Monday, June 23, 2014

Applaud truth teller Ajamu Baraka

Monday, Monday and we need a comic.  Here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "No Worries" went up.



Now, give your love to Ajamu Baraka (CounterPunch).  He writes:
On those first two elements, responsibility clearly rests with the war criminals of the Tony Blair and George W. Bush regimes. But on the last issue, the illegal arming and training of an insurgent force to undermine the sovereignty of an established state – that crime rests with President Barack Obama and his administration.
Democrats, including what is referred to as the “progressive” caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and other caucus groups, along with the unprincipled and opportunist collection of Democratic party hacks at the Center for American Progress, the New American Foundation, Human Rights Watch and the other liberal and mainstream  institutions and publications who gave direct or tacit support to the foolish Bush era strategy to destroy Syria, all place the blame for the “debacle” in Iraq on al-Maliki. And while many of these elements opposed the Bush attack on Iraq, the moral basis for their opposition to direct war by the U.S. in Iraq under a Republican president failed them in response to the indirect war waged on Syria by a Democrat president. In both cases, it was war that was unleashed, and in both cases outside the parameters of international law and in opposition to the wishes and interests of the vast majorities of the peoples of those nations.

Barack deserves strong and real applause.

Thank you for telling truth in a country where we're supposed to pretend that Bully Boy Bush just left office yesterday and none of this is any of Barack's fault.

I am so tried of this nonsense.

It bears noting that, via the US negotiated Erbil Agreement, Barack installed Nouri for a second term (after the Iraqi people rejected him) but otherwise, I'm thrilled with the column.


Let's talk Third:






Cindy Sheehan.

Margaret Kimberley.  I'll be nominating Baraka for a truest this coming Sunday.

Jim breaks down the edition.


There are so many cowards and so few people who will stand up.  That's why we really need to applaud Ajamu Baraka.  And Iraq Veterans Against the War need to change their names since all of them can no longer find their spines and the men in the group have also lost their balls.  Fly away, capons, fly away.


Ava and C.I. take on the awful Rachel Maddow.  I love "BadFoul" by the way.  :D

We roundtable on Iraq.

Hasn't he been good to you?  (No, he hasn't.)  Barack's doing "Stop! In The Name Of Love."

We take a look at the ultimate James Bond movie featuring Sean Connery as Bond, You Only Live Twice.  I love this movie.  I love it.  It is the all time best Connery Bond film.  I had several friends call me up and ask which Bond film do we not like?  Because we note that we love all of the Bond films except one.  Hold on for that.

Oh, executive orders are a good thing -- the man in the bad rug says.

What we listened to.

We dip into the mailbag.  And we ask you to figure out which Bond film we don't like?  The e-mail address is thethirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com.  I will tell what I told friends on the phone, "No, it is not On Her Majesty's Secret Service."  Some people assume that's got to be it since George Lanzby was only Bond for one film.  No.  We like him as Bond.  We like that movie.  So that's your only clue.

The Center for Constitutional Rights.

I don't know this organization.

Senator Patty Murray's press release.

Barack's Iraq speech.

IAVA.

And a look at the week's best.


Who worked on the edition?  Dallas and the following:

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


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


 
Monday, June 23, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, John Kerry visits Iraq, Nouri has so far refused to sign a treaty granting US troops immunity, the Kurds are among those ready for Nouri to step aside, and much more.




Connie Cass (AP) offers "Iraq at Risk Again: How Did We Get Here So Fast?" and dozens more that want to see (or insist) that there are lessons there for Afghanistan.  And the on the extreme insane side is Mike Whitney's assertion that this is all about Israel.

It's all useless unless the point is to churn out meaningless prattle about Iraq which people can repeat in a psuedo informed manner.

Mike Whitney's not a bad writer, he's gifted and we've often considered him for "truest statement of the week" at Third.  But if there is a connection to US efforts right now in Iraq and the government of Israel ("it's all for Israel"), Whitney's failed to establish it in his piece of writing.  As for Case?  If this is an attempt to mock, okay, great job.

Maybe it's a bad edit?  To ask, "When did the trouble start?" and offer "632 AD"?  This is stand up, right? Or maybe it's parody of the press industry itself as a reporter believes 'analysis' from 632 to the present

But to make your starting point 632 AD? And finish up in 2013?  In five brief paragraphs?

I believe Cass' article could be the text book example for "shallow press."

I have no idea how anyone could find any 'lesson' or 'example' to apply to Iraq from Cass' article.

Except maybe the lesson that no one paid attention?

We were pointing in 2011 that violence was increasing -- during 2011, we were saying violence was increasing.  We noted it during 2012.  We noted it during 2013.  About mid-way through 2013, the press started to notice.

In 2010, violence was reduced.  It fell based on the death toll.  In 2011, it increased a little.  In 2012, it increased a little more.  You can click here and look at Iraq Body Count's totals.

What was going on?

2010 was a parliamentary election year.  They held elections in March.  Nouri lost to Ayad Allawi and Nouri refused to step down.  For eight months, Nouri refused to step down.  This was the political stalemate.

He could refuse because he had the backing of the White House.  The White House also negotiated The Erbil Agreement with the heads of the political blocs -- which included Nouri.  This contract ended the stalemate.  It gave Nouri the second term as prime minister that he wanted -- that he wanted but did not earn.  To get the heads of the other political blocs to agree to that, the contract promised them things as well and outlined the new government, a power-sharing government.

That contract was signed off on in November 2010 and finally Parliament held their first real session (they had held one faux session in the spring of 2010) and Nouri was named prime minister.  He then trashed the agreement.  First, he said that he needed time to implement it.  Then his spokesperson said the contract was illegal and he refused to implement it.

He was never going to.  Nouri breaks every damn promise he makes.  He can't be trusted.  He used a contract to get a second term and then refused to honor it.  By the summer of 2011, Moqtada al-Sard (Shi'ite cleric and movement leader), the Kurds and Iraqiya were calling publicly for Nouri to implement The Erbil Agreement but he refused.  And the White House that swore the contract they negotiated was legal and had the full backing of the White House?

Suddenly, the White House couldn't remember the contract.

Look at the violence in 2011 slightly increasing.  In May 2012, there's an attempt for a no-confidence vote in Parliament and all the requirements are met but President Jalal Talabani (pressured by the White House) basically rips up the signatures.  And the violence goes up.  Protests return to the street at the end of 2012 and Nouri refuses to listen to them.  And the violence goes up.

It's a surprise?

Only if you weren't paying attention.


Back in July 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."  

As violence increased year after year, Nouri refused to fill the security positions.

Can you imagine if the US had combat in multiple US cities and Barack had failed to appoint a Secretary of Defense and a Secretary of Interior?

In fact, Barack or any other US president that failed to fill a cabinet for a full four year term would be roundly criticized and possibly impeached.

The refusal to fill the posts was a power-grab on Nouri's part and it took place while the violence was climbing each year.


How did we get here so fast, AP's Connie Cass asks?

I believed I just answered your question and I'm rather amazed you couldn't do it yourself.


US Secretary of State John Kerry visited Iraq today.  Alsumaria features this photo of John Kerry making nice with tyrant Nouri.





Chelsea J. Carter and Holly Yan (CNN) note, "As radical Sunni militants snatch city after city in their march to Baghdad, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Iraq on Monday during the country's tensest time since the U.S. withdrawal of troops. He'll meet with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the man some say needs to step down."  John Kerry discussed his visit today:
Now, President Obama asked me to visit Baghdad today to demonstrate America’s support for Iraq and its people during this time of crisis. This is clearly a moment when the stakes for Iraq’s future could not be clearer. ISIL’s campaign of terror, their grotesque acts of violence and repressive ideology pose a grave danger to Iraq’s future. ISIL is not, as it claims, fighting on behalf of Sunnis. ISIL is not fighting for a stronger Iraq; quite the contrary. ISIL is fighting to divide Iraq and to destroy Iraq.
So this is a critical moment for Iraq’s future. It is a moment of decision for Iraq’s leaders, and it’s a moment of great urgency. Iraq faces an existential threat, and Iraq’s leaders have to meet that threat with the incredible urgency that it demands. The very future of Iraq depends on choices that will be made in the next days and weeks. And the future of Iraq depends primarily on the ability of Iraq’s leaders to come together and take a stand united against ISIL – not next week, not next month, but now.
In each of my meetings today, I stressed that urgency and I stressed the responsibility of Iraq’s leaders to act, whether the meeting with Prime Minister Maliki, with speaker Nujaifi, with ISCI leader Hakim, or Foreign Minister Zebari, I emphasize that defending Iraq against ISIL depends largely on their ability – all of them – to form a new government and to do it quickly. It is essential that Iraq’s leaders form a genuinely inclusive government as rapidly as possible within their own constitutional framework.
It’s also crystal-clear that ISIL’s rise puts more than one country at risk. ISIL threatens the stability of the entire region and it is a threat also to the United States and to the West – self-declared. Iraq’s neighbors can bolster Iraq’s security, as well as their own, by supporting the formation of an Iraqi government that represents all Iraqis and also respects Iraq’s territorial integrity.
Now, President Obama has stated repeatedly that he will do what is necessary and what is in our national interest to confront ISIL and the threat that it poses to the security of the region and to our security in the long run. None of us should have to be reminded that a threat left unattended far beyond our shores can have grave, tragic consequences.

The President understands very clearly that supporting Iraq in the struggle at this time is part of meeting our most important responsibility:  The security of the American people, fighting terrorism, and standing by our allies.

Really?

Let's start with allies.  Nouri's been screaming and begging for the US military and its weapons since the end of October. And this month Barack agrees.  Why?

I think sending weapons and US troops to Iraq is wrong.  I think Nouri's government's falling because it's illegitimate and Nouri's a tyrant.

But the 'why' here is for another reason.  Nouri wants it.  Barack promises it.  And now we learn that Nouri can't agree to certain basics?



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/23/231223/records-show-how-iraqi-extremists.html#storylink=cpy
Eli Lake and Josh Rogin (Daily Beast) report today:

Obama will take Iraq's word for now that U.S. soldiers won't be prosecuted by the country's courts as they defend Baghdad.


President Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011 because he couldn’t get Iraq’s parliament to offer U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi prosecution. But now Obama is promising to send in hundreds of special operations forces based on a written promise that these soldiers will not be tried in Iraq’s famously compromised courts for actions they are taking in defense of Baghdad.  
The U.S. military and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have opposed sending any special operations teams to Iraq until there is a written agreement from Iraq’s government that they will not be prosecuted under Iraqi law.



I don't know who's more stupid: Nouri or Barack.

Nouri wants US weapons and troops, has asked for them, is now getting them and is foot dragging (or refusing) to sign needed agreements?  And Barack is willing to send in US troops without the immunity agreement?

On the issue of what's being done -- troops with no written agreement for immunity -- Prashant Rao reTweets Reidar Visser:


         Retweeted by Prashant Rao
 ·  5h

Iraq offers same legal assurances to US military in 2014 as in 2011. Nixed by Obama then; might have prevented crisis today.
View conversation


Unlike Visser, I don't believe that the crises -- plural, Reidar -- would have been prevented if Barack had not drawndown the number of US troops in Iraq.  We can go into that more at another time.  But the crises stem from Nouri being given a second term as prime minister in exchange for a power-sharing government and his refusal to allow a power-sharing government.

The crises -- not even the violence today which is only one part of the crisis -- does not steam from Barack drawing down on troops.


As for Kerry's claims of the huge threat ISIS poses to "the security of the American people"?  That argument's been made in the United Kingdom, some UK politicians and officials have insisted ISIS is a threat to them.  Simon Jenkins (Guardian) disagrees today and notes:

 The idea that the Isis action in Iraq poses a threat to the British state is ludicrous. That it came as a complete surprise to London (and apparently Baghdad) shows how trivial MI6 thought the threat before it happened. Otherwise, why did Cameron not do something about it a month ago? Surely heads should roll. In truth there is no threat, just a useful excuse for sabre-rattling and fear politics. If Isis can undermine Britain's safety, Britain must be a feeble place indeed.
As for the returning jihadists, they too are no threat to Britain. They may threaten to explode some bombs, a threat to life and limb. Why Cameron should want to elevate, indeed almost romanticise, that menace is a mystery. The only security against this violence is from policing and from targeted intelligence.

2715 is the number of miles between the United Kingdom and Iraq.

6927 is the number of miles between the United States and Iraq.

If Jenkins believes the UK is suffering a very small -- if any -- threat, why would the threat be greater for the US which is even further from Iraq?  (Barack's plan -- as it is implemented -- may in fact make the US a target for ISIS but it has not been one so far.)

Also on ISIS, Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:
Insurgent records suggest that the United States will find it difficult to rout an organization whose structure and attention to detail allowed it to prosper even during the toughest U.S. counterterrorism efforts of the last decade. U.S. officials believed, incorrectly, that the group had been vanquished.
This rare, in-depth look into the seed money and organizational structure of the militant organization comes from the Department of Defense’s classified Harmony Database, a repository of more than a million documents gathered from Iraq, Afghanistan and other war zones. Some 200 Iraq-related documents _ personal letters, expense reports, membership rosters _ were declassified in the past year through West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center for the use of RAND Corp. researchers looking into the evolution of al Qaida in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, the precursors to ISIS. Some analysis of the documents, which haven’t yet been published, was discussed with McClatchy to lend context to the current crisis.
The documents provide a cautionary tale as the Iraqi government pleads for U.S. military assistance to beat back ISIS’s brazen new campaign. The records reveal that previous incarnations of ISIS have shown an extraordinary ability to regroup even after military defeats.



Free Speech Radio News is back with weekly editions.  On this week's edition (also streamable at this KPFA webpage), Iraq was noted at the top of the broadcast.



 Nell Abram:  Pressure is growing on Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to step aside as Iraq's government faces an insurgency that's captured key territory within the country.  The militant group known as ISIS launched a surprise offensive earlier this month and has since garnered the support of previously unaffiliated armed actors. Iraq's largest oil refinery has been a flashpoint for fighting between insurgent and pro-government forces.  Which side is in control of the facility remains unclear -- as does the fate of hundreds of its workers. US President Barack Obama has stopped short of ordering the support the Iraqi government requested but did authorize 300 military advisors to support its efforts to repeal insurgent advances.

 President Barack Obama (from his Thursday speech): I think we always have to guard against mission creep.  Uh, so let me repeat, uh, what I've said in the past. Uh, American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.  Uhm, we do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by, uh, sending in tens of thousands of troop and, uh, committing, uh, the kinds of blood and treasure, uh, that's already been expended in Iraq.

 Nell Abram:  According to Iraq Body Count, almost 2800 civilians have died since the beginning of June and the United Nations says more than one million Iraqis have fled their homes this year. 


On Barack's plan, AP notes today that criticism is emerging:
"I think that you have to be careful sending special forces because that's a number that has a tendency to grow," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, one of Obama's staunchest supporters.
Anna Galland, the executive director of the liberal group MoveOn.org, said even a limited mission "is a dangerous and troubling development that threatens to lead to broader military engagement."

David Welna's report for Sunday's All Things Considered (NPR -- link is text and audio) quoted Senator Ted Cruz disagreeing with the White House's assertion that they do not need to seek permission from Congress for Barack's plan, "So if the president is planning on launching a concerted offensive attack that is not constrained by the exigency of the circumstances, he should come to Congress first to seek and to receive authorization for the use of military force."

One of the strongest and most plain spoken voices to emerge on the plan is Phyllis Bennis (IPS) who notes:
This is how wars begin.
Barack Obama says we’re not going back to Iraq. “American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq,” he said on June 19th, “but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.”
The White House says it’s “only” sending 275 soldiers to protect the embassy, it’s only sending 300 Special Forces, they’re only “advisers.” There’s only one aircraft carrier in the region, they say, and a few other warships. They’re considering missile strikes but they’re not going to send ground troops.

Iraq isn’t a start-up war for the United States—we’ve been there before. And these actions increase the danger we could be heading there again. 

One of the weakest voices?  That list is too lengthy but it's worth noting that Iraq Veterans Against the War once stood like giants (2006 and 2007) but now crouch in fear.  Today, they're Iraq Veterans Kind Of Sort Of Maybe Against the War If We Don't Have To Criticize Barack Otherwise We'll Just Stay Silent.

Today, Kitabat reports KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani has declared Nouri al-Maliki is complicating efforts to resolve the crisis in Iraq and that Nouri should step down.  Since Friday, rebels have seized for cities in Anba Province and Sunday they seized three of the four (Rutba, Ana and Rawa.  Nolan Feeney (Time magazine) notes:




 The capture of Rutba, a town located approximately 150 km east of the Iraqi-Jordanian border, gives insurgents major control over a key route to Jordan. The control of border posts and towns like Rutba will allow insurgent forces to more easily move weapons and soldiers between countries.
The seizure of Rawah and Anah suggest movement toward the city of Haditha, where a major dam lies — which, if destroyed, could wreak havoc on the country’s electrical systems and cause major flooding. Iraqi authorities speaking to the AP on the condition of anonymity say 2,000 troops have been dispatched to protect the dam.

Nouri's inability to prevent this from happening results in more embarrassments and, yes, even less support from the Iraqi people.  Kitabat notes rumors that the US is backing Ayad Allawi to be the next prime minister in Iraq.  Starting late Thursday, the rumor was the White House was pushing for Ahmed Chalabi to be the next prime minister.  Charis Chang (Newscomau) observes:


While the US originally backed al-Maliki, it now seems to believe a change of leader could be the key to halting the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which continues to take over territory in northern Iraq. 
It has been quite a turnaround. Al-Maliki came to power in Iraq with the backing of the US and Iran after Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003.

But he has been unable to create a functional political system and there has been growing resentment among Iraq’s Sunni minority against his Shiite-led government.


She also quotes Peter Mansoor, who served under the one top US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus,  "He’s governed Iraq with an iron fist, he has alienated large segments of the Iraqi population, including its Sunni and Kurdish inhabitants, and his governing style has led directly to this moment when he’s lost control of more of third of his country.  It says something when the Sunnis feel so bad about the way they’ve been treated that they would forge a temporary alliance with these very extremist jihadists."

In his remarks on Iraq today, John Kerry stated:

 It is incumbent on Iraq’s leaders to convene parliament on time, and I might say to you that every single leader today committed that they are dedicated to meeting the July 1st deadline for the meeting of the representatives, the parliament. It is also incumbent on them to choose a speaker immediately, then to choose a president, and finally a prime minister and a cabinet. And to do so, they must effect a unity that rises above the traditional divisions that have torn the government apart.
So I encouraged the leaders today to start this process and to move along a path that is outlined by Iraq’s constitution itself. Nothing that the United States through President Obama sending me here today – nothing that we asked them to do or offered is outside of the constitutional process or without complete respect for the choices of the leaders of Iraq. The United States is not choosing any leader; we are not making any preconditions with respect to who can or can’t take part. That is up to Iraq. It’s up to the people of Iraq to make that decision. And what we asked for today is also very much in line with the message that Grand Ayatollah Sistani offered just a few days ago. As I told Iraqi leaders today, and as I’ve made clear to my counterparts in the region, neither the United States nor any other country has the right to pick who leads Iraq. That is up to the people of Iraq. So it is when all of Iraq’s people can shape Iraq’s future, when the legitimate concerns and aspirations of all of Iraq’s communities – Sunni, Shia, Kurd – are all respected, that is when Iraq is strongest. And that is when Iraq will be the most secure.


Martin Chulov (Guardian) explores the situation and notes:

Ahead of meeting Kerry, Nujaifi told the Guardian that only the implementation of a federal system of government could hold Iraq together.
"A federal system is a solution," said Nujaifi, who hails from Mosul – the first city to be over-run by Isis earlier this month. "It is constitutional and even the Shias are starting to come around to it. There will be autonomy within each federal state, but Baghdad will remain the central Government.
A federal form of government has regularly been touted as a solution for Iraq over recent years. But such a system would be strongly opposed by neighbouring states, including Syria and Turkey, who fear the implications of such a move for their borders.
"This is a catastrophe. We are at the edge of the cliff and we have to hurry to find a solution," Nujaifi said "We'd been telling the US what was happening here, but they didn't get the message. I have been telling them for years that there is a leader (Maliki) that is sectarian, a one-man band who listens to no-one else. Now they understand."

This comes as Mick Krever (CNN) reports:

 Iraqi Kurdish President Massoud Barzani gave his strongest-ever indication on Monday that his region would seek formal independence from the rest of Iraq.
“Iraq is obviously falling apart,” he told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview. “And it’s obvious that the federal or central government has lost control over everything. Everything is collapsing – the army, the troops, the police.”
“We did not cause the collapse of Iraq. It is others who did. And we cannot remain hostages for the unknown,” he said through an interpreter.

“The time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold.”

For video on where things stand for the Kurds, refer to this segment of The Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN).


Turning to some of today's reported violence, Alsumaria reports 70 prisoners were killed to east of Hilla with ten more injured (the prisoners were in the process of being transferred), 1 person was shot dead in Haswa,  Baghdad Operations Command spokesperson Saad Maan announced that 104 suspects were killed with thirty-one more injured, a Tarmiya home invasion left 6 family members dead, 5 corpses were found dumped in Baghdad, and the Peshmerga shot dead 1 sniper in Jalawla.  National Iraqi News Agency reports a Rabia bombing left 1 Peshmerga dead and six more injured, 1 person was shot dead in Baquba, and an Abu Ghraib attack left 1 person dead and one police member injured.  Through Sunday, Iraq Body Count counts 2969 violent deaths so far this month.









 
 








mohammed tawfeeq











Posted by at

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Idiot of the week (it might be you!)

First up, this is from Norman Pollack's latest CounterPunch piece:

 Iraq is back, as in blowback: this replaces Ukraine for the moment, America always on the lookout for a situation which can be turned, because of US policy in the first place, into a source of provocation. Iraq, our intervention guaranteed internal civil war, here, with the gains of ISIS, a chance to return in some form, concentrated drone attacks, rather than so-called “boots on the ground,” possibly to inflame the entire region, itself destabilized for obvious reasons (protection of Israel and the continued plight of the Palestinians). As Spinney and Polk wrote in CounterPunch, contradiction plagues American policy, in this case, turning to Iran for help against ISIS while threatening Iran for some time with severe military and economic punishment. How Obama and Kerry can keep straight faces is one for the annals of war.Iraq is back, as in blowback: this replaces Ukraine for the moment, America always on the lookout for a situation which can be turned, because of US policy in the first place, into a source of provocation. Iraq, our intervention guaranteed internal civil war, here, with the gains of ISIS, a chance to return in some form, concentrated drone attacks, rather than so-called “boots on the ground,” possibly to inflame the entire region, itself destabilized for obvious reasons (protection of Israel and the continued plight of the Palestinians). As Spinney and Polk wrote in CounterPunch, contradiction plagues American policy, in this case, turning to Iran for help against ISIS while threatening Iran for some time with severe military and economic punishment. How Obama and Kerry can keep straight faces is one for the annals of war.


Now who's this week's pick for Idiot of the Week.

I'll tell you who it's not.

I thought about going with Barack.

But he's crafty enough to pull off deceiving the American public.

So who does that leave?

The MSM.

They did a lousy job.

Barack announced he's sending US troops into Iraq and these won't be combat troops.

It's left to C.I. to point out that after Barack declared combat operations in Iraq over (August 31, 2010), 66 US troops would die through November 2011. 

Barack announces his new mission for Iraq.

And it's left to C.I. to raise the issue of financial cost and why isn't Iraq footing the bill since Barack's plan is a response to Nouri al-Maliki's request.

All week long, the MSM repeated White House talking points.

And failed to provide context or even common sense.

The MSM is the Idiot of the Week.

Go to Kat's site because she's picking out an individual for Idiot of the Week.



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

 
Friday, June 20, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, skepticism over the US plan, whispers Nouri's going, and so much more.


First up, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office issued the following today:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                             CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Friday, June 20, 2014                                                                                  (202) 224-2834
 
LGBT/VETERANS: Murray Statement on LGBT Benefits Expansion
Despite expansion, gaps still remain for those seeking Social Security benefits
 
Murray’s SAME Act named by administration as legislative fix
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), author of the Social Security and Marriage Equality (SAME) Act, released the following statement after the Obama administration announced the expansion of several federal benefits and obligations to married, same-sex couples. The announcement comes after the Department of Justice completed their year-long review of potential legal barriers to these benefits after the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
 
However, the report indicates that obstacles still remain for certain couples seeking benefits from the Veterans or Social Security Administration.  In a memo to President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder noted the need for Congress to pass Senator Murray’s SAME Act in order to extend full Social Security benefits to married, same-sex couples.
 
“As we near the one-year anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA, today’s news is one of relief and celebration for many of the committed, same-sex couples across America whose lives have been put on hold waiting for this report. These couples, many of them our nation’s heroes, will no longer have to face uncertainty while caring for or mourning the loss of a loved one.
 
“However, I am disappointed there are still many couples seeking Social Security benefits who will continue to be viewed as second-class citizens in the eyes of the law. Your zip code should not determine whether or not your family will have the means to survive after the death of a spouse, and it shouldn’t prevent your family from getting the benefits you have earned.
 
“While I believe the administration had the ability to include these benefits in today’s announcement, my SAME Act now provides a legislative roadmap to finally provide these benefits to all couples, regardless of where they live. This seemingly subjective denial spousal benefit claims places an economic and emotional burden on the families of legally married same-sex couples, and it is inconsistent with the practice of other federal departments and agencies.
 
“In the coming days I will be working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to get this job done. I also urge the administration to continue holding the applications of those who have applied for Social Security benefits until Congress or the courts act to fix this unfortunate gap in benefits.”
 
In May, Senators Murray and Mark Udall (D-CO) introduced the SAME Act to amend the Social Security Act in order to provide full benefits to married, same-sex couples regardless of where they live. Eligibility for spousal benefits provided under the Social Security Act are determined by a place of residence standard. This standard has resulted in applications for Social Security benefits for legally married same-sex spouses living in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage being placed on hold. Representative Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced the companion legislation in the House of Representatives. 
 
In March of last year, Senator Murray, a senior member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, led a letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki calling for an expedited waiver process granting same-sex veterans and their spouses burial rights in national cemeteries. Today’s announcement also included directive that the VA Acting Secretary will “exercise his broad statutory discretion in the area of burial benefits to designate any individual in a committed relationship for burial in a national cemetery, which will allow for the inclusion of same-sex spouses where the domicile provision would otherwise govern.”
 
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834

@PattyMurray | @SenateBudget | @MegRoh




Senator Patty Murray's office
 
Senator Murray's YouTube Channel
 
Senator Murray's Press Office Twitter Account
 
RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office


On veterans, yesterday Matthew Daly (AP) reported the latest VA audit had found "tens of thousands" of veterans are waiting 30 days or more for medical appointments.  The same day the news broke, the VA issued a press release quoting Acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson stating:
In many communities across the country, Veterans wait too long for the high quality care they’ve earned and deserve.  As of today, we’ve reached out to 70,000 Veterans to get them off wait lists and into clinics, but there is still much more work to be done. As we continue to address systemic challenges in accessing care, these regular data updates will enhance transparency and provide the most immediate information to Veterans and the public on Veterans’ access to quality health care. Trust is the foundation for everything we do. VA must be an organization built on transparency and accountability, and we will do everything we can to earn that trust one Veteran at a time.


Now let's move to Gwen Ifill who insists in her latest column that Montana's former governor Brian Schweitzer has gone too far.  He said his gaydar went off when he saw Eric Cantor, that Dianne Feinstein was a hooker (he did not use the term "hooker," "streetwalker" or "whore") under a streetlight and that southern men "are a little effeminate."

Gwen's in a tizzy.  There's no problem with criticizing Cantor (who should fire back with a comical response about Schweitzer study him so closely).  Being gay is not a crime in the US and it's not anything to be ashamed of.  Cantor isn't gay.  He shouldn't take offense to it and should instead try to make light of the remark.  Dianne?  She's too close to the intelligence community, to put it mildly.  That's what his critique was about -- which Gwen doesn't want to note.

Southern men?  If that's how he feels, he can say it.  That was stupid though because he is testing a run for the presidency and southern men are all over the country -- not just in the south.  The US is a mobile population and that comment could hurt him.


But I bring up Gwen's column for a reason beyond the remarks Brian Schweitzer made.

Gwen's going to write about civility and taste?

The woman who turned the Blackwater massacre of Iraqi citizens into a joke?  A televised joke?  She's going to determine taste and civility?


Moving to Iraq where things are heating up for prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki, National Iraqi News Agency notes:

 Head of the Kurdistan Region Massoud Barzani stressed on Friday, during a telephone conversation with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that the acts of some people in power in Baghdad, is the cause of the events and problems between the components of the Iraqi people, and eventually became the biggest crises of those problems. 
A statement by the presidency of the Region said that Biden telephoned Barzani and discussed with him security and political developments in Iraq and the failure of the army and the control of the armed groups on the city of Mosul.

This comes following other calls for Nouri to step aside.  AFP notes, "US Vice President Joe Biden, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey and David Petraeus, the former top US commander in Iraq, have all either called for Maliki to be more inclusive, or outright criticised him.."  Last night, Ann pointed out internal objections to Nouri:

Here are facts, Ayad Allawi doesn't want Nouri to have a third term.  Moqtada al-Sadr does not want Nouri to have a third term.  Ammar al-Hakim does not want Nouri to have a third term.  All three men, like Nouri, are Shi'ite political leaders.
Here are facts, Osama al-Nujaifi (outgoing Speaker of Parliament) does not want Nouri to have a third term. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq does not want Nouri to have a third term.  Both men are Sunni political leaders.
Here are facts, the Kurds have declared that if Nouri gets a third term the Kurdish region will break off, go from semi-autonomy to full autonomy.


Today brought an even bigger objection to a third term for Nouri from within Iraq.  The Associated Press reports today that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani had issued a call for a new and "effective" government -- a "thinly veiled criticism that Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in office since 2006, was to blame for the nation’s crisis over the blitz by the al-Qaida-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant."  This may (or may not) mean the US audience with al-Sistani was a success.  What is obvious is that the requests of Moqtada al-Sadr and Ayad Allawi did not fall on deaf ears.  The two lobbied Al-Sistani last month.

National Iraqi News Agency notes that Italy's Foreign Minister Federica Mogerena declared today, "What Iraq needs at this moment is to seek a path [which] guarantees the unity of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds." This may be the start of international prodding.  Yesterday, the calls for Nouri to step aside were noted on Morning Edition (NPR -- link is text and audio) when host Rneee Montagne spoke with reporter Leila Fadel:


 MONTAGNE: Now, there has been, as I've just mentioned, a drumbeat of calls for Prime Minister Maliki to step down. What about where you are in the Kurdish region? What are people saying there? And what have you heard in your reporting?
FADEL: We spoke to the former minister of interior of Iraq, from 2004, Falah al-Naqib. And he said, you know, what I'm doing here is trying to reach out to former officers in the Iraq Army, under Suddam Hussein, and see what type of solution we can provide that will stop the fighting. And he's saying that first step has to be that Maliki goes. He's seen as a really corrupt and sectarian figure, that has marginalized so much of the Sunni population. And they're frustrated.


How bad is it?  Longtime Nouri enabler and minimizer Patrick Cockburn (Indpendent) writes today, "Isolated and discredited by humiliating military defeat, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is likely to go soon, battered as he is by only slightly veiled demands for his immediate departure from powerful figures who once supported him."  Dave Zweifel (Madison Cap Times) offers, "If al-Maliki can't reach -- or more likely, refuses to reach -- an agreement with other factions to share in Iraq's government, then we need to walk away."

Why is he right?  Dave Zweifel is right.  You can argue he's right because Nouri has committed War Crimes, had journalists arrested and beaten, beaten and killed protesters and bred violence and division in the country.

I would certainly agree with all those reasons.

But there's another reason and it's one the press hasn't paid attention to.

Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:



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 keep hearing various voices saying 'Maliki kicked us out.'

There's actually much worse than no SOFA, there's wasted billions.  Yes, some of it was supposedly brought back in, some of the US taxpayer millions were not wasted, supposedly.

I mean "supposedly" because it's the State Dept which operated without any oversight during Barack's first term -- something that reporters should be hitting Hillary Clinton on hard.  John Kerry wasn't Secretary of State for more than nine months when he made good on his promise to have an IG for the State Dept -- a position that was empty for Hillary's entire four years as Secretary of State.

It matters and reporters should be asking her why she felt she was above oversight.

Because she felt that way, the country still doesn't know what was done with all the money, there are several ongoing investigations trying to determine whether the State Dept lost money, had it stolen or what.

But, at it's most basic, Barack's plan for Iraq is to provide assistance and training.

Let's speak very slowly because some people don't get other governments.

In the United States, Barack Obama is president.  He nominates people to be in the Cabinet.  For example, he nominated Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.  The Senate confirmed that nomination, voted for Hagel.  Hagel is now Secretary of State.  If Barack is unhappy with Hagel's performance, he will ask for Hagel's resignation.  By custom -- though not by law -- Hagel would then resign.

It's different in Iraq.  The president is not the head of their country and not elected in a general election.  The head of their country is the prime minister -- also not elected in a general election.  Parliament elects a prime minister-designate.  The prime minister -- if he or she abides by the Constitution -- has 30 days to name a Cabinet -- that's a full Cabinet.  It's the only rule for moving from prime minister-designate to prime minister.  In 2010, Nouri got a second term via the extra-constitutional and US-brokered Erbil Agreement so he didn't have to abide by the Constitution.

He refused to nominate people to head the three security ministries.  That includes the Ministry of the Interior which is over the federal police.  Let's say Nouri had wanted Chuck Hagel for that spot and Hagel had wanted that spot and taken Iraqi citizenship.  If Nouri had nominated him and Parliament had approved him, Chuck Hagel would be Minister of the Interior.  If Nouri decided he didn't want Chuck after the vote, Nouri had no say.

Hagel could stay on.  Hagel is not required to step down.  The only one who can remove Hagel from office is the Parliament.  So if Nouri nominates someone and the Parliament votes them into that office, they basically own that office for the full term.

Nouri staged a power grab -- unconstitutional and no one wanted to call it out and very few even wanted to mention it.  One exception would be CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq.  Another would be Nussaibah Younis whose October 2012 "Time to Get Tough on Iraq" (New York Times) offered a number of important observations including:


 
Even apart from the Syrian crisis, the United States should be getting tough on the Maliki regime to prevent Iraq's descent into authoritarianism. Although Prime Minister Maliki's first term had its successes, including the "Charge of the Knights" attack against Shiite militias in Basra in 2008, Prime Minister Maliki has become increasingly consumed by his own dictatorial ambitions. And a number of his actions have heightened sectarian tensions in Iraq. He cut a deal with the extremist Shiite party led by Moktada al-Sadr. He reneged on a promise to meaningfully include the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya list in government. He presided over what's being seen as a witch hunt against leading Sunni politicians, culminating in the sentencing to death in absentia of Iraq's vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi.
In addition, Mr. Maliki's government is plagued by incompetence, corruption and a contempt for human rights; ordinary citizens are fast losing confidence in the power of the democratic system. Mr. Maliki has further undermined Iraq's independent institutions, such as the electoral commission and the Iraqi central bank, by bringing them under his direct custodianship. And, most dangerously of all, he is concentrating power over Iraq's entire security apparatus in his hands by refusing to appoint permanent ministers to lead the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of the Interior and National Security Council. 



Nouri put puppets in as 'acting' ministers.  They're not ministers.  They do what he tells them or he pulls them out of the post.  They've never been voted on by Parliament so they can't act independently.  They have no real power.

They are the voice of Nouri.

Hopefully, we're all on the same page now and we can get to why that matters in terms of Barack's plan.

He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." 
The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? 
 Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. 
But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.
8 years. 8 years of training last November. And for Fiscal Year 2013, the State Dept wants $149.6 million dollars to train yet another year?
From that hearing:
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?

Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?

[long pause]

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye." Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

The State Dept still can't answer Ackerman's question: "When will they be willing to stand up without us?" They can't even answer his second question: "Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?"

The above coves two issues.  Let's grab the first one.  Didn't the US government already spend millions and spend years trying to train the forces?

What's different now?

I think an argument can be made that the mass desertions from the security forces -- nearly 400,000 deserted this month by some reports -- results from Iraqis in the security forces being conflicted about attacking their fellow citizens.  That happened in 2008 when Nouri sent security forces to attack Basra.  Some people are surely thinking "I don't want to get killed" and who could blame them for that?  But there's also the issue of Iraqis being asked to kill one another.

How do you deal with that?

I don't know that you do. Again, asking soldiers to attack their fellow citizens is always risking desertion -- that's been true in century after century, country after country.

It's worse in Iraq because you've had Nouri attacking Sunnis for everything in the last four years.  He ran off the Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and tortured Tareq's staff and bodyguards to try to get them to provide forced confessions -- at least one bodyguard died of kidney damage as a result of this torture. Further harming Nouri on just this one example,  Tareq was not only found guilty in absentia by a Baghdad court that had publicly declared his guilt months before the trial started but he was also repeatedly -- four or five times -- sentenced to death by this court.  That surpasses "excessive" and borders on "obsessive." Other Sunni politicians have been targeted, Sunni activists have been targeted, Sunnis have been disappeared into the prison systems leaving their families not even knowing if their loved ones are still alive, Sunni girls and women have been tortured and raped in Nouri's detention centers, jails and prisons . . .  It doesn't matter if you're Sunni or Shi'ite, that has to bother you.  So when Nouri orders an assault on Sunnis, all of that is factored in and weighs on those being ordered to carry out the asault.

For Barack's proposals to succeed at the most limited definition of success requires Nouri al-Maliki to step aside.  Training will be wasted -- US training -- and advising unless Nouri goes.

That's one issue from the above.  The above contains another issue as well.
Now let's talk about the 'acting' Minister of the Interior. That's Deputy Minister Adnan al-Asadi. He is one of the Iraqis Ranking Member Ackerman referred to in the November 30th hearing, "Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector Generals how utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that might be a clue."
Adnan al-Asadi was not Minister of the Interior.  He was 'acting' (for four years) and doing Nouri's bidding.
Adnan al-Asadi is who stated, to SIGIR, in 2012, that the US government should spend the money set aside for training Iraqi forces instead on programs in the US. Two years ago, Nouri didn't want training and assistance.  If this is news to you, you should refer to  the Office of the Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction's [PDF format warning] "Iraq Police Development Program: Lack Of Iraqi Support And Security Problems Raise Questions About The Continued Viability Of The Program."
That report found that the US State Dept had wasted ("de facto waste") approximately $206 million in training the Iraqi police since they took over October 1, 2011. How so? They spent $98 million on a Basra training facility and $108 million on a Baghdad training facility.
And what happened to those facilities?
The US taxpayers footed the bill and the State Dept, after Nouri made clear that there would be no training from the US, ended up abandoning the buildings and handing them over to the Iraqi government -- and Nouri didn't pay a penny for those facilities.
In real time, when this nonsense was taking place, there were some members of Congress asking why these fortified and new buildings weren't being turned over to NGOs or civic organizations in Iraq but instead were being gifted to the man who had killed the training program?
No answer was ever provided to that question.

 The US taxpayer spent millions on the construction of training facilities, on the presence of trainers, on scheduling training and Nouri's forces -- apparently on Nouri's orders -- didn't show up for training.
Now the US taxpayer is going to foot the bill again?
The Congress needs to find out the price tag on Barack's new Iraq mission.
The Congress needs to find out who's paying it.
Nouri asked for it.  He sits on billions, he can pay for it.
Why isn't he being asked to pay for it?
He's the one who rejected training after millions were spent constructing buildings, developing a training program and bringing over trainers.
Two years later, he's changed his mind?
Congress needs to find out the price tag.
Barack, as I recall, railed against the piece meal funding process, argued this hid the true financial cost of war.  He was right. But that's when he was a US senator.  Now that's he's president?  He gave a 946 word speech on his 'mission' yesterday that failed to note who would be footing the bill for this misadventure or how much it would cost?
The reality is, he doesn't know how much it's going to cost.
He failed to define how success would be measured or any other facet of the mission.
What's he's proposed is an open-ended mission.  It's very difficult to put a price tag on those.  It's even more difficult to control the costs on those 'missions.'
Back to Hillary, she needs to explain why the State Dept, under her leadership failed to get US land use agreements.  Hillary didn't run Iraq.  We noted that in real time.  Barack removed the direct oversight of the mission in Iraq from her.  But the land use agreements should have still fallen under her supervision.  
The failure to get land use agreements before the construction of US facilities in Iraq resulted in the loss of millions of dollars.  Hillary needs to answer how that happened.  It may very well turn out that she wasn't over that facet as well.  If so, she just needs to state that.  However, Patrick Kennedy was supposed to be over that and he served under Hillary and reported to Hillary so I do believe the failure to secure land use agreements before constructing US facilities falls on Hillary.  


As things fall apart in Iraq, Nicola Nasser (Dissident Voice) argues humanitarian interests or concerns wasn't the straw that broke US government support for Nouri, it was the lack of an oil and gas law:

 Anti-American armed resistance to the U.S. proxy ruling regime in Baghdad, especially the Baath-led backbone, is on record as seeking to return to the status quo ante with regard to the country’s strategic hydrocarbon assets; i.e., nationalization.
De-nationalization and privatization of the Iraqi oil and gas industry began with the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003. Al-Maliki, for eight years, could not pass a hydrocarbons law through the parliament. Popular opposition and a political system based on sectarian distribution of power and “federal” distribution of oil revenues blocked its adoption. Ruling by political majority instead by sectarian consensus was al-Maliki’s declared hope to enact the law.
Al-Maliki’s plans towards this end, together with his political ambitions for a third term, were cut short by the fall to armed opposition on June 10 of Mosul, the capital of the northern Ninawa governorate and second only to Baghdad as Iraq’s largest metropolitan area.


If that is the case, the planned US actions would be about little more than grabbing the oil.


Yesterday, US President Barack Obama announced his intent to send several hundred US troops to Iraq. William Deane (Our Missing News) explains, "Step-by-step: 300 combat advisors in route to Iraq, announced by President Obama at a news briefing this Thursday afternoon.   This on top of Monday's 275 troops, announced Monday to protect American Embassy personnel in Baghdad."  In addition to those numbers, there are also members of the Air Force that Barack has doing operations.  Brian Everstine (Air Force Times) points out, "The military is increasing surveillance flights over Iraq to identify possible targets for air strikes, President Obama said Thursday, while a team of airmen waits outside the country to set up and secure air operations if needed."

Amy Davidson (New Yorker) offers her critique here.  The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus offers this judgment, "The administration’s instinct to retreat and ignore festering problems has helped contribute to the cataclysmic result now playing out in Iraq. Yes, the original, far graver sin was the decision to invade. The responsibility of the incumbent president is to deal with the mistakes he inherits."

Domenico Montanaro, Terence Burlij, Rachel Wellford and Simone Pathe (PBS' The NewsHour) note, "But Americans aren’t convinced either of President Obama’s approach to these foreign hotspots. The conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine have taken a severe toll on the president’s standing. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this week found him with the lowest foreign policy approval of his presidency -- just 37 percent, down from 52 percent in Dec. 2012 right after he was re-elected."  Barack's speech Thursday has no poll results yet.  It's doubtful, however, just due to its low-key nature, to result in any positive bump to his numbers.  Often, there is a rally around the leader effect when US military actions are announced by a president, however, Barack failed to convey the mission and, most importantly, failed to convincingly express a rationale as to why US troops needed to be sent to Iraq.  More troubling, he failed to note the risks from his plan.  Aryn Baker (Time magazine) observes that attacking ISIS in Iraq could lead to realiation attacks within the US.

Lara Jakes (AP) offers an analysis of recent events.  Barak Mendelsohn (CNN) argues that Barack Obama's plan "is likely doomed."


More caution on Barack's plan came from a world leader.  Speaking to The Asia Society in New York today, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared:


 Developments in the past few days make it all too easy to imagine a spiral of attack and reprisal not seen in Iraq since 2006 and 2007.
The Sunni extremists of ISIS are trying to show that the Government in Baghdad, Iran and the United States are working together to support atrocities against Sunnis. This perception would help them mobilize support from the Sunni majority that does not share the extremists’ agenda. It is essential that the Government of Iraq and its supporters do everything possible to avoid falling into this trap. Military strikes against ISIS might have little lasting effect or even be counter-productive if there is no movement towards inclusive government in Iraq.
It is imperative for the Government and its backers to ensure that no reprisals are carried out against Sunni communities in revenge for the barbaric acts by ISIS. The ISIS is a threat to all communities in Iraq; all should now work together. Moderate Sunnis should make it clear that they are against terrorism. Kurds should not be seen as disengaging or benefitting from the ongoing chaos. And Shias - they should agree that the army is a national institution.
Sectarian warfare is a disaster for all. It generates a vicious circle of polarization and terrorism. It is crucial for the region’s leaders -- political and religious -- to call for restraint and avoid further contagion. I hope other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as other regional governments, can find ways to build bridges that promote calm and reconciliation.

The United Nations and I personally stand ready to take any initiative that those leaders would find helpful. The region is already wrestling with dramatic transition and the fallout of unrealized aspirations. The risk of massive sectarian violence beyond national borders compels us all to go the extra mile for peace.


Monday, Nickolay Mladenov (Ban Ki-Moon's Special Representative to Iraq) will meet with European Union to discuss events in Iraq. Also weighing in on Barack's plan is the Center for Constitutional Rights:


Center for Constitutional Rights Statement on Iraqi Crisis

press@ccrjustice.org


June 19, 2014, New York – In response to the current crisis in Iraq and calls for a U.S. military response, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:


The two catastrophic decades of U.S. military action in Iraq should put to rest any delusion that further U.S. military involvement of any kind can foster a lasting resolution to the current crisis. Any plan for security and reconciliation in Iraq must begin by bolstering the voices of the millions of Iraqi civilians who have been caught between brutal abuses by ISIS and other fundamentalist forces and the U.S.-backed government alike.
 
A strong civil society exists in Iraq despite enormous odds, and there is sustained opposition to the sectarian political system at the heart of this crisis and formally entrenched under the U.S. occupation. With the support of the U.S. government, Prime Minister Maliki further institutionalized violent discrimination and escalated sectarianism. Heeding calls for U.S. military action does not address the underlying political problem, but it could bring further disaster for civilians already reeling from the devastating effects of his policies and the decade-long U.S. military intervention and occupation.
 
The U.S. should be making reparations to rebuild the country and address the health and environmental crisis and decimation of Iraq’s infrastructure brought on by the previous administration’s illegal war. The U.S. government, which has been bombing Iraq since 1991, is in no small part responsible for what is happening today.  Further violence against the Iraqi people would be just as illegal and just as devastating, whether it involved airstrikes, the deployment of troops, or the expansion of an unlawful drone killing program.


Also today, CCR joined Iraqi and U.S. partners in the Right to Heal Initiative to send a letter to the State Department, which can be read here.

Attached Files
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Barack's speech yesterday contained a lot of words -- 946 of them  -- but it failed to answer the most basic question, one the editorial board of the Salem Statesman Journal noted earlier this week:

 But Americans also have a question, one that has lingered since Vietnam: "What are we fighting for?"
With each passing day in Afghanistan, and now again in Iraq, the answer seems murkier.


There has been no clarification on that -- none at all.  Worse, at a time when Nouri desperately wants US help, note that he's not changed a damn thing.  Barack's only real demand was that Nouri work on an inclusive government.  Not only has he note done that but he's getting complaints from Osama al-Nujaifi's Mottahidoon coalition (it's a Sunni coaltion led by Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi).  National Iraqi News Agency reports that the state-controlled channel Iraqiya is labeling various Sunni political leaders to be "terrorists and Dawish."  On the ground in Iraq today, Martha Raddatz (ABC News) reports:

Iraqi troops battling for control of the vital Baiji oil refinery are outnumbered, surrounded and trapped inside the facility, U.S. source told ABC News.
The battle for the refinery was in its fourth day today, although fighters for the radical Islamic militia ISIS have apparently taken control of much of the facility and are willing to keep the government forces isolated until they run out of food and ammunition, sources said.
"There is very little the Iraqi government can do to save or liberate those guys," a U.S. official told ABC News. 


Iraq Body Count counts 2,792 violent deaths through Thursday for the month of June so far.  I'd hoped we'd have time to get to the questions Barack was asked Thursday, but we didn't.  Maybe Monday.















 











 




cnn

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)