Friday, June 20, 2014

How many will die?

Barack declared today that he's sending as many as 300 US troops to Iraq to be 'military advisers.'  He stressed they would not be combat troops, they would not be in combat.

You have to love C.I.

She does the work no one else will.

(Include me as 'no one else' but I'm just a blogger.  I'm not trying to be a reporter and if they brought back Nikita or Chuck, I could write about those shows every night of the week.)

66.

C.I. does the required work.

She's the functioning press.

66 is the number, she points out in the snapshot today, of US troops killed in Iraq after -- after -- Barack declared combat operations over (August 31, 2010).

You didn't hear that on CNN, you didn't read it online at another website, you won't see it in tomorrow morning's papers. 

C.I. does the work.

After Barack declared combat 'over,' 66 more American troops died.

So how many will die in his new 'mission'?

And how long before he sends more than 300?

This is wrong and what's really sad is how so many people who once called for all US troops to be out of Iraq are now silent or justifying this crap.

On a positive note, let's again applaud C.I. for the very real work she does -- day in and day out.

Over and over.

You do know that since her site started in 2004, she's never taken a day off.  Every day she's covered Iraq.  In addition to her writing at The Common Ills, she works every Sunday with The Third Estate Sunday Review and writes columns for all the community newsletters.

There are nights I can't think of anything to write but she's forever writing and never complaining.

So applause for her.


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

 
Thursday, June 19, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack announces more US troops are going into Iraq, he fails to define the mission clearly, we remind that he discussed the step he's taking today back in 2007 (but the press hid it away), The Nation offers a strong editorial while others in panhandle media cower, and much more (including Barack's acknowledgment that US troops have been in Iraq as advisors already).


Lindsay Wise (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "President Barack Obama announced on Thursday that the U.S. would send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq to assess how best to advise and train Iraqi forces. But the president stressed that American combat troops would not deploy to the country again."  We're back to that nonsense again?  Troops on the ground aren't 'combat troops'?

We're back to pretending and hair splitting, aren't we?

Remember this?

The point is as long as we have American troops in Iraq -- no matter what you call them -- you can call them 'noncombat' troops, you can call them Mousekateers -- they're going to be fighting and dying -- some of them.



That's what Thomas E. Ricks told Steve Inskeep on NPR's Morning Edition March 4, 2009.

Let's flip through the scrapbook some more. August 31, 2010, Barack gave a speech from the Oval Office.  Anyone remember it?  Here's the opening:


 Good evening.  Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home. 
I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans.  We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war.  We’ve endured a long and painful recession.  And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation -- a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity -- may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.  It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

Yea!  War was over!  Combat troops were out of the country!  What was left was 'advisers,' right?

So he gave that speech August 31, 2010.

What happened the next month?  Anyone, remember?


Here's a hint: Seven.   And, no, we're not talking Jeri Ryan's character on Star Trek: Voyager.

7 was the number of US troops who died in Iraq in September 2010, when 'combat' operations were over an all 'combat' troops had left the country.

October 2010: 2 US troops were killed.

November 2010:  2 US troops were killed.

December 2010: 1

January 2011: 6

February 2011: 3

March 2011: 2

April 2011: 11

May 2011: 2

June 2011: 15

July 2011: 5

Zero for August 2011

September 2011: 4

October 2011: 4

November 2011: 2

Zero for December 2011.

Zero for January 2012.

August 31, 2010, Barack gave a speech about 'combat' soldiers leaving Iraq and 'combat' operations having ended but 66 troops would die after 'combat' ended.

Today, Barack made a declaration that the White House media team Tweeted:



They're not?  You said August 31, 2010 that they were out of combat and combat operations were over.  66 troops died after you made that claim in a speech.

So why should anyone believe you?  Do you have a crystal ball?  Runes? Tarot cards?  Maybe you use a pendulum? Or spell craft?

Please do explain to the American people how sending troops into Iraq comes with guarantees when your pretty words of August 31, 2010 did not protect 66 service members, did not prevent their deaths.


There are no guarantees and Barack lies when he tries to sweet talk the American people.

But a number of fools make up the American people.  And a number of that segment are self-deluding fools.

What Barack's doing right now?

It's disgusting.

But it's not surprising and he's, in fact, keeping his word.

But a lot of the Cult of St. Barack refused to tell you those truths.

For example, the New York Times refused to tell the truth.  Where there is stupidity, there is Tom Hayden on his knees, mouth open and waiting.  Back when he was still a US senator, Barack, in the midst of campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination (October 2007), gave an interview to the New York Times.  If you missed that (Tom-Tom Hayden did), Barack talked about how his 'withdrawal' didn't mean US troops would stay out of Iraq.  If the security situation got bad inside Iraq, Barack said, he would send troops into Iraq even if they'd been removed.

That's pretty big news -- especially when it's coming from someone running on a soundbyte claiming he will remove all US troops from Iraq and it's the first thing he'll do as president.

That's pretty big news.

So someone might want to ask why the New York Times failed to report that fact?

It never made it into the paper.

We noted it here.  We noted it when the paper's website published the transcript of that interview.

That should have been an issue in the debates but it took a lot of whoring to present Barack as anti-war and a lot of whores (hey, Tom Hayden!) were invested in that lie.

Barack is being completely dishonest about the risks the US troops will face in Iraq.  But he's also sticking to what he stated he would do.  It's not his fault that the New York Times had an explosive story but refused to publish it.  It's not his fault that after we noted his remarks here -- after we wrote it up at Third the way the New York Times should have -- no one else seemed too concern.

Again, the Cult of St. Barack was vested in maintaining a lie.

Anyone feeling betrayed that a politician they voted for to get US troops out of Iraq is sending more back in should be aware that Barack spoke of this while running for office but the media and his knob polishers refused to cover his remarks.

Here's one of the relevant sections of that interview with Barack (again, it was asked, it was answered, it just didn't make it into the article the paper published online and in print):


Q. In your plan presented in September, you mentioned if there was widespread sectarian killing, you said you would reserve the right to send American forces back into Iraq as part of an international effort to stem the sectarian killings and to protect the population. So there are some circumstances that even after the pullout of combat forces, you would envision a population security mission. Would you be prepared to do this unilaterally? How bad would it have to be before you would contemplate going back into Iraq?

A. I don’t think this is something that you can perfectly calibrate. You have to look at the situation on the ground. As I’ve already noted, I believe that there will be a spike in violence as we make a transition. Keep in mind that I think that there’s going to be more violence over the long haul by us not changing the course, so I’m weighing – again – bad options.
It is conceivable that there comes a point where things descend into the mayhem that shocks the conscience and we say to ourselves, this is not acceptable, anymore that what happened in Darfur is not acceptable. At that point, my strong, strong preference would be to work in concert with the international community. Now I think there are some things that we can do to prevent some of that, that are non-military. I think it’s important, and I mentioned this in the speech in September, for us to start setting up an international commission that is tracking some of the activities that are going on in Iraq and allow for the perpetrators of mass violence to be held accountable.  




Senator Barbara Boxer embarrassed herself on national television today.  Appearing on Andrea Mitchell Reports (MSNBC -- link is video), Boxer made it clear she didn't need to hear Barack speak because she was already going to do whatever he wanted.  As I noted yesterday, the elderly fool always goes jingoistic when a Democrat is in the White House and what a huge embarrassment she was prattling on about "our commander in chief."  Does the idiot Boxer believe she's now in the military?

Civilian control over the military is a hallmark of US democracy.  Barack Obama is commander in chief of the military.  If you're in the military, he's your commander in chief.  There is no commander in chief over the United States.  What a whorish thing to do, Barbara Boxer, as the US sees democracy erode daily, you feel the need to act as if we're now a junta?  Shame on you.

She offered up, "And Maliki never reached out to the Sunnis, it left an opening for these extremists."  How do US boots on the ground fix Nouri al-Maliki's problems?

Appearing on The Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN -- no video of this is up at the site right now), Senator Saxby Chambliss noted there are no definitions to the mission Barack is proposing.


It's an important point.  I don't support Barack sending troops in, Chambliss does. We can agree that the mission needs to be clearly defined.

What is success?

How it will it be measured?

What would warrant even more troops being sent in?  What would result in US troops leaving?

None of this is defined.

A speech consisting of 946 words and nothing is clearly defined.


Whether you support or oppose the move, whether you support or oppose Barack, it needs to be defined.  If it's not defined, and Barack is your favorite president of all time, there's a good chance this mission will do huge damage to his reputation and his legacy.  It is in everyone's interest -- including the Iraqi people -- for Barack to clearly define this mission, its goals and the measurements for success or failure.

Barack insisted in his speech that there would be no "mission creep" -- well he was insisting that in 2007 to the New York Times -- check the transcript.

The Iraq War?  An illegal war.

Few officials in the US will speak that truth.

Many, however, will argue tactics and claim it was a poorly planned war.

Where are those people right now?

Where are the people demanding that before Barack sends another US troop into Iraq, he clearly and publicly define what the mission is, what the perimeters are and what the goals are?

Let's do a quick sidebar.  We noted  Tom Hayden this week and how he lied in a column and ridiculed those who pointed out that the US military remained in Iraq.

Little Tommy had a hissy fit offline about that.  Guess what?  I don't give a damn.

But all those names he's called me, he needs to now start calling Barack those names as well.

Or did Tom Hayden miss Barack declaring today:

We have had advisers in Iraq through our embassy and we are prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisers -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise and support Iraqi security forces going forward. 

Oops.  Sad times for Tommy.

Jake Tapper (again, no video has yet posted) spoke with retired General Anthony Zinni this afternoon and wanted to know about the risks for the US troops being sent in.  "Well, it depends upon which level they're advising," Zinni noted.  And, Tapper wanted to know, "How dangerous could this be for those 300 troops?"  Zinni replied, "Well, depening upon where you are . . ."

Zinni was brought on to offer commentary after Barack had spoken.  Over an hour after Barack had spoken.

And even the general could not figure out the basics involved.

This mission is not being defined, it's pretty words and bromides.  It's nothing concrete.

Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor  at the University of Illinois College of Law. His books include Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) and Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009).   His most recent book is United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law.  He notes of Barack's announcement:

 This could escalate in any number of ways -- exactly what the War Powers Resolution was supposed to stop. It's not legitimate for the president -- or members of Congress -- to make arrangements that violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. Obama just stated that the 300 U.S. troops would be doing training, but CNN reports his spokesperson Jay Carney stated they would also 'provide airfield management security and logistic support.' Does this mean that they will become the required forward air controllers for the targeted and precise military action that Obama says he is preparing? If the U.S. is going to target ISIS, will it be limited to Iraq or will it eventually go into Syria?



Those questions and so many more were not answered by today's speech.


Margaret Talev (Bloomberg News) observes, "Obama declined to say whether the U.S. continues to have confidence in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who the administration blames for inflaming sectarian divisions in OPEC’s second-largest oil producer."


Martin Chulov and Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) report:

 A spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has said he will not stand down as a condition of US air strikes against Sunni militants who have made a lightning advance across the country.
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, on Wednesday made a public call on al-Arabiya television for the US to launch strikes but Barack Obama has come under pressure from senior US politicians to persuade Maliki, a Shia Muslim who has pursued sectarian policies, to step down over what they see as failed leadership in the face of an insurgency.

Nouri has to go for the violence, yes.  He also has to go because he's dishonest.  He has broken every oath he's taken, every promise he's made.  And this is who the US government wants to do business with?
On CNN's Crossfire this evening, US House Rep Loretta Sanchez declared, "Maliki really did not take the opening, the space that we made for him. [. . .]  He created the dilemma that we now find ourselves in."

I agree with Loretta but I ask how do 300 or so 'advisors' change that?

Last week, Barack insisted changes would need to be seen, changes on the part of Nouri.  He's changed nothing.  But he's getting what he wanted, isn't he?


How does today's announcement from Barack address what Alissa J. Rubin and Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported earlier this week:
The bodies of 44 Sunni prisoners were found in a government-controlled police station in Baquba, about 40 miles north of Baghdad. They had all been shot Monday night in the head or chest. Then the remains of four young men who had been shot were found dumped Tuesday on a street in a Baghdad neighborhood controlled by Shiite militiamen.
By evening, it was Shiites who were the victims again, as a suicide bombing in a crowded market in Sadr City killed at least 14 people, local hospital officials said.


The editorial board of The Nation magazine insisted yesterday that no US troops should go to Iraq.  We'll note this from the editorial:

 But American military involvement in the latest eruption in Iraq, reportedly under consideration by President Obama, would be the wrong response to that suffering, morally and strategically. Even if limited to airstrikes, whether from F-16s, cruise missiles or drones, military action by Washington would almost certainly kill civilians, especially since ISIS is concentrated in heavily populated cities. Worse, such action would inflame, not ease, Iraq’s sectarian divisions, allying Washington more closely with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s monumentally corrupt and sectarian regime and against a seething Sunni population, and would send recruits streaming into ISIS’s camp.
President Obama has hinted that he’ll make any US military support conditional on a change in Maliki’s sectarian style of governance. Since taking office, Maliki has excluded Sunnis from power—dismantling the Sunni tribal militia of the Anbar Awakening, accusing leading Sunni politicians of “terrorism,” creating security and intelligence machinery that reports only to him, and installing pet generals throughout an army so corrupt and incompetent that it simply fled at the start of the ISIS offensive. But if the United States couldn’t persuade Maliki to change his spots when it had some 150,000 troops in-country and advisers in every ministry, it certainly can’t do so long-distance. Despite eight years of blood and treasure lost in the Iraqi quagmire after 2003, the United States has precious little leverage left.


It be nice if, for example, The Nation had the spine to call out Nouri's War Crimes.  However, they're the only ones standing upright.  The Progressive is silent (remember, Iraq never touched Ruth Conniff's gated community as she shared on KPFA in the final years of Bully Boy Bush occupying the White House).  Joshua Rosenblat has the sole piece on Iraq at In These Times which does nothing but summarize what Barack said (and quote what Barack said) -- an opinion journal to scared to have an opinion?

No wonder Joel's struggling so much to raise money to keep In These Times afloat. (The merger with the Center for Media and Democracy is what temporarily saved The Progressive -- if that move hadn't been made, The Progressive would have stopped publishing by the end of the year.  They're begging money right now and not being honest about how dire the situation is -- how dire it still is.)

Sidebar: We're not interested in Amy Goodman's garbage.  The Goody Whore pimped Shi'ites on her show and we ignored those segments.  Now she's spun together a column pretending to inform but really just whoring for Shi'ite Iraq.  Strange, isn't it, Mohammed Al Dulaimy went on to discuss reality and he's not included in her column.  But the Shi'ites, they're experts.  We're not interested in the Goody Whore.


There are legal implications in what is taking place.  Barack's claiming -- as Elaine noted in "Barack wants his renewed war on Iraq" and Mike noted in "Iraq" -- that he doesn't need Congressional authorization for what he's doing.  Marjorie Cohn takes on that notion and she's right to do so and I wish her all the luck with it.  At another time, we'd make it a whole snapshot but there's just too much to cover these days.  We'll instead note this from Marjorie's Truthout piece:



 The US-led invasion of Iraq helped install Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim, as prime minister. But instead of uniting the different religious groups after the US troops left two and a half years ago, the al-Maliki government viciously cracked down on its opponents. Torture, rape and arbitrary, mass arrests of Sunnis were common. Protestors were murdered, their leaders assassinated. What began as a peaceful opposition movement during the "Iraqi Spring" turned violent in response to al-Maliki's repression. Many of those nonviolent protestors have joined ISIS.


Chelsea J. Carter, Laura Smith-Spark and Elise Labot (CNN) report:


There's a heavy police and military presence on the streets of the Iraqi capital and at checkpoints that sometimes appear to pop up overnight.
Nowhere is the sense of fear more palpable than at Baghdad International Airport, where hundreds and hundreds of people wait in long security and check-in lines for one of the few, precious seats available on flights out of Iraq.

What might also cause alarm?

The death toll.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 2,731 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.

That makes June 2014 the most violent month in Iraq since May 2007 when the month's total deaths reached 2834.


Wednesday night on The NewsHour (PBS -- link is text, audio and video), Judy Woodruff moderated a discussion between Senator Tim Kaine and Senator John McCain.  We'll note this:

 JUDY WOODRUFF: Should the U.S. be providing military — more military assistance to Iraq right now?

 SEN. TIM KAINE: Judy, the question is a little bit premature, because what we really need — and there is a process — the way this is supposed to work is the president will come to us and lay out what he thinks is the preferred option.
And then, after consulting with Congress, we will go forward. I expect that he will do that soon. He’s already been in significant consultation, not only with leadership, but with others like me, but when he does come, there’s going to be some hard questions.
Maliki — we had the opportunity. The U.S. wanted the stay in Iraq and Maliki basically kicked us out. He didn’t want us to stay. Then he ignored all the advice that we and others gave him about how to govern Iraq, to try to do it in a way that brought Kurds and Sunnis and Shias together. Instead, he’s run Iraq for Shias and marginalized, even oppressing Sunni and Kurds.
And so this extremism, the Sunni extremism, has been a predictable consequence of that, in my view. They’re horrible people doing horrible things, but he’s given them an opening by governing in such an autocratic way.
So, if it’s just a matter of, do we come in now to back up Maliki with military force after he kicked us out and after he’s governed the wrong way, that would be foolish. What we should be first talking about is, are there reforms that the Iraqis are willing to make to try to demonstrate to all in the country that they are all going to be treated equally?
Those kind of reforms really are the things that have to happen before we decide what kind of assistance we should provide.

 JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you have had raised a couple of things. And let me just pick them one by one.
In terms of the reforms, Prime Minister Maliki says he has reached out, for example, to Sunnis. He’s brought them — he’s given them a role in his government. He says, in essence, that it’s just wrong to say that he has not reached out.

 SEN. TIM KAINE: Virtually every objective account that we have heard from Iraq experts here, not only folks connected with the administration, State Department, DOD, but NGOs and others, suggest just the contrary, that he has ignored that advice and that he has run this government for Shias with the strong support of the Shia-based government in Iran, and he has done it in a way that has marginalized Sunnis and marginalized Kurds.
And that’s why they’re not coming to his aid right now.

We'll note McCain now publicly favors "boots on the ground" but we're not interested in his comments.  Not because he's a Republican but because Kaine came close to something, circled around it -- like Cher with a note she never quite hits -- but never got to it.  We'll cover it in Friday's snapshot.  We are by no means done with this topic.

We'll close with the full speech Barack gave today on Iraq:

For Immediate Release

June 19, 2014

Remarks by the President on the Situation in Iraq

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

 1:32 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq.  We’ve been meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of Iraq.  As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests.  So today I wanted to provide you an update on how we’re responding to the situation.
First, we are working to secure our embassy and personnel operating inside of Iraq.  As President, I have no greater priority than the safety of our men and women serving overseas.  So I’ve taken some steps to relocate some of our embassy personnel, and we’ve sent reinforcements to better secure our facilities.
Second, at my direction, we have significantly increased our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets so that we’ve got a better picture of what’s taking place inside of Iraq.  And this will give us a greater understanding of what ISIL is doing, where it’s located, and how we might support efforts to counter this threat. 
Third, the United States will continue to increase our support to Iraqi security forces.  We’re prepared to create joint operation centers in Baghdad and northern Iraq to share intelligence and coordinate planning to confront the terrorist threat of ISIL.  Through our new Counterterrorism Partnership Fund, we’re prepared to work with Congress to provide additional equipment.  We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.
American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.
Fourth, in recent days, we’ve positioned additional U.S. military assets in the region.  Because of our increased intelligence resources, we’re developing more information about potential targets associated with ISIL.  And going forward, we will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action, if and when we determine that the situation on the ground requires it.  If we do, I will consult closely with Congress and leaders in Iraq and in the region.
I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead. 
Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq.  At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners.  And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.
Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future.  Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence.  National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities.  Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible.  The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.
Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders.  It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.  Meanwhile, the United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another.  There’s no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.  But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.
In closing, recent days have reminded us of the deep scars left by America’s war in Iraq.  Alongside the loss of nearly 4,500 American patriots, many veterans carry the wounds of that war, and will for the rest of their lives.  Here at home, Iraq sparked vigorous debates and intense emotions in the past, and we’ve seen some of those debates resurface. 
But what’s clear from the last decade is the need for the United States to ask hard questions before we take action abroad, particularly military action.  The most important question we should all be asking, the issue that we have to keep front and center -- the issue that I keep front and center -- is what is in the national security interests of the United States of America.  As Commander-in-Chief, that’s what I stay focused on.  As Americans, that’s what all of us should be focused on. 
And going forward, we will continue to consult closely with Congress.  We will keep the American people informed.  We will remain vigilant.  And we will continue to do everything in our power to protect the security of the United States and the safety of the American people. 
So with that, I’m going to take a couple of questions. 

We'll note questions tomorrow, we've gone way too long as it is.



























Posted by at

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Iraq

BBC reports:
US President Barack Obama had told Congressional leaders he does not need lawmakers' approval for any action in Iraq, the top Senate Republican says.
Senator Mitch Mc McConnell was speaking after a meeting between the president and senior members of Congress.
Iraq has asked for US air strikes against advancing Sunni militants.


 So Barack doesn't need Congressional approval?

How quaint the Constitution has turned out to be, how silly the notion of checks and balances.

Barack can do whatever he wants -- or else he'll stomp his feet and hold his breath until his face turns blue.

Sorry, I'm having Blogger problems.  I've lost half the post. 

I am just posting this and calling it a night.

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

 
Wednesday, June 18, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's War Crimes continue, the refugee crisis increases, more criticism of Nouri including calls for him to step aside, and much more.



Michael S. Smith: Michael, the Sunni Muslims in Iraq were defeated during the course of the American war against Iraq and now there's been a tremendous development in Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq.  Tell us about it.

 Michael Ratner:  You know, as we've covered on this show many times, I mean probably the most upsetting event of the last was the United States going to war in Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein.  Without discussing Saddam Hussein -- good guy, bad guy, mixed guy -- it was a completely illegal war, a war of aggression killed perhaps a million people.  And while the US has supposedly pulled out, they've left complete chaos.  And the war's created, you know, complete and utter chaos in Iraq.  The place is clearly falling apart at this point. And the latest news is remarkable.  The latest news is on the back of the Sunnis taking over over Falluja -- and remember Falluja, that was taken over about six months ago by the Sunnis, but particularly the group is called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria -- an organization that supposedly was once part of al Qaeda.  And Falluja is now under their control -- under Sunnis control.  But it wasn't a major city.  And it also, you have to recall, Americans -- many Americans were killed in Falluja.  US put in a huge amount of money and forces to take it back years ago, they did and now it's gone again.  But the big news today which I think is actually shocking and just tells us we have a real problem in the Middle East right now is now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has taken over the city of Mosul.  They came in from Syria -- and remember, these are people who want to put together caliphate [an Islamic state]  -- made up at this point of Syria and Iraq -- or at least parts of those two countries. They came over and they've taken over the city of Mosul which is the second biggest city in Iraq, 1.4 million people.  And the Iraqi forces, mostly Shi'ite, who were, you know, supporting the government, have fled the city. And so now you're seeing a situation where Iraq not only has the Kurdish part in the north -- which is practically a separate state or is a separate state.  Now you have the Sunnis taking over Mosul and Falluja.  And the question is what's going to happen now.  But I can tell you now, you got chaos.  And so when all of you out there think about getting a woman president and Hillary Clinton?  Just think this: This is the person who voted for the Iraq War and for what we're seeing in front of us.  And this is the person who did it not because she believed in it but because of political expediency.  Her expediency has cost a million lives and caused the situation today -- along with many others who voted for this, the media who went for it -- from the New York Times to the Washington Post, etc.  This is what the United States has wrought in Iraq.


That discussion is from this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week and is hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights).  For any offended by Michael's remarks regarding Hillary, two things.

A) The comments are more accurate than what Stephanie Cutter offered last week on CNN's Crossfire.  As Ava and I noted Sunday, it was disgraceful for her to pretend all Congressional Democrats opposed the Iraq War.  She had been Ted Kennedy's assistant.  The late senator took a brave stand and a public stand against war on Iraq.  When Cutter lies and deceives, she cheapens what one of Ted Kennedy's great moments.

B) He could have held her more responsible.  Here, we noted repeatedly Hillary wasn't over Iraq when she headed the State Dept.  Others didn't make that distinction -- others include Hillary.  But I bet, if pressed on it now, as she gears up for a presidential run, she'll make clear she wasn't over Iraq.  Until she does, anyone who wants to blame her for the current crises in Iraq can do so.  Again, I'm surprised the media hasn't been running with that already.

Actually, there's a third item.  She sought the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 and may seek it out in 2016.  With Iraq being such a tragedy and such a crime, anyone who's run for president or might run for president needs to be asked in depth questions about Iraq.  The way Terry Gross probed Hillary on marriage equality is the way Hillary should be probed on Iraq -- the way anyone floating a run for the presidency should be probed.

There are a lot of different takes about the current crises in Iraq so let's move over to noting a few.  Mark Thompson (Time magazine) notes:


The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) may be so brutal it gets kicked out of al-Qaeda, but Maliki is no prize. He has repressed the Sunnis and Kurds, promoted Shi’ite officers in the Iraq military who didn’t warrant higher rank, and refused to share power. He used Iraqi security forces to attack peaceful Sunni protests and sidelined the Sunni Sons of Iraq that played an important role in bringing peace to Anbar province.
“Maliki was primarily concerned not with the military situation, but with his own political power,” says Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “He was deeply concerned that if we had stayed he wouldn’t be able to hold together what he thought he had done during 2010 and 2011, which was put virtually all of the instruments of state power under the authority of the prime minister’s office.”


Also weighing in this week,  Iraq War veteran Ross Caputi (ZNet) whose analysis opens:

 This week Iraq emerged from the recesses of American memory and became a hot topic of conversation. Alarming headlines about ISIS’s “takeover” of Mosul and their march towards Baghdad have elicited a number of reactions: The most conservative call for direct US military action against ISIS to ensure that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki remains stable in Baghdad. The most liberal lament the ongoing violence and divisions in Iraqi society caused by the US occupation; though they make no attempt distinguish between the violence of ISIS and the violence of the Maliki government.
This range of ideas and perspectives is fascinating, and it says much about American war culture, but mostly for the ideas and perspectives that are omitted from this debate. Entirely absent is the perspective of Iraqis and the issues that are important to them: accountability, independence, and resistance. Moreover, the real complexities of this issue have been lost in a number of the Western media’s favorite binaries: terrorism vs. counterterrorism, good vs. evil, and insurgency vs. stability.
If we dare to take Iraqi voices seriously and think outside of the dominant framework presented to us by the mainstream media, a very different picture of the violence in Iraq emerges and a whole new range of options open up for achieving peace and justice.



On The Reid Report today (MSNBC -- link is video), Joy Reid spoke with NBC's Ayman Mohyeldin and with the Center for a New American Security's Michele Flournoy.  Flournoy served in the Defense Dept during Barack's first term.

 Michele Flournoy:  I actually think the administration is focused on the most important thing which is to engage with all the political parties in Iraq: Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd -- trying to get to a more inclusive government situation.  Remember why this is happening.  This is -- this crisis on the ground -- because Prime Minister Maliki has taken a very sectarian approach to government, marginalizing the Sunni population and basically creating a situation where they are turning to and welcoming in Sunni terrorist groups like ISIS.  So the core driver of this is political and that's where the first area of focus needs to be and I think the administration is rightly focused there.

 Joy Reid: And to your point, this is a problem that has a solution that needs to be noted in Prime Minister Maliki's governance.  The Washington Post reports today that the hope for a political solution, essentially what you've just described, are actually dimming.  And the Post reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is actually "tightening his hold on power in response to the catastrophe unfolding in Iraq. Negotiations on a new government have been suspended, and instead, Shiite factions who had sought to prevent Maliki from securing a third term in office by aligning with Sunni and Kurdish politicians have thrown their support behind him."  That sounds like a devolving situation, not an improving one.

 Michele Flournoy:  I don't think it's moving in the right direction but I think it's important for the United States and, frankly, all of the neighboring states and the broader international community to say either you come up with a more inclusive approach to government or you're not going to last.  I mean, this is something that has to be fundamentally changed at the political level.  I think the other thing that we need to be doing is engaging the countries on the periphery, particularly Iran, to exercise restraint, not to pour fuel on the fire by sending in their proxies and sort of simply inflaming what could become a civil war. 

The Washington Post report Joy referred to is Liz Sly's "Iraqi premier Maliki gaining strength as Shiites rally behind him."  Sly's covered Iraq for many years and for many outlets.  She knows the civil war (ethnic cleansing) that gripped Iraq.  So there's something we need to note from Sly's article that didn't get mentioned on air:


 Sunnis shuddered Tuesday at the news that the body of a Sunni imam and two of his assistants had been discovered in Baghdad’s morgue, four days after they were detained by men wearing government uniforms. The episode echoed the sectarian bloodletting that raged in the middle of the last decade, and it reinforced fears that a new round of killings could be imminent.

In light of that, we'll note Flournoy's closing remarks, "And, again, the message to Maliki has to be either you govern in an inclusive way that's truly representative of the population of Iraq or you need to step aside and let someone else step in who can do that because you're risking renewed civil war if you don't."

Another view?  Harlan Ullman (Pakistan's Daily Times) argues things are not at the breaking point in Iraq yet:

 First, Iraqi parliamentary elections, held on April 30, have not yet led to the formation of a new government. Maliki’s Dawa Party took a real pasting. Hence, a new government could easily have a more moderate and secular prime minister who could actively reconcile with Sunni and Kurdish moderates.
Second, Iraq’s most powerful politician, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, has called upon all Iraqis to rise to the defence of their country. Even if the ISIS insurgents collect a number of Sunni insurgents and past supporters of Saddam Hussein, they are not a well-equipped fighting force. The balance will shift to government forces now that the initial shock of the onslaught has been digested. Third, if the US is smart, bold and courageous, the threat of ISIS/ISIL, which is real, offers new opportunities in the region. More will shortly follow on that.

She's worked for the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor and much more.  Today, Robin Wright (New Yorker) offers:


Iraqis must become invested in their own political order and risk putting their lives on the line to secure it. Unfortunately, Maliki may not be willing to either cede the powers required for a just resolution or to step aside. His intransigence has sabotaged Iraqi nationalism -- though others share in the blame -- and simply propping him up could eventually be costly. On Tuesday, Maliki defied international appeals for political outreach. Instead, he declared a boycott of a Sunni political bloc and put the blame for Iraq’s disintegration on Saudi Arabia. “We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that -- which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites,” his government said in a statement. So Washington will have to be bold and blunt with him -- and even consider withdrawing support. 


Can Nouri pull together Iraq?  Can he reach out to the Sunnis and/or the Kurds?  Reuters notes, "Washington and other Western capitals are trying to save Iraq as a united country by leaning hard on Prime Minister to reach out to Sunnis. Maliki met Sunni and Kurdish political opponents overnight, concluding with a frosty, carefully staged joint appearance at which an appeal for national unity was read out."

And that minor moment came about only after days of pressure from the White House.


Things remain fluid in Iraq, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reports that rebels have seized the oil refinery in Baiji. Jessica Michele Herring (Latin Post) explains, "Keeping control of the oil refinery is of paramount importance to the Iraqi government, as Iraq gains most of its revenue from the refinery's production of oil. Iraq has the world's fourth-largest crude oil reserves, and produces 3.3 million barrels of oil each day." Martin Chulov and Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) add, "Losing control of Baiji would be a critical blow to Iraqi forces still reeling from the capitulation of close to 50,000 troops last week, many of whom have since been replaced by militias raised from the country's majority Shia population."  Laura Smith-Spark, Ashley Fantz and Nic Robertson (CNN) note, "That apparently included 50 Siemens employees, including eight Germans, who were holed up in a power station in Baiji but have been freed, according to German officials. The employees are safe and well, CNN was told.  According to German diplomats, around 8,000 German nationals are currently in Iraq."  While Germans were freed, National Iraqi News Agency reports "three Turks engineers" were kidnapped to the south of Kirkuk along "with their Iraqi driver."  Bill Chappell (The Two-Way, NPR) adds, "As we've reported, ISIS has , less than an hour's drive from Baghdad. It has already taken the large city of Mosul, along with Tikrit. Other cities are being fiercely contested."


Bill Van Auken (WSWS) weighs in with:

There is already a sizable Marine contingent at the embassy, not to mention large numbers of heavily armed military contractors, making it highly likely that the troops are being deployed for other purposes. This includes organizing a defense of the Iraqi capital under conditions in which Iraqi government security forces have repeatedly collapsed in the face of an onslaught by Islamist fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other Sunni insurgents.
Washington has insisted that the forces it is sending in are not combat troops, while acknowledging that they are nonetheless “equipped for combat.”
Meanwhile, the White House has organized a meeting with the top Democratic and Republican leaders of both the House and Senate today for consultations on Iraq. The private meeting between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (Republican-Ohio), Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Democrat-California), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-Nevada) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican-Kentucky) is likely in preparation for a more aggressive US intervention.
Despite ruling out any US “boots on the ground,” there is increasing discussion of dispatching Special Forces units to Iraq—who again would be equipped for combat but would not be “combat troops” by Washington’s definition.


Where does Congress stand?  On Andrea Mitchell Reports (MSNBC -- link is video), Andrea noted the sharp division of lawmakers on Iraq and she spoke with Senator Joe Manchin.

 Andrea Mitchell:  Our reporting is that the President has decided against air strikes other than what Predator Drones could do with Hellfire Missiles perhaps because the intelligence just isn't good enough.  You've heard what Lindsey Graham said and John McCain.  I gather that you are against taking strong military action today in what is evolving into a civil war.

 Senator Joe Manchin:  Definitely the President recieves more information than I do or than anyone in Congress does.  But the bottom line is, if you don't have good intel, if you don't have good ground support, you can't be as effective as you want to be without collateral damage.  So I understand that from that standpoint.  I understand also that we're protecting our embassy and I think that's a responsibility that we all have and that the president definitely has.  I am not, I am not under any way, shape or form supportive -- and, Andrea, I think you know that -- of putting troops in there.  I think that basically this is a sectarian war.  We're not going to prevent that from happening.  This is something that's been going on for centuries and all of the sudden we want to basically come in there and say "Kumbaya" and "peace to all" and I don't know if that's going to happen.  I don't think we can.  If money or military might   would change that part of the world, Andrea, we'd  have done it by now.  We have given an awful  lot in sacrifices of our young men and women and basically in resources that are needed back home.  I think enough is enough.


Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Last week, his office issued this statement on the situation in Iraq:
WASHINGTON – Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement today after a classified committee briefing on the security situation in Iraq:


“We got into Iraq without adequate consideration for the consequences. What is required now is thoughtful consideration of our options, none of which, typically for the Middle East, is obvious or easy. It’s important to keep in mind that a major source of Iraq’s problems has been the refusal of the Maliki government, despite persistent U.S. encouragement, to reach out to its Sunni citizens to forge a unified and inclusive Iraq. No action on our part can resolve that disunity. It’s unclear how air strikes on our part can succeed unless the Iraqi army is willing to fight, and that’s uncertain given the fact that several Iraqi army divisions have melted away. While all options should be considered, the problem in Iraq has not been so much a lack of direct U.S. military involvement, but a lack of reconciliation on the part of Iraqi leaders.”

###


While Carl spoke clearly, Senator Barbara Boxer issued a statement that read like a rant:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement today on the crisis in Iraq: “The current crisis in Iraq has its roots in an ill-conceived war that helped to fuel sectarian violence and an Iraqi government that has excluded minority populations from governing.  
“Much American blood was spilled during the Iraq War and while I believe we should go after ISIS—which poses a threat to the entire world—any U.S. action must be well-considered and well-executed in coordination with our allies and the Iraqi government and military, which we helped train and arm. Iraq should know that it needs a unity government now or its future will be bleak.  
“Some of the biggest GOP cheerleaders for the disastrous war in Iraq are now joining the blame-America-first crowd rather than working with our Commander-in-Chief to confront this crisis.”  
###


Where does Barbara stand?  As usual, her constituents (I am one) have no idea.  She favors something.  She's not sure what.  But she's going to take swipes at the Republicans instead of take the time to figure out what she thinks needs to happen.  The 'blame-American-first crowd'?  Yes, she actually issued a statement with that phrase in it.  No one's more of a jingoist than Boxer when a Democrat's in the White House.


Senator Bill Nelson's office issued the following:

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) has been asked to comment on the situation in Iraq – specifically, on the decision to send 275 additional troops to the region.  Here’s what he had to say:
“We’re sending an additional 275 troops to Baghdad to protect our embassy.  That’s a good thing.  We’re going to send a carrier and an amphibious transport ship into the Persian Gulf in case we have to evacuate those Americans.  And in the meantime, we’re going to try to work with our allies to stop the sectarian violence that’s about to blow Iraq apart.”

I like Bill Nelson and can even respect his opinion above but I'm not glad that 275 troops -- who the White House noted would be combat ready -- are being sent to Iraq.  I agree with Bill Auken that there are areas of concern.  I also wonder how any troops -- those 275 or more -- can do any operations in Iraq.

Isn't a SOFA required for that?  Oh, wait, there's something better.  Let's drop back to the April 30, 2013 Iraq snapshot:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed.  We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way.  It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

  
What does the Memorandum of Understanding cover?
Section two outlines that the two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises.   The tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger numbers.  Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.



On The Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN -- link is video), they played a clip of Senator Dianne Feinstein stating, "It seems to me that Maliki has to be convinced that it's in the greater interest of his country for him to retire and for this newly elected government to put together a new government."  Jake asked Dartmouth's Daniel Benjamin, "Is that what needs to happen?"

Daniel Benjamin: Well there needs to be a change at the top in Iraq but we've have had changes at the top before and we've also got sectarian.  So I'm not sure that we're going to get much better. Maliki has strong support in his Shia constituency, has strong support in Iran and frankly I fear that we don't have the  leverage to get the kind of government we'd like to see in Iraq. 

Robin Wright also appeared in the segment and she echoed the opinions we've already quoted earlier in the snapshot from her New Yorker piece.

Also weighing in this week, Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America issued the following:


Washington, DC – The Jewish War Veterans of the USA (JWV) demands that no troops be put on the ground in Iraq to combat its widening civil war. We are not Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s private army to be turned on and off when Iraqi troops desert the defense of their own nation.
Militant forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), an offshoot of al-Qaeda which has been exerting influence and have been victorious in the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, by driving Iraq into sectarian chaos and war based on religious differences. This week, they took over Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, with minimal opposition and have now set their sights on the capital of Baghdad.
JWV fully supports the Obama Administration’s decision to provide assistance to Iraq’s government as they work to stop the insurgency, but that support must not include sending our servicemembers back on the ground into Iraq. We must also evaluate and possibly enhance the Kurds or other possible potential allies in stabilizing the Middle East.
Of equal and sometimes even more prominent concern must be Pakistan with its nuclear capability. At this point, the entire Middle East is in a state of flux, not just Iraq, and our reaction must be reevaluated to encompass that concern.
When the U.S. left the region in 2011, it was clear that the Iraqis had no political interest in maintaining an American presence in the region. Now is definitely not the time to reenter the fray. If the Iraqi people won’t defend themselves, then we must consider the needs and the results of any intervention and the how and where of it. We must act with responsibility to America’s global security interests.
Further, given the problems currently facing the Department of Veterans Affairs it is clear that our government is and has not been prepared to properly aid the men and women who risk their lives in service to our nation, and instead lets them return to a nation which unintentionally or otherwise is unwilling to heal their wounds.
As Secretary of State John Kerry said back in January, “this is a fight that belongs to the Iraqis.” The United States should fully support any military aid that can help the Iraqis fight off ISIS, but ultimately and actually it is their fight to maintain control over their country.


About Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America
Founded in 1896, the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America is one of oldest active veterans’ organizations in America. JWV is dedicated to upholding America’s democratic traditions and fighting bigotry, prejudice, injustice, and discrimination of all kinds. As a national organization, JWV represents the voice of America’s Jewish veterans on issues related to veterans’ benefits, foreign policy, and national security. JWV also commits itself to the assistance of oppressed Jews worldwide.

# # #




Those favoring US military support for Nouri should be asked where they stand on Nouri's War Crimes. NINA notes the bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods have left 4 people dead (1 was a child) and fifteen more injured. Yesterday, it was 2 children. The bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods claimed the lives of 6 civilians -- two of whom were children -- with sixteen more civilians injured.

These are War Crimes, legally defined as such.

Nouri has been doing this since the start of the year.

This is a crime that is known as "collective punishment."  The State of Palestine, Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations notes:

“No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidations or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.” Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
Forms of collective punishment against all or parts of the population have included, inter alia, the imposition of curfews and sieges on entire villages or urban centers, often for prolonged periods of time, raids, home demolitions, blanket closures of schools and universities, and the destruction and confiscation of property, including agricultural and private lands and the uprooting of trees and crops.


Last week, Senator Robert Menendez (see yesterday's snapshot) raised the issue of barrel bombs with Ambassador Stuart Jones.  (Jones is US Ambassador to Jordan, he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because US President Barack Obama has nominated him to be the next Ambassador to Iraq).



Chair Robert Menendez:  Ambassador Jones, you know, we had Prime Minister Maliki here last year.  It was a difficult meeting.  I don't know whether or not he will actually, uh, be the prime minister again.  I guess by many accounts, he may very well ultimately build the coalition necessary to do that. But, as I said to Ambassador Beecroft as it relates to our relationship with the Egyptian government, in this case, the Iraqis must understand that the use of barrel bombs, that the overflights and the transiting of airspace by Iran sending troops and military equipment into Syria with impunity, and the lives of the people at Camp Liberty until they are resettled is going to be part of what this Committee judges as it relates to future arm sales, as it relates to our relationship.  So I would like to hear from you.  We understand the importance, we honor the lives of those who were lost in pursuit of a more democratic Iraq from the United States and an enormous national treasure.  But there has to be some change in the course of events here including having a government that is more inclusive, in which every Sunnis isn't an 'enemy' of the state.  There are many Sunnis who want to be part of Iraq as a nation but they have to be included as well.  Can you tell me about what you'll be messaging there as it relates to these issues?


Ambassador Stuart Jones: [. . .]  In regards to the use of barrel bombs, the use of barrel bombs is completely unacceptable.  It's an indiscriminate weapon against civilians and it cannot be tolerated.  This is something that my colleague, Steve Beecroft has raised with the senior levels of the Iraqi government.  There has been an instruction handed down through the military that barrel bombs will not be used.  And we've also heard from military contacts that they recognize that instruction. 


Human Rights Watch noted barrel bombs in their May 27th report:

Iraqi government forces battling armed groups in the western province of Anbar since January 2014 have repeatedly struck Fallujah General Hospital with mortar shells and other munitions, Human Rights Watch said today. The recurring strikes on the main hospital, including with direct fire weapons, strongly suggest that Iraqi forces have targeted it, which would constitute a serious violation of the laws of war.
Since early May, government forces have also dropped barrel bombs on residential neighborhoods of Fallujah and surrounding areas, part of an intensified campaign against armed opposition groups, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). These indiscriminate attacks have caused civilian casualties and forced thousands of residents to flee.
“The government has been firing wildly into Fallujah’s residential neighborhoods for more than four months, and ramped up its attacks in May,” said Fred Abrahams, special adviser at Human Rights Watch. “This reckless disregard for civilians is deadly for people caught between government forces and opposition groups.”


Ask yourself why the US government should even consider helping Nouri?  He's a War Criminal using collective punishment.  In addition, he's also broken the law by using barrel bombs.

Exactly why does the US government need to prop Nouri up?


Let's move over to today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki:
QUESTION: Okay. Did you get an answer to the question that was posed yesterday about whose authority or under whose authority the additional security troops that went to Iraq are under, under chief of mission or under some other agreement with the Iraqis?
 
MS. PSAKI: I – as I said yesterday, certainly understand your interest. I’m still working through the final details of that and we’ll venture to get you all an answer by the end of the day.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Department’s – and I don’t know if I did, so maybe this is new information. The RSO, of course, in the Embassy Baghdad is charged with the security and protection of mission personnel and facilities, and the DOD security teams have been integrated with the State security team. But we will get you a final answer on that by the end of the day, Matt.
 

QUESTION: All right. And then just back to the broader picture for a second. Are you familiar or have you seen the comments that Mr. Jarba made today in Jeddah?
 
MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those comments, but I’m sure you can inform me of them.
 
QUESTION: Well, I can tell you a little bit what I’ve seen. That he basically accused everyone in the room – this was at an Organization of the Islamic Conference. It used to be conference. It is still conference?
 
QUESTION: Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
 
QUESTION: Basically accused everyone in the room of being responsible for – everyone else in the room of being responsible for the situation not just in Syria but in Iraq. Would you have any reaction to that?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, without knowing the details of who else was in the room, we --
 
QUESTION: Well, it’s 57 countries that are all predominantly Islamic nations.
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, you are familiar with our view, which is that all of the countries in the region and their leaders need to focus on supporting Iraq and the Iraqi Government and the broad range of Iraqi officials at this difficult time, and it’s not a time for a blame game. We are certainly concerned about the events in Syria and the overflow of violence that has – we feel is a predominant factor that’s led us to where we are in Iraq.
 
QUESTION: At the same conference, Foreign Minister Zebari said that they have submitted a official request to the United States to actually commence strikes, airstrikes against ISIL. Are you aware of that?
 
MS. PSAKI: I believe that Chairman Dempsey also spoke about this during his testimony today, and I would point you to his comments.
 
QUESTION: But as far as you know, are we about to take a decision in that direction?
 
MS. PSAKI: There --
 
QUESTION: Is that something that the Secretary supports?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, again, Said, I know you’re aware – as you’re aware, there are a range of options the President is considering, not all military options. At this stage, the only thing that the President has ruled out is sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq. But as we’ve noted many times, the solution is not – needed is not an Iraqi one – is an Iraqi one – I’m sorry – and any U.S. action, including any possible military action, would be in support of a comprehensive strategy to build the capacity of the Iraqis. So I have no new update to provide to you at this point in terms of the President’s decision making.
Kim.
 
QUESTION: Any more discussions planned with the Iranians about Iraq? Because they are – I know you said no yesterday, but I was wondering whether things have changed because they are today making noises about the fact that they’re willing to discuss Iraq with you and help if they get to a nuclear deal. So it sounds like they have quite a bit of leverage at the moment. Who wants the nuclear deal more?
 
MS. PSAKI: I would dispute that. There are still no more discussions planned in Vienna, as I mentioned yesterday. Further discussions would likely take place at a lower level, but I don’t have any update on that front. Our view is that any discussion with Iran regarding Iraq would be entirely separate from the P5+1 negotiations, and any effort to connect the two is a nonstarter for the United States.
 
QUESTION: But it sounds as though they’re going to play even more hardball in the nuclear negotiations to get you to talk to them about Iraq.
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s no plans to have further conversations about Iraq at the P5+1 negotiations.
 
QUESTION: And that’s what I want to follow-up. You say there’s no more discussions in Vienna, but what about elsewhere?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, we are open to engagement or discussions on these issues. I don't have anything to predict for you, but it would happen at a lower level.
 
QUESTION: But – and not in Vienna, but could be in --
 
MS. PSAKI: Correct. That hasn’t changed since yesterday.
 
QUESTION: And then I have a follow-up. Do you still have confidence in Maliki as the head of state in Iraq?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, Lesley, as you know, he’s the democratically elected leader of Iraq. Obviously, they’re working through their elections process now. It’s up to the people of Iraq to determine who their leadership is. We have expressed and continue to have concerns about the lack of inclusivity and the way of governing in a sectarian manner. There have been some steps taken over the last couple of days that have been encouraging, but clearly there’s more that needs to be done, and we certainly don’t expect that a couple of steps will solve months, if not years, of concern.
 
QUESTION: And then today they called for – they’ve asked the U.S. for airstrikes to occur, to – kind of formally. Was that done to the White House? Was Secretary Kerry involved in that? When was it done? How was it done?
 
MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any more details to share. Again, Chairman Dempsey spoke to this today during his testimony, so I would point – certainly point you to that. Obviously, military requests typically go through the military channels.
 
QUESTION: Did you see the prime minister was on the major televised appeal with Sunni and Kurdish leaders for unity?
 
MS. PSAKI: I did. There were actually a range of steps, so let me go through a couple of them. Yesterday, there was a national unity meeting in Baghdad at the initiative of former Prime Minister Jafari. We were encouraged to see that Iraqi leaders from all across the political and ethno-sectarian spectrum were a part of that. They met and issued a statement, including a joint call to defend the state of Iraq and protect its sovereignty and dignity. We also welcome, as I have before, but worth noting again, the Iraqi federal supreme court’s ratification of the April 30th election results, and we support Iraqi political and religious leaders’ call for national unity to confront the ISIL terrorist threat. I would also note that Iraqi national security advisor has announced the formation of a public mobilization effort to regulate the thousands of volunteers who have stepped forward to assist Iraq’s security forces. And Prime Minister Maliki also announced that he had dismissed four senior military commanders as they continue to address issues that led to a security breakdown. So these are a couple of steps. Obviously, there needs to be a continuity of this effort.
 
QUESTION: I just wonder if in this this building the thinking might be that these are steps that should’ve been taken perhaps months ago. As you said repeatedly, we’re calling for unity for the last few months. Is it a question that this is too late now to stop the march of ISIL as they try and capture more parts of Iraq?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, our view is that Iraq needs to be unified, including all of its political leaders across the spectrum in order to take on that fight. Whether that is efforts to take it on with – through the security forces and in coordination and cooperation that’s happening on that front, or the need to be more politically united over the long term. And as I mentioned a little bit earlier, even if there is assistance from the United States or other countries, this is up to the Iraqi leaders to take steps to make this sustainable over the long term.
 
QUESTION: But I guess the question is: Why would the Sunni Iraqis, who feel they’ve been so badly marginalized over the last few years, now trust a televised appeal and some of these steps that you’ve outlined to be reflective of what will happen going forward in the future? Why should they believe the message now coming from the Iraqi leadership?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly any leaders have to earn the trust of their people, but these are a range of steps that have been taken to show unity and the need to take on the threat of ISIL with a united front. And they have a common enemy, and that is these terrorists – this terrorist group that is killing and terrorizing people across the country. And that should be incentive.
 
QUESTION: And did you have anything to say about the reports of fighting around the oil refinery near Baghdad?
 
MS. PSAKI: Sure.
 
QUESTION: Any concerns about what would happen if that were to fall into ISIL’s hands?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, the refinery produces for domestic consumption, and production had already stopped for several days due to a combination of technical and security reasons. Iraqi authorities may need to import domestic fuel from neighboring countries. There’s no impact on Iraq’s crude oil exports, and we haven’t seen any major disruptions in oil supplies in Iraq. But we’re certainly constantly monitoring the global oil supply and demand situation.
 
QUESTION: Have you – and I understand there seems to be maybe at even the White House that any intervention, any American intervention should be conditioned or predicated on Maliki having a more inclusive government. Does the Secretary also subscribe to that?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think you’ve heard the Secretary speak about the steps that we feel Prime Minister Maliki and other leaders in Iraq need to take. But this is not a quid pro quo. We’re talking about what is – what will – what – regardless of the decision made by the President, Prime Minister Maliki and other leaders in Iraq must take additional steps to unite the country and govern in a non-sectarian manner in order to be successful over the long term.
 
QUESTION: So you would discourage Maliki from taking the election results and feel free to form a government of his own coalition here?
 
MS. PSAKI: Well again, I think the process of forming a government will work itself through the natural process in Iraq.

That was a lengthy chunk but we've not noted the State Dept press briefings in a snapshot this week (we did note a Jay Carney White House briefing) and several State Dept friends have reminded me that Iraq is being covered and "you always complain it's not but you're not noting it."  So it's noted.

   

As Psaki mentioned, there's a request by Iraq for air bombings.  Matt Brown (Australia's ABC) reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari states a formal request for airstrikes has been made by the Iraqi government to the US government and that Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirms the request has been received.


One of the big stories right now -- one receiving little attention -- is the refugee crisis.  Today on Andrea Mitchell Reports (MSNBC -- link is video), Andrea spoke with the International Rescue Committee's Nora Love about the refugee crisis in Iraq.  Andrea noted that the last week alone has seen half a million Iraqis flee their homes and that many were fleeing to the northern Kurdistan region which was already dealing with a huge influx of Syrian refugees.  Love was speaking to Andrea from Erbil.

 Andrea Mitchell: What are the numbers that you are seeing now and how are you managing the influx of people. 

 Nora Love: I mean, I believe that the situation is unfolding each day.  The numbers that were reported coming across were 200,000 in Dohuk and another 100,000 in Erbil.  We're not seeing those numbers in the camps yet because most of those population has kind of been absorbed into the community.  But we feel that in a week or two, this will be unfolding and we'll see a greater need coming out.  We are concerned with what we'll happen not just with the IDPs on the resources but also what's happening in the ISIS's controlled territory. 

 Andrea Mitchell:  What kind of resources do you have in terms of food and water and medical facilities for these people who have been internally displaced?

 Nora Love:  Yeah, so we're starting up our programming working in seven communities in the Dohuk Province.  We'll be focusing on protection, health, women protection activities as well as cash assistance and water. [. . .]  So we're looking to work with both camp and non-camp beneficiaries of the IDPs and looking to target the most vulnerable of the vulnerables.

 Andrea Mitchell:  Are many of these women and children?

 Nora Love: Yes, there are many women and children. They seem to be the most at risk.  With the stories that we're hearing, some of the people left the Mosul area because they wanted to protect their daughters from -- [. . .] kidnapping, forced marriages or other things.


We need to close so we'll close with this from John Halle's "The 'Progressive' (aka, Liberal) Antiwar Movement" (CounterPunch):

That leaves the Democrats without any anti-Empire voice. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) will not do the job of challenging Hillary.  From Norman Solomon to Medea Benjamin they are notorious by now for putting Party over principle.  Other progressives operating outside the Dem Party, and few in number, are well defended, claiming that elections are for naught.  But history argues against this.  Truman, the architect of the unpopular Korean War was defeated in the New Hampshire primary, paving the way for an Eisenhower victory due in part to a pledge to end the war, a pledge he kept promptly.  Lyndon Baynes Johnson, the inheritor of a very unpopular war from JFK was also undone in New Hampshire, by the principled Eugene McCarthy, not the most “liberal” Democrat and a bit of a libertarian.  From that point on despite the best efforts of both Humphrey and Nixon to prolong it, the Vietnam War was over.  Primary challenges have an effect.  Ron Paul built a very powerful movement, especially among the young, with his 2008 and 2012 runs.






wbai
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith
heidi boghosian
michael ratner


 











 







the washington post
liz sly
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)