authorizing waterboarding—which both the U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights and President Barack Obama have said is torture.
What this all adds up to is: Top Bush officials all the way up to the former president himself are guilty of war crimes, and must be prosecuted. Under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, each state that has signed the convention—including the United States—is required to investigate and prosecute torturers. Therefore, prosecution of the Bush Regime is not only morally, but legally, required.
Barack Obama is Covering & Continuing the Bush regime’s crimes:
Barack Obama is continuing Bush’s indefinite detention and denial of habeas corpus. He is continuing rendition—the practice of kidnapping a person in one country and shipping them to another country for imprisonment. He is using the “state secrets” argument to block torture victims from suing the U.S. government. While announcing the closure of Guantanamo in a year or two, he is continuing to hold hundreds of detainees there--including more than 59 of whom the government itself has cleared for release--where they are held in solitary and force fed through nasal tubes when they go on hunger strikes.
I gotta do two World Can't Waits. Leigh Ann e-mailed me and I'm reading her e-mail now and she's right, Dennis Loo's got an incredible column. It's called "“You Knew What I Was When You Picked Me Up” " and this is from it, right here he's talking about a column by Norman Solomon:
The question that ought to be posed here isn’t “what is your representative doing?” The question that Solomon should be asking is: “what are you doing to create a political atmosphere in this country that forces Obama and his war- and empire-makers to back down from their war crimes and policies?”
Solomon in this article is continuing along the same path that led him before the election to tout Obama’s election as the key to advancing the anti-war movement’s (and the “progressive” movement’s) aims.
The result of this line by Solomon and others like him in UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice)? The election of a man who made no secret of his intentions to escalate the wars on Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, Obama’s doing precisely what he said before the election that he was going to do about Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I am reminded here of this Native American story:
What Native American story! Use the link. :D And for more on Norman Solomon, read Betty's Norman Solomon, bust him on a morals charge.
Let's talk Third and first up, Dallas and the following worked on the latest edition:
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),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
And here's what we came up with:
Truest statement of the week -- This was Jim Webb, the Senator. He earned it. If you doubt it, read what he said.
Truest statement of the week II -- Rod Nordland might end up being a MSM reporter worth watching.
A note to our readers -- Jim breaks the edition down. It was a long, long edition.
Editorial: Same Way To Quagmire -- Ava and C.I. came up with "Same Way To Quagmire" which is the equivalent of "Long Way Forward" and "New Way Forward" and all the garbage the government stamps on it when they present the same plan over and over. Afghanistan, by the way, has finally awakened a few of the Kool-Aid drinkers. Too bad they weren't awake when it mattered. (Which is kind of Dennis Loo's point. Seriously read his article. Read our editorial too.)
TV: Crime and Intent -- This is really something. Ava and C.I. wrote their article and thought they were done and Jim was really worried about how the edition was (he thought it was going to suck) that he asked them to figure out a way to include some news stuff. They went back to the drawing board and wrote this. It's really great and there's a lot of stuff you don't know about, I bet. Like the homophobia on The Tonight Show last week when Barney Frank was targeted for a homophobic attack.
The Roy Wilkins goes to . . . -- We had a lot of stories that wouldn't work even when we were trying them and trying them, rewriting them, trying them as short stories, trying them every way we could. This one was Rebecca's idea and was written quickly.
Ty's Corner -- Ty grabbed a Ty's Corner so that we could get done quickly. It was when Jim told Ava and C.I. he needed them to add stuff. At that point, Ty said, "I'll do a Corner."
Roundtable -- This is a roundtable about the film Bewitched and a lot more actually. I really loved reading this. (It's Third plus Stan in this. And Stan and Dona have some really great points.)
Chris Hill sings 'Much More' -- I love the photo of Chris Hill. The idiot didn't even comb his hair before showing up to testify to the Senate. And look at those twigs. Get the feeling this is someone who doesn't put in a lot of effort? And he's Barack's nominee for Ambassador to Iraq.
They're they go again -- Barack, who never served in the military, wants to turn every civil service program into the military.
'Thousands March Nationwide: End the Wars!' -- This is a repost from the Party for Socialism and Liberation. They did a great job covering the protests.
Highlights -- Betty, Kat, Stan, Ruth, Cedric, Wally, Rebecca, Elaine and I wrote this.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 30, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the "Awakening" Councils appear targeted and they fire back, Barack says no faster draw down but Odierno said something different, Lesley Abdela is the Woman Political Journalist of the Year, and more.
Cindy Sheehan's radio show, Cindy's Soapbox, continues on the internet and she interviewed Ray McGovern last week as Barack prepared to make his "Same Way To Quagmire" speech on Friday. In the portion we're going to note here, Cindy's bringing up the 'surge' in Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan: The surge that I believe began in the beginning of 2007.
Ray McGovern: Correct.
Cindy Sheehan: Because I think at the end of 2006, I was arrested in Crawford, Texas trying to -- they were having some kind of meeting between -- it was Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and, you know, all the major War Criminals of the Bush administration were up at the ranch so I think there were about five of us who got arrested trying to cross the barriers and you've been to Crawford so you know what I'm talking about.
Ray McGovern: Mm-hm.
Cindy Sheehan: The barriers to go to the ranch. So we were arrested protesting the 'surge' because we could see the surge was going to be a nightmare. And no matter how much Obama says the surge was successful. Or Cheney, or Rums -- or Gates, Rumsfeld's out of the picture. I don't even know where he is anymore. However much they say the 'surge' was successful, there was a high price and it's not so successful if you know what really happened, was it?
Ray McGovern: No, it's true, Cindy, most people don't realize that 1,000, at least 1,000, young men and women from our armed forces are dead now --
Cindy Sheehan: Mm-hm.
Ray McGovern: -- dead. And you know what that means, better than anybody else.
Cindy Sheehan: Yeah.
Ray McGovern: And thousands wounded. Not to mention Iraqis. I mean, Iraqis, last time I checked the Bible, I looked it up. Iraqis are human beings too. Would you believe it?
Cindy Sheehan: Really?
Ray McGovern: Yeah, they really are.
Cindy Sheehan: Oh. Wow.
Ray McGovern: So we have to cout them too.
Cindy Sheehan: But we don't count them. We can only estimate how many Iraqis have been killed.
Ray McGovern: That's right. They don't count. Well that was the attitude. And what we saw with the 'surge' was really bizarre, Cindy. If you think back to the end of 2006, what was clear is that the Iraqi political figures were not taking seriously their duty to get their act together.
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: No matter what we said, they always knew -- well Bush promised them, 'We'll never leave you,' right? That's because he never wanted to leave them, okay? What was happening was the place was falling apart. And General [John] Abizaid and General Casey -- Abizaid being the head of CENTCOM, Casey being the head of the troops there in Iraq -- came back and testified in September before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And what they said was this, "Thank's very much but please -- please -- don't send any more troops. The last thing we need is more troops. Why? Because if we send more troops, those Iraqis will never, never think they have to get their act together. We don't need more troops. What we need is for them to get some religion here. Work out their differences so we can leave, okay?"
Cindy Sheehan: Mm-hm.
Ray McGoven: Now that's what everyone was saying. That's what the Hamilton . . .
Cindy Sheehan: Baker-Hamiliton report.
Ray McGovern: . . Baker-Hamilton report said. Everybody in their right mind, everybody sane here, which is usually not too many people but most people in Washington were saying we have to acknowledge that. So what did Bush do? Well he talked to Cheney and Dick said, "Well now, Mr. President, you want to lose a war on your watch? You want to tuck tale and go home to Texas and have the whole thing fold in on you? No, we have to -- we have to reinforce, can't listen to these other folks." And so they ginned up some folks at the American Enterprise Institute and a general named Keane and they whipped up this little plan to put in 30,000 troops. 30,000 troops in and around Baghdad. With formal screens, so that the Shia could ethnically cleanse Baghdad.
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: Now that's, that's big, you know?
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: Baghdad used to be equal Sunni - Shia. What these guys did under the protection of US forces -- and often with the help of US forces -- drive the Sunnis out of Baghdad, we're talking millions of people, Cindy.
Cindy Sheehan: Oh, I know. I've been to -- I haven't been to Iraq yet but I've been to Iman, Jordan speaking with the people who were forced out if they were lucky to escape with their lives and if they were lucky to escape the country but, as you know, there are millions of refugees in and outside of Iraq right now.
Ray McGovern: Yes, some four-and-half million folks out of 27 million when the war began
Cindy Sheehan: Mm-hm.
Ray McGovern: So what you have here is a really great success We calmed down Baghdad, partly by driving the Sunni out, and also by building the kind of wall you used to see in Berlin that now we see in the West Bank and also on our southern border, I have to say, having recently been in southern Texas. You know that kind of wall's a really great thing to bring people together, right? Well it seperated what was left of the Sunni and actually divided that whole city so that was really great, that's really great, if you like walls and if you like ethnic cleansing. And then of course we gave Petreaus a whole bunch of money and he gave it out to the Sunnis. "Here, we'll give you $300 a month, just don't fire in our direction."
Cindy Sheehan: Ten dollars a day. They were giving, I think it was estimated about 80,000 people, ten dollars a day to not attack the US.
Ray McGovern: So now of course that dole is run out and what happens to the Sunni now? Well, we'll just have to see.
Yes, we will have to see and we may be seeing it. Over the weekend, the "Awakening" Council members/Sahwa/Sons of Iraq were in the news. It started with arrests and ended with gun battles. Along the way the nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill had his testimony to Congress last week (see Wednesday and Thursday's snapshots) again punked. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) explained Saturday, "16 people were injured (seven Sahwa members, four Iraqi soldiers and four civilians) after clashes broke out between the Iraqi army and Sahwa members in Fadhil neighborhood in downtown Baghdad around 2 p.m. The clashes broke out during an operation of the Iraqi army to arrest the leader of Fadhil Sahwa and one of his deputies. Five Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped in the incident." McClatchy's Leila Fadel added Adel Mashhadani was the arrest target and that the arrest of him (as well as an assistant) "heightened fears among Sunnis that the Iraqi government plans to divide and disband the movements now that its taken control of all but a few thousands of the 94,000 members across the country." Now let's pause a moment. The point of opening with Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern's discussion is they're talking about the way Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, eradicated the Sunni presence from Baghdad. So when discussing why "Awakenings" might be leery, why they might not trust al-Maliki, that 'rezoning' plays a big part in it. As does the fact that al-Maliki staffed his ministries with Shi'ite thugs and allowed them to attack Sunnis without any fears of reprimands, let alone reprisals. Nouri's been very clear in his distaste for Sunni thugs -- Shi'ite ones he loves -- which is why US Senator Barbara Boxer was able to reference European press interviews al-Maliki gave stating that the bulk of the "Awakenings" would not be brought into his government. With that and more in mind, Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland (New York Times) quote the spokesperson for Fadhil "Awakening" Council, Abu Mirna, stating Saturday as fighting was ongoing, "American forces have broken the alliance with us by arresting our leader. Now there are clashes in the area between the Americans and Awakening fighters and you can hear shooting. It's chaos." There were reports of 5 Iraqi soldiers being captured in the battle and held hostage.
"The reason it's significant," McClatchy's Leila Fadel told Real News Network, "is that it's one of a series of detentions of top leaders of the Sons of Iraq -- in Iraq, across the country. Specifically in Diyala [Province] and Baghdad. And this program, the Sons of Iraq, which is really part of the reason the US military can claim what they call success now with the lower levels of violence because these guys either turned on al Qaeda [in Mesopotamia] or stopped shooting and are on US payroll and now they're being transferred to Iraqi government control. And with that control, it seems that they are trying to weaken these groups and some of that can lead to violence as Fadhil clearly showed over the weekend."
Real News Network's Paul Jay: So they're targeting some of the leaders of these groups at the same time that they are incorporating some of the ordinary members or are they actually targeting the whole organizations?
Leila Fadel: Well the --
Paul Jay: "They" being the Iraqi government.
Leila Fadel: Right. The transfer of authority started in October of last year. Where the US military said "Here are these 100,000 guys who we've been paying $300 a month and who have been in their streets, in their neighborhoods secure them. Now you take them." The [Iraqi] government has always said, "We believe most of these guys are former insurgents. We don't trust them. We don't want them. We won't give them amnesty. And so finally the government said "Give them to us, we want to take them." So now the authority technically is the Iraqi government -- in most of Iraq, not all of them have been transferred Salahuddin [Province] I think has still not transferred. And during that time and right before that, when I say "target," they've gone after them with arrest warrants on accusations of crimes they've committed but the Sons of Iraq themselves are saying they feel targeted, they feel that the leaders who stood up and took a risk and went against the people that were destroying their neighborhoods and also maybe turned on, or changed their minds about things of the past, where they would attack US forces or government forces as their enemy are now being betrayed and being arrested for those crimes of the past.
And it continued on Sunday. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) explain Raad Ali arrest became public (arrested five days prior): "Ali, a former insurgent, had a close working relationship with the Americans, shared a military base with them, and said he had briefed visiting U.S. diplomats from Afghanistan about the Sons of Iraq movement. Ali spoke regularly about the need for Sunnis to enter the political mainstream and leave behind their insurgency." Sudarsan Raghavan and Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) report, "On Sunday, Iraqi soldiers backed by U.S. combat helicopters and American troops swept into a central Baghdad neighborhood, arresting U.S.-backed Sunni fighters in an effort to clamp down on a two-day uprising that challenged the Iraqi government's authority and its effort to pacify the capital." Waleed Ibrahim, Wisam Mohammed, Aseel Kami, Abdulrahman Taher, Thaier al-Sudani, Tim Cocks, Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) add, "A Reuters Television cameraman saw U.S. military vehicles alongside Iraqi army ones using loudspeakers to warn the fighters in Arabic to put down their weapons, while U.S. military helicopters hovered overhead." Leila Fadel reported Sunday that "Awakenings" had handed "over 10 Iraqi soldiers they'd been holding" after they surrendered "and gav eup their weapons" and that this came after Iraq's "Army sealed off the district, and [US] helicopters circled in the air".
Fadel explains to the Real News Network that "Awakenings" feel betrayed because the US military gave or "Awakenings" thought they were given amnesty but that the US military could only give amnesty for attacks on the US, not attacks on Iraqis. Note that the term "amnesty" was used (this is me, not Leila) by the US military in recruiting "Awakenings." It caused some rumbles on the internet play left side of the world (Arianna Huffington was a huffing back then about it). Clearly, had the "Awakenings" known that the "amnesty" was limited, they wouldn't have gone along. What would be the point? Help pacify/terrorize the country and then when Nouri no longer needs them, he can pick them off? If they had known that the amnesty did not apply across the board, they would not have gone along because the reason they were armed and against the puppet government in the first place was they didn't trust the puppet government (or the puppet).
The US started the "Awakening" Council "movement" by putting Sunni thugs on the payroll (having already installed Shi'ite thugs into the puppet government) because, as Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker repeatedly explained to Congress last April, paying them off meant they wouldn't attack US forces. When paid by US forces, they had many "duties" but primarily they were stationed at checkpoints where they controlled who passed and who didn't. In January and February, some still waiting to be absorbed felt the checkpoints were their responsiblity. What happens now that they feel under attack? What happens as the word gets out that al-Maliki hasn't paid a large number in months and that word is on top of the arrests and targeting of them in Baghdad? As Sinan Salaheddin (AP) explains, "How the Shiite-led government deals with the Sunni security volunteers is widely seen as a test of its ability to win the loyalty of disaffected Sunnis _ an essential step in forging a lasting peace in Iraq." The arrest on Saturday is said to be because of "Baathism" and that's the charge whenever al-Maliki wants to haul someone away: they're a Baathist, they're plotting to overthrow him, they're an enemy of the state, etc.
al-Maliki's last big claim of "Baathist conspiracy" exploded in his face. If this one does, he'll not only have the "Awakenings" to answer to, he'll also have an international community beginning to tire of his repeatedly playing "they're plotting against me!" Interestingly, the US military's statement doesn't mention any Baathist charge but does toss out their own constant cry of "al Qaeda in Iraq!": "Mashadani was arrested under a warrant issued by the Iraqi government. He is suspected of illegally searching, detaining and extorting bribes in excess of $160,000 a month from the citizens of Fahdil, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks that killed Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), leading an IED cell, leading an indirect fire cell, ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and collusion with the terrorist network Jaysh al Islami." Al Jazeera quotes al-Maliki's military spokesperson stating, "We also have information that Mashhadani heads the military branch in Fadel of the [banned] Baath party [of Saddam Hussein, the executed former Iraqi president]." Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed also note the Baathist assertion: "The government accused Mashadani of running a secret wing of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, and his supporters of abusing their power."
For those who forgot, Barack's "best and brightest" (and hopefully not another tax cheat) nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq, Chris Hill, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week a lot of fairy tales including that they're all now under Nouri's control -- no, some have been turned over; that they've been abosrbed into the Iraqi forces by Nouri and this weekend proves that's not true plus only 5% have been employed by the government at present; and that Nouri's grabbed the responsibility of paying them from the Americans (US tax payers paid the March salaries for a huge chunk of "Awakenings") and is now on top of the payroll. On top of the payroll? AP reported Saturday that "leaders of several Awakening Council groups complained the government has not paid them in months, with some threatening to quit a movement." Complaints came from "Awakenings" in Baghdad, Diyala Province and Azamiyah -- Diyala "Awakenings" said they hadn't been paid in three months.
That wasn't the only news over the weekend. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported that the Mujahedeen al-Kahlq, an Iranian group that has been in Iraq since 1979 and protected by the US military since the start of the Iraq War, is yet again the topic of al-Maliki's government as they repeat that the group must leave but, for now, the focus is on moving them "to new quarters in western or southern Iraq". Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes some offensive remarks made by Nouri al-Maliki's National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie, MEK "should understand that their days in Iraq are numbered. We are literally counting them. . . . The party is over for them. The party is over for coalition protection for them." and, as Londono notes, "them" is al-Rubaie "referring to the U.S. military." The puppet's playtoy wants to say the "party is over for the" US forces? When did the party begin for them? When did the party begin? What an insulting remark from a sleazy, trashy assed piece of ___ who wouldn't even have a job if the US government had installed him and his man-crush al-Maliki. Meanwhile Mustafa Mahmoud (Reuters) reports it's kick the can down the road yet again regarding the oil-rich Kirkuk which will now have any sort of decision or referendum on its status delayed until June at the earliest. While Kirkuk may be postponable (it may not be), rumors float that Moqtada al-Sad's movement is in danger. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports on a supposed break in Moqtada al-Sadr's movement which takes place as "the government has begun granting secret amnesty deals to members of the breakaway group who also were members of Iranian-backed Shiite militias, in exchange for laying down their arms, according to government officials and three militia members who said they had won amnesty. The militias, dubbed special groups by the U.S. military, have continued to fight U.S. and Iraqi security forces." If either or both are true, al-Sadr's movement might be weakened.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba bike bombing which claimed 3 lives and left eight people wounded, a Baquba roadside bombing which wounded a police officer, and a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left two more injured.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul, 3 "Awakening" Members were shot dead in Eskanderiyah, 2 people were shot dead in Babil Province and "the general director of the immigrants and displaced people department" was shot dead in Mosul and his assistant was injured.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baquba.
Turning to legal news out of Germany, George Frey (AP) reports US Sgt 1st Class Joseph Mayo entered a guilty plea to "premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder" in the 2007 murders of 4 Iraqis US forces had taken into custody and that this follows Sgt Michael Leahy's conviction last month for his role in the murders. Fran Yeoman (Times of London) reports "Mayo told a court martial in Vilseck, southern Germany, that he thought the shootings were in the best interests of his troops because he feared the prisoners would attack them if released." In other legal news, Friday's snapshot noted: "Meanwhile, in the United States, Paul J. Weber (AP) reports that Sam Marcos commissioners are rethinking using KBR after two Iraq War veterans, Bryan Hannah and Gregory Foster, spoke out at a commissioner's court meeting against the war profiteer KBR which stands accused of intentionally exposing US troops in Iraq to carcinogenics and of doing such a poor job in their building of US facilities in Iraq that showering becomes a hazard for US service members." Bryan Hannah tells his story at US Socialist Worker:
Greg and I brought to the attention of the county commissioners the company's history of scandals, including bribery, the negligent homicide of 11 soldiers and five Marines, rape and gang rape cover-ups, tax evasion and more.
Greg read the top results for a Google search that contained a multitude of shady business dealings and crimes to demonstrate that the commissioners had not done adequate research. He then read a letter from Spec. Jude Prather, a Hays County resident and infantryman in Iraq.
Jude's letter outlined his concerns about KBR being a daily fixture in his community, stating that his convoy escort team's opinions of KBR were "too colorful to be read in court." Greg recalled a saying of his father: "Son, your dollar votes. If you don't like how a company does business, don't do business with them."
I brought to the commissioners' attention the siphoning by KBR of tens of billions of dollars out of our treasury in exchange for the delivery of substandard service and even unacceptable "disservices" to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Some soldiers suffered illnesses from contaminated drinking water, others were exposed to carcinogens such as sodium dichromate, and some died as a result of faulty electrical wiring and air-conditioning units placed so close to showers that water splashed on them.
"Hays County has a laudable record of supporting its service members and veterans," I said. "I do not think we could in good conscience accept that reputation and hire a company responsible for killing U.S. soldiers and Marines, then attempting to cover it up and deny compensation to the families."
Again, Cindy Sheehan's radio show continues on the internet and she interviewed Ray McGovern for her most recent show. Here McGovern's just finished explaining that the Bush adminstration refused to meet with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Ray McGovern: And we're still not getting any hearing which is really disappointing -- was really disappointing because the tea leaves say, Cindy, that President Obama is about to make his LBJ Vietnam or George Bush Iraq mistake. We're about to get involved in a real quagmire there. And you know, it's almost as though there's something here in the water in Washington, Cindy.
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: Because it doesn't make any sense at all. And grown up people should know that.
US President Barack Obama appeared today on CBS' Face The Nation with moderator Bob Schieffer (here for text report by Michelle Levi with video option and link for transcript).
Daivd Zurawik (Baltimore Sun) observes that Barack sounded like LBJ on Vietnam when discussing Afhganistan:But that is what Obama sounded like to me when he was talking about how some of the U.S. troops would only be training their Afghan counterparts for combat. It clearly sounded that way to Schieffer, too, because he came out hard-charging with questions for the president about his commitment of more troops to Afghanistan, and he took precious minutes at the end of his broadcast to do a stand-up outside the White House explaining the decision to focus on Afghanistan."When he decided to move more Americans into harm's way in Afghanistan, for better or worse, it became his war," Schieffer said of Obama. Schieffer closed by wondering whether Obama would look back one day on that decision from last week as a major turning point in his administration and legacy. The questioning on Afghanistan and the related matter of whether or not we will follow terrorists into Pakistan and strike there was so pointed, that at one point, Obama said, "I'm enough of a student of history to know about Vietnam." But he sure sounded like LBJ in 1965 when he talked Sunday about the Afghan Army as having "great credibility" and being "effective fighters" -- all they needed was a little "training" from the American troops. At least, Obama didn't use the 1960s's rhetoric of the U.S. soldiers and Marines only being advisers.
That was on Afghanistan. Iraq came up during the interview (because Schieffer raised the issue):
Bob Schieffer: You said the other day in the 60 Minutes interview that you would not have thought at this point in your presidency that Iraq would be the least of your worries, something to that effect. Barack Obama: Right. Right. Bob Schieffer: Are things going well enough there now that you may consider speeding up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Barack Obama: No, I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one, which is, let's have a very gradual withdrawal schedule through the national elections in Iraq. There's still work to be done on the political side to resolve differences between the various sectarian groups around issues like oil, around issues like provincial elections. And so we're gonna continue to make progress on that front. I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction. But Iraq is not yet completed. We still have a lot of work to do. We still have a lot of training of Iraqi forces to improve their capacity. I'm confident, though, that we're moving in the right direction.
would the draw down be speeded up? No, says Barack. That's what he says? Friday's Iraq snapshot noted NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) interviewed Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander in Iraq. Now Barack said yesterday nothing will speed up the rate of the draw down. What did Odierno tell Lourdes Garcia-Navarro?Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Despite those worries and others, Odierno is considering more troop reductions this year ahead of Parliamentary elections. Ray Odierno: In August, September time frame, I will look at how things are going and I will make another decision on whether I think we should either reduce our presence more. And that assessment will be based on "Do I think I have enough forces to ensure that we have a peaceful, successful, national election?" If I believe we can do that with less forces then we will off-ramp some forces. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Eventually there will be around only 50,000 Americans here down from just under 140,000 now. So are you confused? Or is it Barack that is? Meanwhile despite the continued bombing in Basra, all but 400 of the approximately 4,000 British soldiers are gearing up to leave, Reuters reports. Remember that when violence is offered as the excuse for Barack slowing down his draw down. And England and the US both got involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. So possibly something might be transferable? Some form of knowledge? If so, Barack better hope and pray it's not to be found from Richard Dannatt. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports that Dannet has told the paper the decision by then-prime minister Tony Blair to switch the emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2005 led to a huge increase in violence in Iraq. The US military needs to withdraw (not draw down) from both countries. That's not the point in raising the issue of Gen Richard Dannatt. The point is an administration that wants both illegal wars will probably be trotting out the we-didn't-realize excuse at some point in the near future.
Lastly, three years ago journalist Lesley Abdela made the "Top 50 Heroes Of Our Times" (New Stateman). She has just been announced as the Winner of the 2009 UK Woman Political Journalist of the Year. The honor comes from the Dods & Scottish Widows Women in Public Life Awards and are voted on by the Parliamentary Press Lobby, Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. You can find out more about Lesley Abdela at Third Sector Women and you can also read up on her at SourceWatch.
Click here for some of her writing at the Guardian.
iraq
cindy sheehan
laith hammoudimcclatchy newspapers
leila fadelthe new york timesrod nordlandalissa j. rubinwaleed ibrahimwisam mohammedaseel kamiabdulrahman taherthaier al-sudanitim cocksmichael christiejon boylethe los angeles timesned parkercaesar ahmed
the washington postsudarsan raghavananthony shadid
ernesto londono
gina chonthe wall street journal
face the nationcbs newsbob schieffermichelle levinprall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarro
david zurawik
To be really clear, Isaiah's going to have a series of hard hitting editorial cartoons at the end of Barack's presidency. And they're going to stand with history because his fan club won't be able to fight history. I really think Barack is well on his way to being the worst president. I think he's going to be so bad that in 2012, people will be nostaligic for the GOP.
He is such a betrayal of everything the left stands for. And they spend all their time trying to prop him up instead of fighting to make things happen.
This is from World Can't Wait, "The U.S. Government Tortured Children: Demand War Crimes Prosecutions Now!:"
A new book by professor Michael Haas reveals that the Bush Regime detained and tortured thousands of children in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo. In “George W. Bush, War Criminal?” Haas—who has taught at schools including Northwestern University and the University of London—reports that, while imprisoned, these children were subjected to various forms of physical and psychological torture that included:
Rape; severe physical beatings; solitary confinement; denial of contact with parents for years at a time; use of dogs
Child Detention on a Shocking Scale:
* In May 2008, Human Rights Watch reported that the U.S. had detained 2400 children in Iraq since 2003, including 100 new children per month in 2007.
* Haas reports that, in 2002 alone, the U.S. captured “at least 800 boys, aged 10 to 15” in Afghanistan, and sent 64 of them to Guantanamo.
Prosecute the Bush Regime for War Crimes:
Torture and indefinite detention—including the horrific abuses against children described here—have their origins in the highest levels of government. Bush Regime lawyers like John Yoo wrote the key memos that authorized torture and indefinite detention. In April 2008, ABC News reported that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and George Tenet met repeatedly in the White House to plan specific “enhanced interrogation techniques” to use on specific detainees. George W. Bush himself admitted to approving these meetings.
Dick Cheney has admitted to authorizing waterboarding—which both the U.N. High Commissioner For Human Rights and President Barack Obama have said is torture.
What this all adds up to is: Top Bush officials all the way up to the former president himself are guilty of war crimes, and must be prosecuted. Under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, each state that has signed the convention—including the United States—is required to investigate and prosecute torturers. Therefore, prosecution of the Bush Regime is not only morally, but legally, required.
Barack Obama is Covering & Continuing the Bush regime’s crimes:
Barack Obama is continuing Bush’s indefinite detention and denial of habeas corpus. He is continuing rendition—the practice of kidnapping a person in one country and shipping them to another country for imprisonment. He is using the “state secrets” argument to block torture victims from suing the U.S. government. While announcing the closure of Guantanamo in a year or two, he is continuing to hold hundreds of detainees there--including more than 59 of whom the government itself has cleared for release--where they are held in solitary and force fed through nasal tubes when they go on hunger strikes.
I gotta do two World Can't Waits. Leigh Ann e-mailed me and I'm reading her e-mail now and she's right, Dennis Loo's got an incredible column. It's called "“You Knew What I Was When You Picked Me Up” " and this is from it, right here he's talking about a column by Norman Solomon:
The question that ought to be posed here isn’t “what is your representative doing?” The question that Solomon should be asking is: “what are you doing to create a political atmosphere in this country that forces Obama and his war- and empire-makers to back down from their war crimes and policies?”
Solomon in this article is continuing along the same path that led him before the election to tout Obama’s election as the key to advancing the anti-war movement’s (and the “progressive” movement’s) aims.
The result of this line by Solomon and others like him in UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice)? The election of a man who made no secret of his intentions to escalate the wars on Afghanistan and Pakistan. In other words, Obama’s doing precisely what he said before the election that he was going to do about Afghanistan and Pakistan.
I am reminded here of this Native American story:
What Native American story! Use the link. :D And for more on Norman Solomon, read Betty's Norman Solomon, bust him on a morals charge.
Let's talk Third and first up, Dallas and the following worked on the latest edition:
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),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
And here's what we came up with:
Truest statement of the week -- This was Jim Webb, the Senator. He earned it. If you doubt it, read what he said.
Truest statement of the week II -- Rod Nordland might end up being a MSM reporter worth watching.
A note to our readers -- Jim breaks the edition down. It was a long, long edition.
Editorial: Same Way To Quagmire -- Ava and C.I. came up with "Same Way To Quagmire" which is the equivalent of "Long Way Forward" and "New Way Forward" and all the garbage the government stamps on it when they present the same plan over and over. Afghanistan, by the way, has finally awakened a few of the Kool-Aid drinkers. Too bad they weren't awake when it mattered. (Which is kind of Dennis Loo's point. Seriously read his article. Read our editorial too.)
TV: Crime and Intent -- This is really something. Ava and C.I. wrote their article and thought they were done and Jim was really worried about how the edition was (he thought it was going to suck) that he asked them to figure out a way to include some news stuff. They went back to the drawing board and wrote this. It's really great and there's a lot of stuff you don't know about, I bet. Like the homophobia on The Tonight Show last week when Barney Frank was targeted for a homophobic attack.
The Roy Wilkins goes to . . . -- We had a lot of stories that wouldn't work even when we were trying them and trying them, rewriting them, trying them as short stories, trying them every way we could. This one was Rebecca's idea and was written quickly.
Ty's Corner -- Ty grabbed a Ty's Corner so that we could get done quickly. It was when Jim told Ava and C.I. he needed them to add stuff. At that point, Ty said, "I'll do a Corner."
Roundtable -- This is a roundtable about the film Bewitched and a lot more actually. I really loved reading this. (It's Third plus Stan in this. And Stan and Dona have some really great points.)
Chris Hill sings 'Much More' -- I love the photo of Chris Hill. The idiot didn't even comb his hair before showing up to testify to the Senate. And look at those twigs. Get the feeling this is someone who doesn't put in a lot of effort? And he's Barack's nominee for Ambassador to Iraq.
They're they go again -- Barack, who never served in the military, wants to turn every civil service program into the military.
'Thousands March Nationwide: End the Wars!' -- This is a repost from the Party for Socialism and Liberation. They did a great job covering the protests.
Highlights -- Betty, Kat, Stan, Ruth, Cedric, Wally, Rebecca, Elaine and I wrote this.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 30, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the "Awakening" Councils appear targeted and they fire back, Barack says no faster draw down but Odierno said something different, Lesley Abdela is the Woman Political Journalist of the Year, and more.
Cindy Sheehan's radio show, Cindy's Soapbox, continues on the internet and she interviewed Ray McGovern last week as Barack prepared to make his "Same Way To Quagmire" speech on Friday. In the portion we're going to note here, Cindy's bringing up the 'surge' in Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan: The surge that I believe began in the beginning of 2007.
Ray McGovern: Correct.
Cindy Sheehan: Because I think at the end of 2006, I was arrested in Crawford, Texas trying to -- they were having some kind of meeting between -- it was Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and, you know, all the major War Criminals of the Bush administration were up at the ranch so I think there were about five of us who got arrested trying to cross the barriers and you've been to Crawford so you know what I'm talking about.
Ray McGovern: Mm-hm.
Cindy Sheehan: The barriers to go to the ranch. So we were arrested protesting the 'surge' because we could see the surge was going to be a nightmare. And no matter how much Obama says the surge was successful. Or Cheney, or Rums -- or Gates, Rumsfeld's out of the picture. I don't even know where he is anymore. However much they say the 'surge' was successful, there was a high price and it's not so successful if you know what really happened, was it?
Ray McGovern: No, it's true, Cindy, most people don't realize that 1,000, at least 1,000, young men and women from our armed forces are dead now --
Cindy Sheehan: Mm-hm.
Ray McGovern: -- dead. And you know what that means, better than anybody else.
Cindy Sheehan: Yeah.
Ray McGovern: And thousands wounded. Not to mention Iraqis. I mean, Iraqis, last time I checked the Bible, I looked it up. Iraqis are human beings too. Would you believe it?
Cindy Sheehan: Really?
Ray McGovern: Yeah, they really are.
Cindy Sheehan: Oh. Wow.
Ray McGovern: So we have to cout them too.
Cindy Sheehan: But we don't count them. We can only estimate how many Iraqis have been killed.
Ray McGovern: That's right. They don't count. Well that was the attitude. And what we saw with the 'surge' was really bizarre, Cindy. If you think back to the end of 2006, what was clear is that the Iraqi political figures were not taking seriously their duty to get their act together.
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: No matter what we said, they always knew -- well Bush promised them, 'We'll never leave you,' right? That's because he never wanted to leave them, okay? What was happening was the place was falling apart. And General [John] Abizaid and General Casey -- Abizaid being the head of CENTCOM, Casey being the head of the troops there in Iraq -- came back and testified in September before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And what they said was this, "Thank's very much but please -- please -- don't send any more troops. The last thing we need is more troops. Why? Because if we send more troops, those Iraqis will never, never think they have to get their act together. We don't need more troops. What we need is for them to get some religion here. Work out their differences so we can leave, okay?"
Cindy Sheehan: Mm-hm.
Ray McGoven: Now that's what everyone was saying. That's what the Hamilton . . .
Cindy Sheehan: Baker-Hamiliton report.
Ray McGovern: . . Baker-Hamilton report said. Everybody in their right mind, everybody sane here, which is usually not too many people but most people in Washington were saying we have to acknowledge that. So what did Bush do? Well he talked to Cheney and Dick said, "Well now, Mr. President, you want to lose a war on your watch? You want to tuck tale and go home to Texas and have the whole thing fold in on you? No, we have to -- we have to reinforce, can't listen to these other folks." And so they ginned up some folks at the American Enterprise Institute and a general named Keane and they whipped up this little plan to put in 30,000 troops. 30,000 troops in and around Baghdad. With formal screens, so that the Shia could ethnically cleanse Baghdad.
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: Now that's, that's big, you know?
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: Baghdad used to be equal Sunni - Shia. What these guys did under the protection of US forces -- and often with the help of US forces -- drive the Sunnis out of Baghdad, we're talking millions of people, Cindy.
Cindy Sheehan: Oh, I know. I've been to -- I haven't been to Iraq yet but I've been to Iman, Jordan speaking with the people who were forced out if they were lucky to escape with their lives and if they were lucky to escape the country but, as you know, there are millions of refugees in and outside of Iraq right now.
Ray McGovern: Yes, some four-and-half million folks out of 27 million when the war began
Cindy Sheehan: Mm-hm.
Ray McGovern: So what you have here is a really great success We calmed down Baghdad, partly by driving the Sunni out, and also by building the kind of wall you used to see in Berlin that now we see in the West Bank and also on our southern border, I have to say, having recently been in southern Texas. You know that kind of wall's a really great thing to bring people together, right? Well it seperated what was left of the Sunni and actually divided that whole city so that was really great, that's really great, if you like walls and if you like ethnic cleansing. And then of course we gave Petreaus a whole bunch of money and he gave it out to the Sunnis. "Here, we'll give you $300 a month, just don't fire in our direction."
Cindy Sheehan: Ten dollars a day. They were giving, I think it was estimated about 80,000 people, ten dollars a day to not attack the US.
Ray McGovern: So now of course that dole is run out and what happens to the Sunni now? Well, we'll just have to see.
Yes, we will have to see and we may be seeing it. Over the weekend, the "Awakening" Council members/Sahwa/Sons of Iraq were in the news. It started with arrests and ended with gun battles. Along the way the nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill had his testimony to Congress last week (see Wednesday and Thursday's snapshots) again punked. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) explained Saturday, "16 people were injured (seven Sahwa members, four Iraqi soldiers and four civilians) after clashes broke out between the Iraqi army and Sahwa members in Fadhil neighborhood in downtown Baghdad around 2 p.m. The clashes broke out during an operation of the Iraqi army to arrest the leader of Fadhil Sahwa and one of his deputies. Five Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped in the incident." McClatchy's Leila Fadel added Adel Mashhadani was the arrest target and that the arrest of him (as well as an assistant) "heightened fears among Sunnis that the Iraqi government plans to divide and disband the movements now that its taken control of all but a few thousands of the 94,000 members across the country." Now let's pause a moment. The point of opening with Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern's discussion is they're talking about the way Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, eradicated the Sunni presence from Baghdad. So when discussing why "Awakenings" might be leery, why they might not trust al-Maliki, that 'rezoning' plays a big part in it. As does the fact that al-Maliki staffed his ministries with Shi'ite thugs and allowed them to attack Sunnis without any fears of reprimands, let alone reprisals. Nouri's been very clear in his distaste for Sunni thugs -- Shi'ite ones he loves -- which is why US Senator Barbara Boxer was able to reference European press interviews al-Maliki gave stating that the bulk of the "Awakenings" would not be brought into his government. With that and more in mind, Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland (New York Times) quote the spokesperson for Fadhil "Awakening" Council, Abu Mirna, stating Saturday as fighting was ongoing, "American forces have broken the alliance with us by arresting our leader. Now there are clashes in the area between the Americans and Awakening fighters and you can hear shooting. It's chaos." There were reports of 5 Iraqi soldiers being captured in the battle and held hostage.
"The reason it's significant," McClatchy's Leila Fadel told Real News Network, "is that it's one of a series of detentions of top leaders of the Sons of Iraq -- in Iraq, across the country. Specifically in Diyala [Province] and Baghdad. And this program, the Sons of Iraq, which is really part of the reason the US military can claim what they call success now with the lower levels of violence because these guys either turned on al Qaeda [in Mesopotamia] or stopped shooting and are on US payroll and now they're being transferred to Iraqi government control. And with that control, it seems that they are trying to weaken these groups and some of that can lead to violence as Fadhil clearly showed over the weekend."
Real News Network's Paul Jay: So they're targeting some of the leaders of these groups at the same time that they are incorporating some of the ordinary members or are they actually targeting the whole organizations?
Leila Fadel: Well the --
Paul Jay: "They" being the Iraqi government.
Leila Fadel: Right. The transfer of authority started in October of last year. Where the US military said "Here are these 100,000 guys who we've been paying $300 a month and who have been in their streets, in their neighborhoods secure them. Now you take them." The [Iraqi] government has always said, "We believe most of these guys are former insurgents. We don't trust them. We don't want them. We won't give them amnesty. And so finally the government said "Give them to us, we want to take them." So now the authority technically is the Iraqi government -- in most of Iraq, not all of them have been transferred Salahuddin [Province] I think has still not transferred. And during that time and right before that, when I say "target," they've gone after them with arrest warrants on accusations of crimes they've committed but the Sons of Iraq themselves are saying they feel targeted, they feel that the leaders who stood up and took a risk and went against the people that were destroying their neighborhoods and also maybe turned on, or changed their minds about things of the past, where they would attack US forces or government forces as their enemy are now being betrayed and being arrested for those crimes of the past.
And it continued on Sunday. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) explain Raad Ali arrest became public (arrested five days prior): "Ali, a former insurgent, had a close working relationship with the Americans, shared a military base with them, and said he had briefed visiting U.S. diplomats from Afghanistan about the Sons of Iraq movement. Ali spoke regularly about the need for Sunnis to enter the political mainstream and leave behind their insurgency." Sudarsan Raghavan and Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) report, "On Sunday, Iraqi soldiers backed by U.S. combat helicopters and American troops swept into a central Baghdad neighborhood, arresting U.S.-backed Sunni fighters in an effort to clamp down on a two-day uprising that challenged the Iraqi government's authority and its effort to pacify the capital." Waleed Ibrahim, Wisam Mohammed, Aseel Kami, Abdulrahman Taher, Thaier al-Sudani, Tim Cocks, Michael Christie and Jon Boyle (Reuters) add, "A Reuters Television cameraman saw U.S. military vehicles alongside Iraqi army ones using loudspeakers to warn the fighters in Arabic to put down their weapons, while U.S. military helicopters hovered overhead." Leila Fadel reported Sunday that "Awakenings" had handed "over 10 Iraqi soldiers they'd been holding" after they surrendered "and gav eup their weapons" and that this came after Iraq's "Army sealed off the district, and [US] helicopters circled in the air".
Fadel explains to the Real News Network that "Awakenings" feel betrayed because the US military gave or "Awakenings" thought they were given amnesty but that the US military could only give amnesty for attacks on the US, not attacks on Iraqis. Note that the term "amnesty" was used (this is me, not Leila) by the US military in recruiting "Awakenings." It caused some rumbles on the internet play left side of the world (Arianna Huffington was a huffing back then about it). Clearly, had the "Awakenings" known that the "amnesty" was limited, they wouldn't have gone along. What would be the point? Help pacify/terrorize the country and then when Nouri no longer needs them, he can pick them off? If they had known that the amnesty did not apply across the board, they would not have gone along because the reason they were armed and against the puppet government in the first place was they didn't trust the puppet government (or the puppet).
The US started the "Awakening" Council "movement" by putting Sunni thugs on the payroll (having already installed Shi'ite thugs into the puppet government) because, as Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker repeatedly explained to Congress last April, paying them off meant they wouldn't attack US forces. When paid by US forces, they had many "duties" but primarily they were stationed at checkpoints where they controlled who passed and who didn't. In January and February, some still waiting to be absorbed felt the checkpoints were their responsiblity. What happens now that they feel under attack? What happens as the word gets out that al-Maliki hasn't paid a large number in months and that word is on top of the arrests and targeting of them in Baghdad? As Sinan Salaheddin (AP) explains, "How the Shiite-led government deals with the Sunni security volunteers is widely seen as a test of its ability to win the loyalty of disaffected Sunnis _ an essential step in forging a lasting peace in Iraq." The arrest on Saturday is said to be because of "Baathism" and that's the charge whenever al-Maliki wants to haul someone away: they're a Baathist, they're plotting to overthrow him, they're an enemy of the state, etc.
al-Maliki's last big claim of "Baathist conspiracy" exploded in his face. If this one does, he'll not only have the "Awakenings" to answer to, he'll also have an international community beginning to tire of his repeatedly playing "they're plotting against me!" Interestingly, the US military's statement doesn't mention any Baathist charge but does toss out their own constant cry of "al Qaeda in Iraq!": "Mashadani was arrested under a warrant issued by the Iraqi government. He is suspected of illegally searching, detaining and extorting bribes in excess of $160,000 a month from the citizens of Fahdil, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks that killed Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), leading an IED cell, leading an indirect fire cell, ties to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and collusion with the terrorist network Jaysh al Islami." Al Jazeera quotes al-Maliki's military spokesperson stating, "We also have information that Mashhadani heads the military branch in Fadel of the [banned] Baath party [of Saddam Hussein, the executed former Iraqi president]." Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed also note the Baathist assertion: "The government accused Mashadani of running a secret wing of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, and his supporters of abusing their power."
For those who forgot, Barack's "best and brightest" (and hopefully not another tax cheat) nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq, Chris Hill, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week a lot of fairy tales including that they're all now under Nouri's control -- no, some have been turned over; that they've been abosrbed into the Iraqi forces by Nouri and this weekend proves that's not true plus only 5% have been employed by the government at present; and that Nouri's grabbed the responsibility of paying them from the Americans (US tax payers paid the March salaries for a huge chunk of "Awakenings") and is now on top of the payroll. On top of the payroll? AP reported Saturday that "leaders of several Awakening Council groups complained the government has not paid them in months, with some threatening to quit a movement." Complaints came from "Awakenings" in Baghdad, Diyala Province and Azamiyah -- Diyala "Awakenings" said they hadn't been paid in three months.
That wasn't the only news over the weekend. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported that the Mujahedeen al-Kahlq, an Iranian group that has been in Iraq since 1979 and protected by the US military since the start of the Iraq War, is yet again the topic of al-Maliki's government as they repeat that the group must leave but, for now, the focus is on moving them "to new quarters in western or southern Iraq". Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes some offensive remarks made by Nouri al-Maliki's National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie, MEK "should understand that their days in Iraq are numbered. We are literally counting them. . . . The party is over for them. The party is over for coalition protection for them." and, as Londono notes, "them" is al-Rubaie "referring to the U.S. military." The puppet's playtoy wants to say the "party is over for the" US forces? When did the party begin for them? When did the party begin? What an insulting remark from a sleazy, trashy assed piece of ___ who wouldn't even have a job if the US government had installed him and his man-crush al-Maliki. Meanwhile Mustafa Mahmoud (Reuters) reports it's kick the can down the road yet again regarding the oil-rich Kirkuk which will now have any sort of decision or referendum on its status delayed until June at the earliest. While Kirkuk may be postponable (it may not be), rumors float that Moqtada al-Sad's movement is in danger. Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports on a supposed break in Moqtada al-Sadr's movement which takes place as "the government has begun granting secret amnesty deals to members of the breakaway group who also were members of Iranian-backed Shiite militias, in exchange for laying down their arms, according to government officials and three militia members who said they had won amnesty. The militias, dubbed special groups by the U.S. military, have continued to fight U.S. and Iraqi security forces." If either or both are true, al-Sadr's movement might be weakened.
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baquba bike bombing which claimed 3 lives and left eight people wounded, a Baquba roadside bombing which wounded a police officer, and a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left two more injured.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person shot dead in Mosul, 3 "Awakening" Members were shot dead in Eskanderiyah, 2 people were shot dead in Babil Province and "the general director of the immigrants and displaced people department" was shot dead in Mosul and his assistant was injured.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baquba.
Turning to legal news out of Germany, George Frey (AP) reports US Sgt 1st Class Joseph Mayo entered a guilty plea to "premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit premeditated murder" in the 2007 murders of 4 Iraqis US forces had taken into custody and that this follows Sgt Michael Leahy's conviction last month for his role in the murders. Fran Yeoman (Times of London) reports "Mayo told a court martial in Vilseck, southern Germany, that he thought the shootings were in the best interests of his troops because he feared the prisoners would attack them if released." In other legal news, Friday's snapshot noted: "Meanwhile, in the United States, Paul J. Weber (AP) reports that Sam Marcos commissioners are rethinking using KBR after two Iraq War veterans, Bryan Hannah and Gregory Foster, spoke out at a commissioner's court meeting against the war profiteer KBR which stands accused of intentionally exposing US troops in Iraq to carcinogenics and of doing such a poor job in their building of US facilities in Iraq that showering becomes a hazard for US service members." Bryan Hannah tells his story at US Socialist Worker:
Greg and I brought to the attention of the county commissioners the company's history of scandals, including bribery, the negligent homicide of 11 soldiers and five Marines, rape and gang rape cover-ups, tax evasion and more.
Greg read the top results for a Google search that contained a multitude of shady business dealings and crimes to demonstrate that the commissioners had not done adequate research. He then read a letter from Spec. Jude Prather, a Hays County resident and infantryman in Iraq.
Jude's letter outlined his concerns about KBR being a daily fixture in his community, stating that his convoy escort team's opinions of KBR were "too colorful to be read in court." Greg recalled a saying of his father: "Son, your dollar votes. If you don't like how a company does business, don't do business with them."
I brought to the commissioners' attention the siphoning by KBR of tens of billions of dollars out of our treasury in exchange for the delivery of substandard service and even unacceptable "disservices" to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Some soldiers suffered illnesses from contaminated drinking water, others were exposed to carcinogens such as sodium dichromate, and some died as a result of faulty electrical wiring and air-conditioning units placed so close to showers that water splashed on them.
"Hays County has a laudable record of supporting its service members and veterans," I said. "I do not think we could in good conscience accept that reputation and hire a company responsible for killing U.S. soldiers and Marines, then attempting to cover it up and deny compensation to the families."
Again, Cindy Sheehan's radio show continues on the internet and she interviewed Ray McGovern for her most recent show. Here McGovern's just finished explaining that the Bush adminstration refused to meet with Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Ray McGovern: And we're still not getting any hearing which is really disappointing -- was really disappointing because the tea leaves say, Cindy, that President Obama is about to make his LBJ Vietnam or George Bush Iraq mistake. We're about to get involved in a real quagmire there. And you know, it's almost as though there's something here in the water in Washington, Cindy.
Cindy Sheehan: Right.
Ray McGovern: Because it doesn't make any sense at all. And grown up people should know that.
US President Barack Obama appeared today on CBS' Face The Nation with moderator Bob Schieffer (here for text report by Michelle Levi with video option and link for transcript).
Daivd Zurawik (Baltimore Sun) observes that Barack sounded like LBJ on Vietnam when discussing Afhganistan:But that is what Obama sounded like to me when he was talking about how some of the U.S. troops would only be training their Afghan counterparts for combat. It clearly sounded that way to Schieffer, too, because he came out hard-charging with questions for the president about his commitment of more troops to Afghanistan, and he took precious minutes at the end of his broadcast to do a stand-up outside the White House explaining the decision to focus on Afghanistan."When he decided to move more Americans into harm's way in Afghanistan, for better or worse, it became his war," Schieffer said of Obama. Schieffer closed by wondering whether Obama would look back one day on that decision from last week as a major turning point in his administration and legacy. The questioning on Afghanistan and the related matter of whether or not we will follow terrorists into Pakistan and strike there was so pointed, that at one point, Obama said, "I'm enough of a student of history to know about Vietnam." But he sure sounded like LBJ in 1965 when he talked Sunday about the Afghan Army as having "great credibility" and being "effective fighters" -- all they needed was a little "training" from the American troops. At least, Obama didn't use the 1960s's rhetoric of the U.S. soldiers and Marines only being advisers.
That was on Afghanistan. Iraq came up during the interview (because Schieffer raised the issue):
Bob Schieffer: You said the other day in the 60 Minutes interview that you would not have thought at this point in your presidency that Iraq would be the least of your worries, something to that effect. Barack Obama: Right. Right. Bob Schieffer: Are things going well enough there now that you may consider speeding up the withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Barack Obama: No, I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one, which is, let's have a very gradual withdrawal schedule through the national elections in Iraq. There's still work to be done on the political side to resolve differences between the various sectarian groups around issues like oil, around issues like provincial elections. And so we're gonna continue to make progress on that front. I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction. But Iraq is not yet completed. We still have a lot of work to do. We still have a lot of training of Iraqi forces to improve their capacity. I'm confident, though, that we're moving in the right direction.
would the draw down be speeded up? No, says Barack. That's what he says? Friday's Iraq snapshot noted NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) interviewed Gen Ray Odierno, top US commander in Iraq. Now Barack said yesterday nothing will speed up the rate of the draw down. What did Odierno tell Lourdes Garcia-Navarro?Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Despite those worries and others, Odierno is considering more troop reductions this year ahead of Parliamentary elections. Ray Odierno: In August, September time frame, I will look at how things are going and I will make another decision on whether I think we should either reduce our presence more. And that assessment will be based on "Do I think I have enough forces to ensure that we have a peaceful, successful, national election?" If I believe we can do that with less forces then we will off-ramp some forces. Lourdes Garcia-Navarro: Eventually there will be around only 50,000 Americans here down from just under 140,000 now. So are you confused? Or is it Barack that is? Meanwhile despite the continued bombing in Basra, all but 400 of the approximately 4,000 British soldiers are gearing up to leave, Reuters reports. Remember that when violence is offered as the excuse for Barack slowing down his draw down. And England and the US both got involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. So possibly something might be transferable? Some form of knowledge? If so, Barack better hope and pray it's not to be found from Richard Dannatt. Michael Evans (Times of London) reports that Dannet has told the paper the decision by then-prime minister Tony Blair to switch the emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan in 2005 led to a huge increase in violence in Iraq. The US military needs to withdraw (not draw down) from both countries. That's not the point in raising the issue of Gen Richard Dannatt. The point is an administration that wants both illegal wars will probably be trotting out the we-didn't-realize excuse at some point in the near future.
Lastly, three years ago journalist Lesley Abdela made the "Top 50 Heroes Of Our Times" (New Stateman). She has just been announced as the Winner of the 2009 UK Woman Political Journalist of the Year. The honor comes from the Dods & Scottish Widows Women in Public Life Awards and are voted on by the Parliamentary Press Lobby, Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords. You can find out more about Lesley Abdela at Third Sector Women and you can also read up on her at SourceWatch.
Click here for some of her writing at the Guardian.
iraq
cindy sheehan
laith hammoudimcclatchy newspapers
leila fadelthe new york timesrod nordlandalissa j. rubinwaleed ibrahimwisam mohammedaseel kamiabdulrahman taherthaier al-sudanitim cocksmichael christiejon boylethe los angeles timesned parkercaesar ahmed
the washington postsudarsan raghavananthony shadid
ernesto londono
gina chonthe wall street journal
face the nationcbs newsbob schieffermichelle levinprall things consideredlourdes garcia-navarro
david zurawik
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)