Mikey Likes It!

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The summit

Tuesday. The week's going by but not fast enough.

In Iraq, they're gearing up for the Arab League Summit and they've shut down pretty much everything in Baghdad as a result.

BBC News reports:

The BBC's Wyre Davies in Baghdad says the security for this week's Arab League summit, the first such meeting to be held there since Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait in 1990, is extraordinarily tight.
Heavily armed security teams are stopping and searching most vehicles in the city centre, leading to complaints from locals that their lives are being made impossible.

And Shashank Joshi writes:

Iraq recently settled debts and reparations worth billions of dollars with Kuwait and Egypt, and signed a security agreement with Saudi Arabia.
Now, with Baghdad in the spotlight, Iraq is pulling out all the stops.
The New York Times has reported that the country has spent $600,000 (£375,000) on stationery and $1m on flowers for the Arab League summit.
But for Iraq to truly bring itself back into the Arab fold, Mr Maliki will have to change his authoritarian and divisive course, stop arresting and vilifying his Sunni political opponents, and demonstrate his independence from Tehran.

I don't see how Nouri thinks he's proving anything about Iraq other than, "If I shut down everything, maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to stop violence in Baghdad." It's such a joke, he's such a joke.

This is who the US-installed. First time, he was installed by Bush. Second time by Barack.

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

Tuesday, March 27, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad gears up for the Arab League Summit, a disturbing hearing is held by the US Congress, and more.

Starting with the US Congress.

US House Rep Susan Davis: One of the things that we know is that we've been a military at war and not a nation at war. Would you agree with that statement? [Nods from witnesses.] How does that effect what we do? You mentioned, Colonel, that above all we should be a unified and committed nation. Where does that fit in?

Col Robert Killebrew: Well -- well -- Madam, you're running a grave risk, I have a whole sermon I give on this. But I'll try to restrain myself.

US House Rep Susan Davis: Okay.

Col Robert Killebrew: The social changes and the political changes that are happening in the world right now in my view -- and I'm not a PhD-ed social scientist but having studied it, I believe -- are undermining in many cases the concept of nation-hood. One country as I said in my testimony that's going back at that is Columbia. And you have to look at them -- get away from this help that we've given them -- and look at how they're deliberately trying to foster the concept under law of Columbia nation-hood -- to understand the really depth of what they're doing. In this country, we've always taken that for granted. And I still take it for granted. We developed a-a-a-a volunteer armed force in which -- and, by the way, I came in during the draft, so I've seen both. I don't believe a draft would ever be pratical again in this country. I think we have a volunteer armed force. I have to tell you I'm very impatient with the fact that no national leader has ever said -- since the volunteer force came in -- that it would be a good thing for someone's son and daughter to join the armed forces. Never. Not even after 9-11. The concept of nation-hood that we have to engender are the things that matter to us under the Constitution. And I don't believe it's furthered by the kind of red-blue split we see right now in the country. I think that's -- I think -- As you look ten to twenty years in the future with the impact of the technology and the social change in the rest of the world, I think this runs a risk of undermining our common concept of what we are as a nation. And I think that's something we have to take on -- national leadership, persons like yourself, people like me who write -- we have to come to understand that there's some core idea about what being an American means that may include serving in the armed forces or paying your country back through some kind of service. But larger than that, being willing to accept the concept of a lot of people make up this country and everybody is an American. That's a kind of a grand strategic view but it's occupied my thoughts for quite a while now.

US House Rep Susan Davis: Mm-hmm. Thank you. Did you want to comment on that too?

Seth Jones: Uh, I do. Very briefly, I think your question: Are we a nation at war? If you look at the last uh decade, decade and a half, we have been at times. We were a nation at war after September 11th because there was a threat that brought us together as a nation, that there was mutual feeling that we had to defend the borders. I think that there was a -- We were a nation at war in May of last year, during and after the bin Laden raid. I think that the challenge that we find ourselves in along these lines, is that in many of the areas where we face regular warfare challenges, we are talking about a, uhm, countries like, uhm, Syria now, countries like Libya, where we have -- and this is just a sub-set of them -- large Muslim populations. I think we have found that adding and deploying large numbers of conventional forces to these kind of theaters is -- is not only in some cases counter-productive but certainly doesn't provide a lot of domestic support. We see that on the Afghan front today. I do think one of the things that this suggests as we move forward is -- and this goes back to comments that both of the panelists have made, is that does it make sense on the irregular warfare threat to think of this really as focusing predominately on the indirect side? Smaller numbers, competent US Special Operations and intelligence forces dealing more systematically with these kinds of threats rather than deploying hundreds of thousands -- over a hundred thouasand forces because I don't think there are, uh, unless we're attacked like we were on 9-11, we will be a nation at war from a domestic standpoint the way we were on 9-11. I think those kinds of incidents are extremely rare but the threat is real.

David Maxwell: Madam, I think, uh, really to echo both my colleagues comments, we have to look at the nature of the conflict that we're engaged in. And I think that, uh, I think Dr. Jones was right, after 9-11, we were a nation at war. And we have been at times. But we also have to ask ourselve: Should we be a nation at war? And as I look at the categories that I've laid out, the first category: Existential threat to the US or allies? We have to be a nation at war if we're faced with that. I think for the second category, those threats to regional stability and status quo, our friends, partners and allies, subversion, terrorism, insurgency and lawlessness and the like, that may not cause us to be a nation at war. And as Dr. Jones says it might require a smaller footprint, a discreet force, that may not require the nation to be focused. The third? A more hybrid threat, I think, would require us to be a nation at war because the scale of that complex threat, we would need to be a nation at war. So I think it's really a question of the types of threats that we face and the strategies we employ to deal with those threats. But I think, the other -- the other aspect you're getting at is -- Our nation supports our military. You know, there is support for it but the question is, as always, who serves. And there are a lot of people who are serving and who continue to serve and they feel that burden on their shoulders and they are tired.

That was this afternoon, a little over half-way through the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. It was an 'interesting' hearing. US House Rep Mac Thornberry is the Subcommittee Chair and he explained at the start of the hearing:

Last fall, this Subcommittee held a hearing to begin exploring the possibility that what we call irregular warfare may be a regular -- that is, frequent -- challenge for us in the future as, in fact, it certainly has been in the past. And we began to explore how we ensured that the hard won lessons of the past decade are not simply shelved and forgotten as we "get back to normal." Today, we want to go a little deeper in looking at what type of future irregular warfare challenges we are likely to face, what strategies are best suited to deal with these future challenges and what examples or models may exist to suspport those strategies and effectively deal with the irregular challenges.

The Subcommittee heard from three witnesses, Rand Corporation's Seth Jones, Center for a New American Security's Robert Killebrew and Georgetown University's David Maxwell.

Jones is a rah-rah War Hawk who made many claims but whether the assertions could be established or not is anyone's guess. Afghanistan, he declared, was a series of mistakes from 2002 to 2009 because there were attempts to build a government. No, he's not against nation-building, he feels the tribal strength was not understood. You may agree with that, you may not. You may just, like me, remember that this is a little different than the maint thrust of the argument Jones made in his book In The Graveyard of Empires where he asserted that there was a chance to create a stable democratic government in Afghanistan but that chance had a brief window and, by 2006, political upheaval had changed that. And, of course, one of his big complaints then about Afghanistan's was that there was corruption and how it spread. Let's quote: "Afghan governance became unhinged as corruption worked its way through the government like a cancer, leaving massive discontent throughout the country; and the international presence, hamstrung by the U.S. focus on Iraq, was too small to deal with the escalating violence." Courrption, by his own ranking in that book, needed to be addressed first and long before any tribal issues. And, in that book, Jones was arguing that Afghanistan was spinning out of control not due to some lack of understanding of tribal landlords but due to what was going on within Pakistan.

"You change like sugar cane,"

says my northern lad

I guess you go too far

when pianos try to be guitars

-- "Northern Lad," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her From The Choirgirl Hotel

It was certainly interesting to watch him make assertions that -- whether you agree with them or not -- pull at the loose strings in his previous work, reducing a sweater collection to a ball of yarn. And you don't have to go back to the publication of that book. You can just drop back to August 30th of last year when he was a guest on Patt Morrison (KPCC) and listen closely to determine whether you find matching statements and beliefs.

Jones insisted, "We made mistakes in Iraq, in my view, for several years. We corrected them. In the Iraq case, beginning around 2006." Really. Hmm. Again, interesting assertions I'm just aware of the conflict in his testimony before the Subcommittee and his previous statements. For example, at Georgetown, where he's a professor, he does many public events. I attended one in -- of all years -- 2006. You know what he was advocating at that one? Back in January of 2006, he was advocating that stability in Iraq would come from the US pulling troops. (Not all troops.) Now if you feel that way, if that's, in fact, the entire basis of your presentation -- it was, and it was co-presentation with David Edelstein, if I'm remembering correctly -- how do you then say today that 2006 is the start of a turnaround? That's before the "surge" starts. And you were arguing for it to go the other way in 2006 (arguing for a drawdown).

I'm sorry that I expect consistency in witnesses and expect that -- when they go back on their own previous positions -- they either acknowledge the switch or have the good manners and decency not to present their new positions as ones they've always held and ones that make them so much smarter than everyone else in the room. (And for those late to the party, a US withdrawal was always going to likely mean increased violence. That wasn't a reason to prolong the occupation of Iraq. It was a reason to get out because the longer the US occupies, the stronger the pushback would be after the US left. The US never should have gone to war on Iraq, having failed to realize that, the US government should have withdrawn immediately.)

Equally disturbing was Robert Killebrew. As disclosed many times before, I know Gary Hart. I didn't find it cute -- some did, some laughed -- as Killebrew repeatedly and intentionally distorted the Hart-Rudman Commission -- which he worked on -- and mocked it and stated that they didn't do any real work on terrorism and much more. The Brookings Institution, promoting one of their 2002 events at which former Senator Warren Rudman explained:

On January 31, 2001, former Senators Warren Rudman and Gary Hart and their United States Commission on National Security issued a final report warning that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers," as a result of terrorist attacks. The commission recommended that the government create a National Homeland Security Agency to deal with the threat. That was more than seven months before terrorists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands.

Again, some laughed. I just found it embarrassing and sad to see a grown man make such an idiot of himself in public. "I was on the Hart-Rudman Commission about global threats," he said mincing intentionally with his right hand to gin up the laughter, "and no matter what the retrospective view is, I'll tell you we had it figured out, it was China and a resurgent Russia. Terrorism didn't even hardly come up on the scale." What a sad, sad man.

The TV news media is often criticized for its failure to discuss issues as important as war with anyone other than Hawks and/or retired military personnel. The same criticism could be made of the Armed Services Committee. And anyone who asserts, "It's the Armed Services Committee, they have to cover the Defense Dept in their witnesses." The Rand Corporation works closely with DoD on many projects, yes. But that's Jones. The other two? Retired military officers now at alleged 'think tanks.'

The thrust of the hearing -- witness testimony and statements made by most Subcommittee members as well -- is that irregular warfare is not just upon us, it is here in the US and it has no end date. I don't see how Congress is helped with such nonsense and I'm positive that America isn't.

The witnesses offered a variety of 'threats' and, as you might expect, Iran and China were among them. You might be surprised to learn Venezuela was also floated.

we have important interests there that are worth

Are these threats to the US or just countries with leaders the US doesn't like? I'm having a hard time believing that even the most anti-Chavez person in the US could truly believe that Hugh Chavez would lead Venzuela in an attack on the US.

Killebrew was full of 'expertise.' Citing a friend of his with the LAPD, he declared we'd start seeing car bombs across the US. The LAPD. Or one officer with the LAPD. Why stop there? Was Miss Cleo's 900 number busy?

Who's the model for what we need? Killebrew said it was "the DEA agent in Columbia who lives with this every day." Wow. Colombia's the model? Transparency International's most recent findings, Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 Results awarded Columbia a 3.5 on its index where the perfect score for transparency is a 10. 3.5. Not only is that an awful score, on the South American continent, Colombia's not in the lead. Among those beating it? Chile with 7.2, Uruguay with 6.9 and even Brazil with 3.7. But that's the example? And the police force there that Killebrew couldn't stop praising? Corruption is not a new angle on them. Among the many articles, you can refer to Raymond Billy's "Police Corruption Plagues Colombia, Residents Say" (Resonate News). "That's the success story in Colombia," Killebrew insisted at another point in the hearing. And it can be exported with Special Ops. He wants "a lot of Colombias out there." I can't think of many things sadder.

If Killebrew gets his way look for another war between the US and Mexico because insisted that "what's happening in Mexico is a new kind of insurgency. As you know the Secretary of State and Assistant Secretary of the Army got their hands slapped when they said that."

It was a very disturbing hearing as eternal war was preaced and we were informed it was here on the US soil because insugrency "is blending with cimre," there is "a hybrid crime-insurgency threat" and national borders "don't matter" to our opponents. "Armies around the world everywhere are kind of similar," Killebrew insisted. We got Seth Jones lamenting that, after 1975, the US government wrote off counter-insurgency and all the lessons learned.

Only with a hand picked panel of War Hawks and War Whores could such a laughable assertion be made. Ronald Reagan's administration saw to it that counter-insurgency was used throughout the eighties in Latin American and you can find a large bodycount to demonstrate that. More importantly, by 1975, counter-insurgency was rightly out of favor and it was out of favor because it not only was an excuse to murder, the very process of counter-insurgency (forget the results) went against the notions of what was humane.

There are hearings that inspire me, there are hearings that engage me, there are hearings that bore me. I can't think of another hearing that left me as frightened for our future. And not just because of what was said by the witnesses but because there was never objection to it.

If I've ignored David Maxwell it's because the few bits of intelligence on exhibit in the hearing usuallyf lowed from him. While Seth Jones blathered on about Twitter and Facebook -- and sounded like a middle aged man trying desperately to sound 'hip' while talking to a teenager, it was Maxwell who told the committee, "Sir, I would focus on capabilities and say that rather than military and technology, irregular warfare capabilities rest in people. And I think that's where we really have to invest -- especially in this time of fiscal constraint, it is our people who have to solve complex political-military problems."

Any common sense flashed this afternoon came via Maxwell.

In Baghdad today, more Arab League Summit excitement. Jane Arraf is a correspondent for Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor. She tweeted today.

Silly Nouri, doesn't he realize that spending all that money on the summit, to impress, really needs photos and text praising the 'beauty'? Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) reports, "Nearly $1 billion has been spent on sprucing up a capital racked by years of conflict, and close to three million flowers and a half-a-million trees have been planted for the occasion. Baghdad International Airport will be shut to civilian traffic and some 100,000 army and police have been mobilized to secure the visiting Arab dignitaries". Alsumaria TV adds that over 500,000 trees and plants have been added to the streets and entrances of the Green Zone and Baghdad International Airport. Some of the trees are date palm trees, some of the plants are rose bushes. And the guests must be made to feel welcome. Jane Arraf Tweeted:

None of which covers over Kitabat's report that Iraqi children are forced labor working for hours on end for little pay at a brick factory just outside of Baghdad. No, Nouri, all the rose bushes in the world won't take away the stench of a child sweat shop where young children labor for 14 hours a day. Not will it conceal the true state of Iraq. Farirai Chubvu (New Era) explores those realities today:

Today, nine years after US troops toppled Saddam Hussein and just a few months after the last US soldier left the devastated country, Iraq has become something close to a failed state.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki presides over a system rife with corruption and brutality, in which political leaders use security forces and militias to repress enemies and intimidate the general population.
The law exists as a weapon to be wielded against rivals and to hide the misdeeds of allies. The dream of an Iraq governed by elected leaders answerable to the people is rapidly fading away.
The Iraqi state cannot provide basic services, including regular electricity in summer, clean water, and decent health care; meanwhile, unemployment among young men hovers close to 30 percent, making them easy recruits for criminal gangs and militant factions.
Although the level of violence is down from the worst days of the civil war in 2006 and 2007, the current pace of bombings and shootings is more than enough to leave most Iraqis on edge and deeply uncertain about their futures.

A member of Parliament's security committee tells Al Rafidayn that Baghdad lacks "intelligence capabilities" and some of the "necessary equipment." However, Kitabat notes a rocket attack was foiled or is said to have been foiled. CNN's Jomana Karadsheh Tweeted a photo of one of the Iraqi forces vehicles patrolling Baghdad.

Al Sabaah reports Comoros President Ikililou Dhoinine was the first Arab leader to arrive in Baghdad for the summit. It's not often that the president Comoros (whose total population is less than 800,000) gets to garner international headlines. On the attendees, Jane Arraf Tweets:

The Wall Street Journal's Sam Dagher Tweeted on another possible sleight:

On the attendees, AFP's Prashant Rao Tweeted:

While the Washington Post's Liz Sly Tweets on this topic:

What the attendees will officially discuss is the topic of the Associated Press' Lara Jakes' Tweet:

Al Mada reports on Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari's Monday press conference where Zebari stated 21 countries would be participating in the summit, that Syria wasn't invited and the newspaper notes that Syria is expected to be a major part of discussion at the summit. In another article, they quote him stating that the summit will send an important message about how Iraq has integrated into the Arab world. Al Sabaah runs a photo of Zebari from the press conference. Zebari gloats to Liz Sly (Washington Post), "We pulled it together. Nobody believed us. The very idea it is taking place is a success." Al Mada notes that Nouri has ordered a stop to the protests against Bahrain for this week. (Yet in Falluja, protests were staged calling for support of the Syrian opposition.)

The Arab League Summit is being covered but what is the organization? Who are they? Why did they come together? What have they accomplished? The Brookings Institution offers three views on the Arab Summit. Khaled Elgindy view includes:

For most of the last six decades, the Arab League has been, as one expert put it, a "glorified debating society" -- synonymous with ineffectiveness, inaction, or incompetence (and in some cases all three). In the year since the Arab uprisings began, however, the ArabLeague seems to have enchance both its street credibility and its diplomatic standing thanks to a number of bold actions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

But how much is that judgment based upon a desire for the Arab League to do the bidding of others? I have no idea but the piece reads like, "The Arab League won't do what we want it to! And we know best! If only they'd listen!" Tamara Cofman Wittes' opens her piece with:

When the Arab League convenes this week, it will meet in a constitutional democracy, Iraq, and will include a former Tunisian human rights activist, Moncef Marzouki, among its assembled heads of state. These are two of the least remarkable facts reflecting the rapid assimilation of democratic norms into the League and its member states over the past year.

Is it a constitutional democracy, Tamara, if the constitution is never followed? Kenneth M. Pollack focuses on it in terms of Nouri al-Maliki:

As a result, it is all the more imperative for him that the summit go well, both for Iraq and for him personally. If it goes well, not only will he buttress his sagging popularity with the Iraqi street, he also will likely be able to parlay it into improved trade relations with the rest of the region, more direct foreign investment from the wealthy Gulf states and greater Arab diplomatic support for Iraq's international causes -- particularly the lifting of the last UN sanctions under which Iraq has labored since the days of Saddam. If Maliki is truly accepted by the other members of the Arab League, it could mean significant material benefits for Iraq that would further reinforce his popularity and power.

I don't know how accurate or how fair it is to make the focus of a body one single person. I grasp that it's much easier to do that. The Los Angeles Times' Ned Parker is on a sabbatical and is a Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. They've done a video on the Arab League Summit.

Ned Parker: This week, Arab leaders gather in Baghdad for their first summit in two years. There are three major issues at this conference. One is: How does the Arab League stay vital in the 21st century? Two is the durability of Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. And three is the question of whether or not Baghdad can hold a successful Arab League Summit?

We'll cover some background on the Arab League. Arabic German Consulting notes:

The Arab League was founded in Cairo in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan, as of 1950), and Yemen.

[. . .]

The Arab League has served as a platform for the drafting and conclusion of almost all landmark documents promoting economic integration among member states, such as the creation of the Joint Arab Economic Action Charter, which set out the principles for economic activities of the league. It has played an important role in shaping school curricular, and preserving manuscripts and Arab cultural heritage.

The Arab League has launched literacy campaigns, and reproduced intellectual works, and translated moder technical terminology for the use of member states. It encourages measures against crime and drug abuse and deals with labor issues (particularly among the emigrant Arab workfrorce).

The Arab League has also fostered cultural exchanges between member states, encouraged youth and sports programs, helped to advance the role of women in Arab socieites, and promoted child welfare activities.

More history can be found at this BBC News page which explains that there are 22 member states of the Arab League and notes:

The highest body of the league is the Council, composed of representatives of member states, usually foreign ministers, their representatives or permanent delegates. Each member state has one vote, irrespective of its size. The council meets twice a year, in March and September, and may convene a special session at the request of two members.

Day-to-day, the league is run by the general secretariat. Headed by a secretary-general, it is the administrative body of the league and the executive body of the council and the specialised ministerial councils.

The current Secretary-General is Eypt's Nabil Elaraby.

Back to the United States. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES
Tuesday, March 27, 2012

CONTACT: Murray Press Office

(202) 224-2834

TOMORROW: Senator Murray to Question Army Surgeon General on the Handling of Mental Wounds of War

At Hearing of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Veterans Chairman Murray will press the Army Surgeon General on troubled PTSD unit at Joint Base Lewis-McChord and whether similar problems exist at other bases.

(Washington, D.C.) -- Tomorrow, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and a senior member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, will question Army Surgeon General Lieutenant General Patricia Horoho on recent shortcomings in the Army's efforts to properly diagnose and treat the invisible wounds of war. Specifically, Murray will discuss the forensic psychiatry unit at Madigan Army Medical Center on Joint Base Lewis-McChord that is under investigation for taking the cost of PTSD into consideration when making diagnosing decisions. The Army is currently reevaluating over 300 servicemembers and veterans who have had their PTSD diagnoses changed by that unit since 2007. Murray will ask whether similar problems are happening at Army bases nationwide.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

WHAT: Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing -- DoD Health Programs

WHEN: TOMORROW -- Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

10:00 AM EST/ 7:00 AM PST -- Hearing start time

WHERE: Dirksen 192

WEBCAST: http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Matt McAlvanah

Communications Director

U.S. Senator Patty Murray

202-224-2834 - press office

202--224-0228 - direct

matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov

News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates

###

There's a House Veterans hearing that took place this morning that I'd like to squeeze in some coverage at some point this week. I'll try for tomorrow.

iraq
al mada
the wall st. journal
sam dagher
alsumaria tv
al rafidayn
kitabat
al sabaah
new era
farirai chubvu

jane arraf

cnn
jomana karadsheh

afp
prashant rao

the washington post
liz sly

the associated press
lara jakes

Monday, March 26, 2012

Privatization

Monday, Monday. I'm tired and sleepy. How about you?

Music lovers better have read Kat's "Kat's Korner: Carole's back catalogue" and "Kat's Korner: Carole Touches the Sky and Soul" from this weekend. Also going up this weekend was Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Funding Terrorism"

The destruction of the working class isn't bad for everyone. Arundhati Roy (Center for Research on Globalization) reports NGOs are cleaning up:

The era of the Privatisation of Everything has made the Indian economy one of the fastest growing in the world. However, like any good old-fashioned colony, one of its main exports is its minerals. India’s new mega-corporations—Tatas, Jindals, Essar, Reliance, Sterlite—are those who have managed to muscle their way to the head of the spigot that is spewing money extracted from deep inside the earth. It’s a dream come true for businessmen—to be able to sell what they don’t have to buy.

The other major source of corporate wealth comes from their land-banks. All over the world, weak, corrupt local governments have helped Wall Street brokers, agro-business corporations and Chinese billionaires to amass huge tracts of land. (Of course, this entails commandeering water too.) In India, the land of millions of people is being acquired and made over to private corporations for “public interest”—for Special Economic Zones, infrastructure projects, dams, highways, car manufacture, chemical hubs and Formula One racing. (The sanctity of private property never applies to the poor.) As always, local people are promised that their displacement from their land and the expropriation of everything they ever had is actually part of employment generation. But by now we know that the connection between GDP growth and jobs is a myth. After 20 years of “growth”, 60 per cent of India’s workforce is self-employed, 90 per cent of India’s labour force works in the unorganised sector.

Post-Independence, right up to the ’80s, people’s movements, ranging from the Naxalites to Jayaprakash Narayan’s Sampoorna Kranti, were fighting for land reforms, for the redistribution of land from feudal landlords to landless peasants. Today any talk of redistribution of land or wealth would be considered not just undemocratic, but lunatic. Even the most militant movements have been reduced to a fight to hold on to what little land people still have. The millions of landless people, the majority of them Dalits and adivasis, driven from their villages, living in slums and shanty colonies in small towns and mega cities, do not figure even in the radical discourse.

As Gush-Up concentrates wealth on to the tip of a shining pin on which our billionaires pirouette, tidal waves of money crash through the institutions of democracy—the courts, Parliament as well as the media, seriously compromising their ability to function in the ways they are meant to. The noisier the carnival around elections, the less sure we are that democracy really exists.

Each new corruption scandal that surfaces in India makes the last one look tame. In the summer of 2011, the 2G spectrum scandal broke. We learnt that corporations had siphoned away $40 billion of public money by installing a friendly soul as the Union minister of telecommunication who grossly underpriced the licences for 2G telecom spectrum and illegally parcelled it out to his buddies. The taped telephone conversations leaked to the press showed how a network of industrialists and their front companies, ministers, senior journalists and a TV anchor were involved in facilitating this daylight robbery. The tapes were just an MRI that confirmed a diagnosis that people had made long ago.

The privatisation and illegal sale of telecom spectrum does not involve war, displacement and ecological devastation. The privatisation of India’s mountains, rivers and forests does. Perhaps because it does not have the uncomplicated clarity of a straightforward, out-and-out accounting scandal, or perhaps because it is all being done in the name of India’s “progress”, it does not have the same resonance with the middle classes.

I really don't care for NGOs. I think (and I'm not alone) that the desire to move towards those really harmed the left. (First up, it limits what you can and can't say.)

Okay, Third Estate. Another edition on Sunday and those working on it were:

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

And what did we come up with?

As you can see, Ava and C.I. wrote 3 pieces. They worked very, very hard.

This week here?

I'll be doing two more TV shows. Friday I may post on Saturday (skipping Friday) to grab either Fringe or Nikita.

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

Monday, March 26, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Michael Ratner explains that the US is -- for all intents and purposes -- conducting a secret trial currently, Barack has a new nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq, Amesty International issues a new report which finds Iraq ranking near the top -- sadly, it's not a list you want to be on, preparations for the Arab League summit continue to dominate Baghdad, and more.

"If you have to say something about the trial that's significant, the one thing you would say is that we have a secret trial going on right now in which the press and the public and lawyers for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are not getting access." That's Michael Ratner. What's he talking about? Bradley Manning's court-martial.

Monday April 5th, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of February, the government announced there would be a court-martial.

On this week's Law and Disorder Radio -- a weekly hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights), Michael Ratner's quote that kicked this section off comes from the report he gives on the court proceedings. Excerpt.

Michael Smith: I want to ask you about Bradley Manning. I know you've been down in Fort Mead observing the proceedings -- the legal proceedings that the US military is using against him. Give us an update on that.

Michael Ratner: Last week, I again went to some of the hearings regarding Bradley Manning. There's been no trial scheduled yet. They're thinking of a trial in August. I think it will much more likely be in the fall. As our listeners know, Bradley has been indicted on 22 charges or charged in the military on 22 charges including aiding with the enemy. I did my usual trying to get to Fort Mead. But of course it was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Thursday. I had to get on a train that night, then get on a car to get to Fort Mead. And when you get to Fort Mead, of course, they practically tear your car apart looking for who knows what? Explosives or something else. You get in, they then make you wait for about an hour before you go through a trailer where you go through one of those metal detectors. You're not allowed to bring into the courtroom any cell phones, any way of communicating other than a pencil and a paper. The court room is small. There's only about 20 of us in the court room. The media is in a separate media room where they can have their computers -- nothing with the internet, but they can at least use a computer. So in any case, I went to Bradley Manning's hearing. It was Thursday and Friday. It was quite extraordinary. Michael and I have always talked about the expression "Military justice is to justice as military music is to music." Well it's even worse than that. I mean, this was ridiculous. I mean, that they are trying probably the most well known case in the country on aiding the enemy or really what amounts to -- according to the government -- a sort of espionage case, in this two-bit little court room with military prosecutors that the defense runs circles around. David Coombs is actually doing a very good job. It's amazing. I'll just relate a couple of stories. The first thing that happens is the defense counsel asks for what's called a bill of particulars. In criminal cases, that's "Please tell the defense counsel more about the charges you have against my client Bradley Manning. Give a few specifications." And the first one they asked about is: What do you mean by aiding the enemy? He says to the prosecutor -- of course, it's all done on paper but he says it in court as well. And the prosecutor then says, "Well, aiding the enemy? The enemy is al Qaeda and al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula." Well that just sounds ridiculous. Bradley Manning -- who supposedly, allegedly, uploaded various documents regarding the killing of Retuers journalists, 15,000 Iraqi civilians who were killed which the US hadn't recorded, many, many War Crimes like that -- is accused somehow of aiding al Qaeda or al Qaeda on the Peninsula. Well you think, what is it? Is it because it embarrassed the United States that we're aiding them? What is going on here? So then the defense counsel continues, "Well aiding al Qaeda and al Qaeda on the Peninsula, how did he aid them?" And then the prosecutor gave one of the shallowest, stupidest answers you want to hear: "Well he aided them by uploading the documents onto the WikiLeaks website." I mean, it's not the trial yet so the defense counsel just says, "Okay," and we move on from there. But you're sitting there in the audiences saying, "This is crazy. This 22-year-old, now 24-year-old, kid has supposedly aided al Qaeda by giving documents about War Crimes to WikiLeaks?" That's nonsensical. It'll never stand up. Most commentators think that charge in particular, which is the most serious charge -- it's life imprisonment, death penalty possibly, prosecutors said they won't ask for a death penalty but llife in prison, and I think the judge could even give the death penalty -- that charge I don't think will hold up. But the interesting part then happens next. Three weeks ago, when I was at the court, the prosecutor complains that he is not getting any of the e-mails sent by defense counsel or by the judge. And those are obviously important e-mails. The defense counsel is responding to motions and arguments, sending briefs. The court is sending scheduling orders, etc. And the prosecutor three weeks ago says, "Well I haven't gotten anything so I can't respond to those." Sounds pretty bad. Fishy. But then the prosecutor says, "We will fix it in three weeks from now." And that's when I was there last week. And the prosecutor gets up and says, "Well up until March 10, we didn't figure it out." Just a few days before the Bradley Manning hearing. "And we found it out, here's the answer: Many of the e-mails from the court and the defense counsel are going to the prosecutor but they're going to the spam section of the computer. They're being filtered out as spam." Let me just say, this is the most important single military courts-martial case they've had probably in the last 50 years, maybe 100 years. And the e-mails from the court and the defense counsel are going into the spam of the prosecutor? I mean, this is just Mickey Mouse or worse. So they said, "What we're doing now," the prosecutor says, "is, because they're going into spam, every morning at 10:00 a.m., I'm checking my spam folder to see what e-mails have come in." So I'm sitting there in the audience saying, "Why are they checking their spam filter? Why aren't they just fixing the problem?" And then, a half an hour later, the defense counsel gets up and, in speaking about many issues, he addresses why the e-mails haven't gone to the prosecutor. And he said they didn't go to the prosecutor because any e-mail with the word "WikiLeaks" in it anywhere -- subject matter, in the substance [body of the e-mail], anywhere in an e-mail from the defense counsel or the court that says "WikiLeaks" is automatically spammed by the prosecutor's filter on his computer so he doesn't see them. And you say to yourself, "Wait a second, this entire case is about Bradley Manning allegedly uploading documents to WikiLeaks. If the prosecutor, government computers, are using that as spam, this is ridiculous. This is not a trial, this is just a charade." And then you realize, taking another step back, that most likely every government computer in the United States and in the world spams anything to do with WikiLeaks because the fact that many of our listeners out there, you and I, Michael, the New York Times, and everybody in the world looks at WikiLeaks documents and the government still considers them to be stolen documents, still classified and no one in the government should ever be allowed to see them. So here they go, they're doing this entire investigation of WikiLeaks and everything is treated as spam. So that's just one of the oddities of what they're calling a trial, etc. Two other points -- and we'll be talking about this as I continue to monitor that trial for WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, the Center for Constitutional Rights represents them, both WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for purposes of monitoring the Bradley Manning case -- two other interesting things came out. One is the access to documents. Now this is supposedly a public trial, by law it's a public trial, the First Amedment requires it to be a public trial. You and I, the press, the spectators, are all allowed to go in the court room to watch the trial unless there's some section that's classified. And normally in a trial -- as you know, Michael, being a lawyer -- that when you file papers, they go into a court docket and you can get access to those papers whether they be motions or briefs or whatever you file. And, of course, that's what happens in this case, at least the first part, you file papers or the prosecution files papers, defense counsel files papers, decisions are made -- but nobody has access to those papers [in the Bradley Manning court-martial] except for the counsel. I can't get those papers as a lawyer. The press can't get those paper, No one can see the motions or anything else. So you're sitting in the court room and they're arguing about various documents which have been filed and you feel like you're going in completely blind. You don't understand half of what's going on because you can't read the papers. It's like being in Plato's cave where you only see the shadows on the wall and not the actual substance so we've been making an effort over the last few weeks, how do we get these papers? And we know that ultimately we'll get them. We'll have to have a system set up with the clerk where they give press and WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and the public access to public motions that were filed but we're probably going to have to wind up going to federal court to get them. I mean, it's horrendous. This is ridiculous.

Michael Smith: It's like state secrets.

Michael Ratner: It's like state secrets except they haven't claimed state secrets.

BradleyManning.org announces upcoming actions:

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Bradley Manning's next appearance in court will take place April 24-26 at Ft. Meade, MD. At the previous hearing on March 15th, Bradley's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss all charges based on the government's failure to present evidence as requested. Additionally, a broad coalition of media groups filed a complaint because documents from the court proceedings have been mostly shielded from the public's view. (Read more about the failures of the military to provide due process in this case here.)

We are calling for conscientious citizens everywhere to organize in support of Bradley Manning during his next hearing. Our demands include the following: drop all charges against Bradley Manning, and punish the war criminals, not the whistle-blowers. Join us in the Washington DC area if you can. Otherwise, host or attend a solidarity event in your community. Ideas for local events include: town square vigils, community forums, concerts, and house party fund-raisers.

Please register your event here. Also check out our online resources.

Planned events:

Tuesday, April 24 – 11am – 2pm -Occupy the Department of Justice (Washington DC)
Join the "Free Bradley Manning" contingent at Occupy the Justice Department The DoJ is a leading collaborating agency involved in the prosecution of accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower US Army PFC Bradley Manning. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC – at the Department of Justice
* "Free Bradley Manning and all political prisoners"
* "End solitary confinement and stop torture"

RSVP here.

Wednesday, April 25 – 8am – Stand with Bradley inside and outside the courtroom (Fort Meade MD)
Join the all-day vigil for Bradley Manning at the Fort Mead Main Gate, 8am-5pm (Maryland 175& Reece Rd, Fort Meade, MD 21113). We'll be holding signs and banners throughout the day. Supporters are also encouraged to attend the courtroom proceedings for all or part of the day. We are currently investigating chartering a bus that would leave from Washington D.C.

RSVP here.

Supporters are encouraged to attend Bradley Manning's court martial motion hearing at Fort Meade on Tuesday, April 24. This hearing is scheduled for April 24-26, beginning at 9am daily. To attend, go to the Fort Meade Visitor Control Center at the Fort Meade Main Gate (Maryland 175 & Reece Rd, Fort Meade, MD 21113). We suggest arriving when the visitor center opens at 7:30am (if you arrive late, you should still be able to get into the courtroom later in the morning).

Supporters are also encouraged to attend the courtroom proceedings for all or part of the day on Thursday, April 26.

For more information about organizing an event in your community April 24-26, please contact emma@bradleymanning.org for ideas and resources.

Onto Iraq, where the Baghdad-based government has pinned so many hopes on the upcoming Arab League summit. Josh Levs, Jomana Karadsheh, Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) quote Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stating, "It is a recognition of new Iraq that has emerged since 2003 . . ." A recognition of a new Iraq? Zebari got his wish today as Amnesty International released a new report entitled [PDF format warning] "Death Sentences And Executions 2011."

Yes, Iraq has found a way to stand out. As the report notes, "In 2011, Amnesty International recorded executions in 20 countries compared to 23 in 2010. Last year, 676 executions were recorded, an increase from 2010 and largely attributable to a significant increase in executions in three countries -- Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia." Hoshyar Zebari must be so proud. And fitting in with the region, "Nine of 22 Member states of the League of Arab Nations carried out executions in 2011: Egypt, Iraq, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen." Approximately a third of the League of Arab Nations practiced execution last year and Iraq was one of them.

But that's not really fair to the Iraqi government, burying it in the group like that. The government of Iran executed at least 360 people in 2011 which allowed it to come in first with the most executions. What an honor. And nipping at its heels, first runner up, was Saudi Arabia with 82 and just behind it? Iraq with 68. Third. They came in third. What a great moment for the country. It's method of choice for the 68 executions? Hanging.

68? Iraq even beat out the United States which shamefull executed 43 people in 2011.

As you read through the report, you see Iraq stands out time and again, such as in this passage:

Amnesty International remained concerned that, in the majority of countries where people were sentenced to death or executed, the death penalty was imposed after proceedings that did not meet international fair trial standards, often based on "confessions" that were allegedly extracted through torture or other duress. This was particularly the case in Belarus, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. In Iran and Iraq, some of these "confessions" were then broadcast on television before the trial took place, further breaching the defendants' right to presumption of innocence.

Or there's this:

The government of Iraq rarely discloses information about executions, especially names of those executed and exact numbers. According to Amnesty International information, at least 68 people were executed in Iraq, including two foreigners and three women. Hundreds of people were sentenced to death; 735 death sentences were referred to the Iraqi Presidency for final ratification between January 2009 and September 2011, of which 81 have been ratified. Most death sentences were imposed, and executions carried out, on people convicted of belonging to or involvement in attacks by armed groups, including murder, kidnapping, rape or other violent crimes.

On 16 November, 11 people, including one woman, convicted of terrorism-related offences, were reported to have been executed in al-Kadhimiya Prison in Baghdad. Among the executed men were an Egyptian and a Tunisian national, Yosri Trigui, who was arrested in 2006 by US forces for his alleged involvement in terrorism-related acts. He was sentenced to death by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI) for his alleged involvement in a bomb attack in Samarra the same year, in a trial that did not appear to meet international standards. The intervention of Tunisian Ennahda leader Rached Ghannouchi had initially led to a short postponement of the execution.

Trial proceedings before the CCCI were very brief, often lasting only a few minutes before verdicts are handed down. Defendants in criminal cases often complained that "confessions" are extracted under torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial interrogation. They were often held incommunicado in police stations or in detention without access to their legal representatives or relatives, not brought before an investigative judge within a reasonable time and not told of the reason for their arrest. The "confessions" extracted from them are often accepted by the courts without taking any or adequate steps to investigate defendants' allegations of torture. The "confessions" are also frequently broadcast on the Iraqi government-controlled satellite TV Al Iraqiya, which undermines the presumption of innocence.

For an overview of the report (HTML format) click here.

The new report is yet another reality that could detract from Nouri al-Maliki's attempts to portray a new Iraq via the Arab League Summit. Another bit of reality? The latest charge against his government, of torturing someone to death. Iraq's political crisis finally got the world's attention when Nouri charged Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with terrorism -- it's not every day that a vice president gets charged with anything. More recently, Amir Sarbut Zaidan al-Batawi has died in the midst of months of being held by Nouri's security forces. He was al-Hashemi's bodyguard and al-Hashemi states he was tortured to death. Human Rights Watch has called for an investigation into the death. AFP reports he gave a speech today:

"I ask all human rights related organisations in Iraq to take urgent actions by sending (a) neutral and specialised committee to examine the body medically and to identify the cause of death," Hashemi said in a televised speech delivered in English.
"I also ask security and judicial authorities in Iraq to provide an explanation for what happened."
He said his lawyers had not been allowed to witness investigation hearings, and when they were given access to minutes of the hearing, judges barred them from taking notes or making copies.
"I beseech (the) international community to take rapid action to rectify (the) disastrous situation and status related to human rights, as the situation in Iraq has become intolerable," Hashemi said.

The Associated Press observes, "Al-Hashemi's timed his speech for the arrival in Baghdad of dignitaries, journalists and political observers for the annual Arab League summit in the Iraqi capital this week. Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby flew into Baghdad on Sunday and was meeting Iraq's leaders." And the questionable death seems all the more questionable as a major human rights organization notes Iraqi 'justice' and forced "confessions."

Nouri's gone on a spending spree in an attempt to make the summit a success. Over the weekend, AFP noted that Iraq has now spent (in US dollars) $450 million on the summit. Al Mada observes that Baghdad hosted the summit in 1978 and in 1990 but that didn't prepare for today where already the streets are full of security forces and the people are barely present, giving it the appearance of a ghost town. Al Rafidayn explained the summit means the Iraqi theatre will be closed, TV shows wills top filming, that the Iraq stock market will shut down (Sunday through Wednesday), that cultural meeting places in Baghdad will be vacant, that the Iraqi Federation of Football has had to postpone games, that printing press will be closed -- making newspapers near impossible and that the media will have a very hard time covering the summit and that the Iraqi people will have an even harder time finding Iraqi coverage of the summit. Today Al Mada reports the Prepatory Committee selected whom they wanted to credential for the conference and many Iraqi journalists are upset by the process which has excluded so many of them. Over the weekend, Lara Jakes (AP) observed, "As it prepares for the estimated $400 million pageant, downtown Baghdad looks little like the battle-ravaged capital it has been for years. Freshly planted flowers adorn squares and parks across the capital. Roads have been repaved, trash swept up, buildings repaired and painted, and brightly colored lights drape trees and streets." Today Jack Healy (New York Times) adds that "just beyond the cement walls and freshly planted petunias of the International Zone lies a ragged country with a bleaker view. Out in the real Iraq, suicide bombings still rip through the streets. Sectarian divisions have paralyzed its politics and weakened its stature with powerful neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Iran, who use money and militias to aggressively pursue their own agendas inside Iraq. Despite its aspirations to wield influence as a new Arab democracy, Iraq may well remain more of a stage than an actor." Qassim Khidhir (Kurdish Globe) reveals, "On the road from Baghdad International Airport to the city of Baghdad, Turkish laborers work feverishly to pave the road, build roadside parks and plant palm trees. They have until March 29, when Baghdad hosts the Arab League Summit."

Already noted last week was that the security measures in Baghdad was making travel throughout the city cumbersome and lengthy and that this had led to an increase on produce and goods sold in the local markets. The prices only continued to increase as the goods continued selling despite the high prices. Dar Addustour noted that the goods sold better than usual due to people attempting to stock up ahead of the summit when mobility will be even more limited. Alsumaria TV explains many shops have had to close down and shop owners fear a recession as a result of the summit.

All of which may explain Al Mada encountering a lack of enthusiasm (at best) and hostility (at worst) from Iraqis when they try to gauge reaction to the planned summit. The people feel it is a show for the leaders and may allow certain countries to get certain things but that it will mean little for Iraq and that it means even less to their own lives. As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) notes the summit measures cost the citizens and that this is as easy way of providing security -- stopping all movement in society -- not a way to provide longterm security. Alsumaria TV reports that the Security and Defense Commission of Parliament has stated that approximately 100 combat airplanes and helicopters are being used to protect Baghdad. Not stated in the article but there is a good chance that the air coverage includes assistance from the US -- including US personnel.

While the US military will probably be taking part, Al Mada notes that KRG President Massoud Barzani will apparently not be attending the summit and that his statements (Tuesday he gave a speech in which he decried the authorative drift in Iraq and the consoldiation of power by Nouri) resulted in Talabani pressing to set a date for the national conference. Meanwhile Trend News Agency reports, "Turkish officials said on Monday that Nechirvan Barzani -- Massoud Barzani's nephew and a senior official in the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) -- will make his first diplomatic visit to Ankara after being elected prime minister of the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government for the second time, Today's Zaman reported. Nechirvan Barzani took up the position for the second time on Feb. 17, after Berham Salih resigned earlier in the month."

On the summit, the Washington Post's Liz Sly Tweeted:

We'll note two other journalists. McClatchy Newspapers' Hannah Allem's summit tweets included:

View photo

The Associated Press' Lara Jakes Tweeted:

Al Sabaah notes Jalal Talabani has declared that the national conference to resolve the political crisis will be held April 5th. In the elections, Iraqiya won more votes than Nouri's State of Law. Al Mada reports that Ayad Allawi-led Iraqiya has stated that they may change their alliances after the summit.

Still on Iraq, today the White House issued the following:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 26, 2012

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Brett H. McGurk – Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq, Department of State
Michele J. Sison – Ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Maldives, Department of State

President Obama said, "Our nation will be greatly served by the talent and expertise these individuals bring to their new roles. I am grateful they have agreed to serve in this Administration, and I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Brett H. McGurk, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Iraq, Department of State
Brett H. McGurk is currently senior advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Previously, he served as a senior advisor to Ambassadors Ryan Crocker and Christopher Hill in Baghdad. From 2005 to 2009, Mr. McGurk served on the National Security Council, initially as Director for Iraq and later as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior to 2005, he was a legal advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He also worked as an International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a Fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics. From 2001 to 2002, he served as a law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously, Mr. McGurk was a law clerk for Judge Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Judge Gerard Lynch of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He received a B.A. from the University of Connecticut and a J.D. from Columbia University.

Ambassador Michele J. Sison, Nominee for Ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Maldives, Department of State
Ambassador Michele J. Sison, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, is currently the Assistant Chief of Mission for Law Enforcement and Rule of Law Assistance in Baghdad, Iraq. From 2008 to 2010, she was Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon. She was Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates from 2004 to 2008 and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of South Asian Affairs from 2002 to 2004. Ambassador Sison's prior assignments include: Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan; Consul General in Chennai, India; Consul General in Douala, Cameroon; and Director of Career Development and Assignments in the Department of State's Bureau of Human Resources. Additional overseas assignments include roles at the U.S. Embassies in Côte d'Ivoire, Benin, Togo, and Haiti. Ambassador Sison received a B.A. from Wellesley College.

Dropping back to the March 13th snapshot:

From the Congress to diplomacy, Laura Rozen (Yahoo's The Envoy) reports that Brett McGurk is being whispered to be the new nominee for US Ambassador to Iraq.
For those keeping track, McGurk would become the fourth US Ambassador to Iraq since Barack was sworn in. US Ambassador Ryan Crocker was already in the spot in 2009 but agreed to stay on while they scrambled to find a replacement -- that they had to scramble demonstrates how little Iraq ever really mattered. They manic depressive Christopher Hill was next. Third was the present US Ambassador James Jeffrey. For those wondering, no that is not normal. Some would even make the case that it's unacceptable and that the post needs stability not constant fluxuation.

Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and her office notes an event tomorrow:

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

Monday, March 26, 2012

CONTACT: Matt McAlvanah (Murray) -- (202) 224-2834

Jesse Broder Van Dyke (Akaka) -- (202) 224-7045

Julie Hasquet (Begich) -- (907) 258-9304

TOMORROW: CHAIRMAN MURRAY, SENS. AKAKA, BEGICH; VETERANS FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO INTRODUCE GI BENEFIT WATCHDOG BILL

Bill will provide servicemembers and veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill and other VA education programs with an ONLINE GUIDE to help them judge a school's performance with other veterans, among other resources

New tools will help root out poor performing schools and questionable practices to help protect taxpayer money and give our veterans the best opportunities for success in school and in the job market

(Washington, D.C.) -- On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will join with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from across the country to introduce legislation that will give servicemembers and veterans using the GI Bill and other VA education benefits access to information that would help make informed decisions about the schools they attend sot hey get the most out of the benefit. This bill would also require that VA and DoD develop a joint policy to curb aggressive recruiting and misleading marketing aimed at servicemembers and veterans using the GI Bill.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)

U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)

U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D-AK)

Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

(IAVA)

IAVA Veterans from across the country

WHAT: Press Conference on GI Bill Consumer Awareness Act of 2012

WHEN: Tuesday -- March 27th, 2012

12:00 NOON EST

WHERE: Senate Vistors Center -- SVC 215

###

Matt McAlvanah