Hump day, hump day. We're almost to the weekend. Almost. Thanks to all who e-mailed saying they were sick of the winter as well. It's lasted too damn long. It's March. Bye-bye winter.
I've had a song going through my head all day. "I can't really say why everybody wishes they were somehwere else but in the end the only steps that matter are the ones you take all by yourself. And you and me, walk on, walk on, walk on. And you and me, walk on, walk on, walk on. Cause you can't go back now." It's "Can't Go Back Now" from The Weepies' Hideaway. I really love that song.
Okay, Boston Globe is reporting:
Not so many years ago, the idea of Queen Elizabeth II granting Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy an honorary knighthood would have been hard for Irish-Americans and Britons alike to imagine -- and hard for some to swallow.
Today, when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told a joint session of Congress that Kennedy was being so honored, there was nothing but applause in the chamber, and only minimal grumbling elsewhere over the British accolade for the icon of Irish-Catholic politics in America.
Oh, that's so f**king sweet. First off, did you ever think that maybe the Irish should be offended that Teddy's accepting the honor? Did you ever think that? Second of all did everyone forget this part of the Constitution:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Kind of clear and I don't understand why Congress should be waiving stuff through. Ted, you've held on to that seat you should have been kicked out of all this time because we thought you were a son of Big Mass. If you're not, get the hell out of the seat old man.
I'm really offended by this. 1) I find it offensive that a US Senator -- a lifetime Senator -- would need a title from a foreign government. 2) After all that has gone on between England and Ireland, it takes a special kind of spineless suck up to take a title from them. Ted is offensive.
Could he retire before he does anything more embarrassing than this?
Just step down, Ted. We all know you aren't up for doing any work. We all know your days are limited. Leave now. Already.
Okay, that's my pathetic senator and my pathetic political party. This is the Green Party:
TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ
The Green Party called Mr. Obama's plan to call home many (not all) US troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010 a minimal and probably ineffectual step towards ending the war."President Obama's intention to leave a residual force of between 35,000 and 50,000 troops and permanent US bases in Iraq indicates that the occupation won't really end, and that the Obama White House, like the last administration, wants to protect US corporate interests in Iraq, namely oil," said Mark Dunlea, former chair of the Green Party of New York State.
"The illegal US invasion of Iraq, based on a litany of deceptions, has resulted in the destruction of the country and deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, as well as over 4,000 US troops. The only acceptable order from President Obama is one calling home all US military personnel and contractors immediately, to give the Iraqi people the chance to rebuild without interference," added Jody Grage, founder of Seattle's Nonviolent Peacekeeper Pool and treasurer of the Green Party of the United States.
Green Party leaders said that a quick withdrawal of US troops, combined with a reduction in military funding, would also free up hundreds of billions of dollars in funding that could help jumpstart the suffering US economy.
MORE TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN
The Green Party opposes President Obama's plan to send 17,000 more US troops to Afghanistan and his request for increased military spending.
The results of the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan have so far been widespread civilian casualties from air attacks, massive physical destruction, the fracturing of the country under different ethnic and religious leaders, and the reemergence of the Taliban. Greens said that the troop escalation would very likely lead to greater anti-American sentiment and less chance for security and a better life for the Afghan people. Green Party leaders said that regional problems were more likely to be resolved through diplomacy and international cooperation, and that the 9/11 attacks required international investigation and prosecution, given numerous unanswered questions about the attacks (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_09_11.shtml).
See also "Greens call for US troop withdrawal on the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan," press release, October 15, 2007 (http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_10_15.shtml).
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, March 4, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the RAND report gets some attention, Barack offers pretty words instead of action on gays in the military, a sheik is assassinated in Iraq, an 'analysis' of draw down leads one to lie and one to reinvent on Pacifica, and more.
This morning Thomas E. Ricks appeared on NPR's Morning Edition to discuss his new book The Gamble with Steve Inskeep:
Steve Inskeep: If you think the war in Iraq is a disaster and the US cannot leave soon enough, Ricks offers you no comfort. If you think the surge of troops led to victory, Ricks will not comfort you either. As we're about to hear, his book presents the war very differently than it looks in the headlines. If you don't mind, I'd like to begin at the end.
Thomas E. Ricks: Sure.
Steve Inskeep: You have a much noted quote at the end of the book which is?
Thomas E. Ricks: "The events for which this war will be remembered have not yet happened."
Steve Inskeep: What does that mean?
Thomas E. Ricks: It's actually a thought that came from Ambassador Ryan Crocker, top diplomat out in Iraq, who said it to me first in January 2008 and then when I did my last interview with him in November. The prism through which we view this war has not yet been built. We don't know how this thing comes out, so we don't know how to view this.
Steve Inskeep: When I hear that quote the first thing that comes to my head is that after almost six years, it's just beginning?
Thomas E. Ricks: I think we may just be half-way through this war. I know President Obama thinks he's going to get all troops out by the end of 2011. I don't know anybody in Baghdad who thinks that's going to happen. I think Iraq is going to change Obama more than Obama changes Iraq. The plan they had in Baghdad last summer was about 35,000 troops to be there for several years. General [Ray] Odierno says in the book that he would like to see 35,000 troops there in the year 2015 and that would be well into what is Obama's second term. 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.
Steve Inskeep: I want to explore the implications of that but first to understand why the military people you're talking with would think this way? Because it's been observed from Washington and, in fact, it's observed in your book that the so-called surge of troops was in many ways successful, the amount of violence is down dramatically in Iraq, their electing people, things are happening in Iraq, why should we not feel that the war has been concluded -- whether you want to say victory or not, that it's over?
Thomas E. Ricks: The surge worked tacticly. It improved security enormously but it didn't succeed strategically, politically. And that was its larger goal. What you see in Iraq is a lot of people who think Obama by talking about getting out of Iraq quickly is not departing from Bush but repeating Bush's mistake. I think Bush's core mistake in many ways was persistant, unwarranted optimism about Iraq. The original US war plan was to be down to 30,000 troops by September 2003 and so by Obama saying August 2010 is very much on that same path I think.
Steve Inskeep: I think that some people listening to this may be trying to figure out where you're standing politically here and I have a feeling it's going to be difficult for people to figure out because you have written quite critically of the war, uhm, but you're saying the president is not right in trying to get out.
Thomas E. Ricks: I don't know if there's a political label to be put on it. I think you can call it uncomfortable more than anything else. I do think this war was the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy. I think it's a tragedy. I think that George Bush's mistakes are something we're going to be paying for for decades. We don't yet understand how big a mistake this is. And I think that because it was such a tragic mistake, everything that flows from it is the fruit of the poison tree. So the question is what is the least bad solution and I think staying in Iraq with a smaller force probably is that answer.
That's a transcript of almost the first half. The link is audio only but it does contain an excerpt from the book. Ashley Smith (CounterPunch) offers a strong critique of the book, highlighting what he sees as its weaknesses and strengths and we're noting this from the opening:
Obama extended his promised timeframe for withdrawing "combat troops" to 19 months. But even more telling is the aspect of Obama's policy that remained vague during the campaign--plans for a "residual force" of up to 50,000 soldiers to remain in Iraq through at least 2011.
This isn't a plan to end the occupation of Iraq, but to continue it in another form.
"You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. "You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history."
Obama's policy on Iraq has been shaped by a new consensus that has developed among the U.S. political establishment over the past year and a half. It holds that the surge of U.S. troops ordered by George W. Bush in 2007 stabilized the country, the war is now winding down, and the U.S. occupation will soon come to an end.
This is all an illusion--and a new book by Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post journalist and author of Fiasco, about the disaster of the U.S. invasion and the early years of the occupation, shows why, even if Ricks himself doesn't draw all those conclusions.
That's not really a critique of the book! Use the link. We need truth tellers and Ashley is one. At a time when so many are Cultist, we need that more than the critique. (It's an important critique, I'm not dismissing it. I'm noting that there are too may liars and cheerleaders and water boys for Barack.) We need some intelligence as well and there's damn little to be found on Democracy Now! where we had Jeremy Scahill trying to reinvent history and Larry Korb either lying outright or senile. (We have never praised Korb and we would never do so.)
Korb repeats the lie that the Iraqi government forced something off on the US with the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement. LIE. The White House got what they wanted. If they had not, they would not have signed it. The White House held all the cards as everyone in Congress knew -- even those objecting to the treaty (which had no approval from the US Congress). Nouri couldn't survive a day in Iraq without the support of the US. Anything that the White House didn't want in, they could nix and threaten to walk away. Iraq's military remains dysfunctional and without a military (currently the US military) propping him up, al-Maliki's head would most likely be on a stick in the center of Baghdad. He had no position of power and how insane and offensive for Korb (and others, toss in Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn) to pretend otherwise. Iraq is an occupied country, occupied by the US. Quit providing cover for the occupation -- and all the humilitation that entails -- by lying.
Larry Korb: "The other [thing to remember] is the Iraqi people get to vote this summer on a referendum about whether they want to support the Status of Forces Agreement. If they decide not to, all the forces have to be out withing a year." Really? Show me where the hell that is in the agreement? Let me help the idiot Larry Korb, you would go to Article 30 of the SOFA. Now, granted, you can't do that very easily because Barack's wiped it off the White House website. I wasn't joking or using hyperbole when I said Barack's people had trashed the White House website. They trashed it. Documents that were historical and significant -- and highly significant if charges were brought against George W. Bush -- are gone, pulled from the public record. We have a copy of the treaty here. This is the US version, released by the White House. Article 30 covers how the contract can be terminated. Larry Korb, find where it says that the treaty requires the approval of the Iraqi people? It doesn't say that. You add something to a contract, you put it into the contract or you didn't add it. That's basic contract law and if you don't know the law don't try to discuss it. The Parliament voted to approve the treaty. The presidency council signed off on it. It can be broken -- as outlined in Article 30 -- at any point. But there's no guarantee that a vote by the people (which isn't required by the treaty or by Iraq's Constitution) will result in the treaty being broken. And who's paying for that vote, Larry? Voting costs money. al-Maliki's whining about shortfalls. Who is paying for national election in July? And how long before they have to start getting ready for such a vote? The KRG's holding provincial elections in May and they're already in that process.
We could pick through Larry's falsehoods bit by bit but he's as uninformed as he is boring so we'll wrap up with him on this: "The final thing is, come 1 July, our forces are out of the cities, they're out of the towns. They're basically back on their bases." Really? Because that's allegedly a "goal" now. And it taking place is disputed by US commanders on the ground in Iraq. Now I realize that the treaty passed the Parliament on Thanksgiving Day and that Panhandle Media is a bunch of rejects who couldn't work in real media because they have sloppy work habits (to put it mildly) but at some point, when Thanksgiving is over, you either read the contract or you don't. And if you don't, you don't jawbone about it. We covered it, when it passed the Parliament. Not the day after or the next week. November 27, 2008 snapshot has it. We went through it bit by bit. And we did it with that version, released by the White House, because it was already known -- and US Congressional testimony had repeatedly made this point clear -- that the Iraqis were given another draft of it, a different one, weeks earlier. That wasn't the official draft. It is the draft many have 'analyzed.' A draft is meaningless if a subsequent version replaces it. When the final draft came along, all the previous ones could be trashed.
So we're done with Larry Korb and if the CAP had any self-respect, they'd be done with him as well. Which brings us to Jeremy Scahill. Jeremy, you make it so hard to applaud when you can't stop lying. Jeremy's analysis is stronger than Larry's. But he's not content with that, he has to reinvent history. Specifically, he has to reinvent his own actions. We're not playing that game Jeremy. You want to earn some respect, earn it. You're not going to lie your way to it and have us sit silent. Here's Jeremey, disgracing himself by lying:
But the fact that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer all acted like astonished that there's going to be 35,000 to 50,000 troops in a residual capacity in Iraq and were criticizing this, I mean, this is a classic example of what's wrong with the Democratic Party when it comes to foreign policy and what's been wrong with this party for a long time. And that is that when it actually mattered, when Pelosi or Reid could have said to candidate Obama, "Back off that residual force," as many activists were calling for, they were deafeningly silent.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should have been calling for Barack to do that? Really? I kind of think so-called 'independent' journalists should have been holding Barack accountable but we didn't see that, did we, Jeremy? We saw you attack Hillary for proposing that all mercenaries be banned from Iraq. We saw you excuse away Barack's refusal to make the same call Hillary did. Hillary did what you wanted and you attacked her, and you ripped her apart and, in your TV work, you had that smug little grin on your face while you did it. You lied for Barack and you covered for him and you did so, tell the people, because Samantha Power was returning your phone calls and you felt included. You were part of something! Samantha was an advisor to Barack! And she would take your calls! Well, she'd return them. She was too busy to actually take your calls. But, whatever, you and Amy were so thrilled and you both pimped her as the next Secretary of State. Here's more reinvention from Jerry Scahill:
We were at the Democratic convention, Amy, walking around, trying to find anyone to criticize that aspect of the Obama policy, and not even antiwar Democrats, who were firmly against the war from the beginning, would dissent from the policy positions of the dear leader. This is cult activity, when you refuse to go after someone to try to criticize their policies when it matters and then later act like you've been hoodwinked. They knew exactly what was going on.
Really? Because Amy Goodman had a woman on who was attempting to criticize Barack. Do you remember what happened, Jeremy? Amy cut her off repeatedly. Amy wouldn't let Sacha Millstone speak and Amy even flat out lied. Amy accused the woman of saying she'd vote for John McCain when the woman said no such thing. It was Sacha, not Amy, who had to point out that America's choices are not limited to Barack or John McCain. Amy carried Barack's water in the same way you're accusing the Democrats of doing. No one in Denver -- that's where the convention was -- to speak out!!!! Really. Well maybe you and Amy should have covered the rally Ralph Nader and others (Rosa Clemente, the Green Party's vice presidential nominee spoke at it) held during the DNC, right there in Denver. But you didn't cover that. P.S. Samantha laughed at you. She bragged to the campaign about her "seduction" (that was the term) of you. (And for those late to the party, she didn't sleep with him nor was she implying she did. She seduced with the prospect of access to the campaign.) She turned you into a joke at the highest levels of Barack's campaign. Excuse me, you allowed her to turn you into a joke. Don't show up all this time after and think you can rewrite history. It's not that easy.
Jeremy tosses around Bob Somerby's term ("Dear leader") today and offers a strong critique of Barack's craven 'plan.' Had he stuck to that, we might have let him slide. But when he tries to push the responsibility for his own misdeeds off on others? We're not in the mood to play that game. Without Jeremy covering for him, Barack might not be where he is now. Own it.
Those who want to own their part in ending the illegal war can take part in an action this month led by The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Need another reason to take part? Here's Eric Margolis (Toronto Sun) breaking it down:
President Obama says U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq by the end of 2011. However, the U.S. military occupation will not end. What we are seeing is a public relations shell game.The U.S. has 142,000 soldiers and nearly 100,000 mercenaries occupying Iraq. Obama's plan calls for withdrawing the larger portion of the U.S. garrison but leaving 50,000-60,000 troops in Iraq.To get around his promise to withdraw all "combat" troops, the president and his advisers are rebranding the stay-behind garrison as "training troops, protection for American interests, and counterterrorism forces."At a time when the U.S. is bankrupt and faces a $1.75 trillion deficit, the Pentagon's gargantuan $664 billion budget (50% of total global military spending) will grow in 2009 and 2010 by another $200 billion to pay for the occupation of Iraq and Obama's expanded war in Afghanistan. Throw in another $40 billion to $50 billion for the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
Larry Korb wanted to tell the world what the SOFA said -- a document he clearly hasn't read. One thing is said was that Iraqi prisoners would be turned over to Iraq. (Article 22, specifically section four of Article 22). So how's that working for Iraq? Yesterday the US military announced that they're 'only' holding 13,832 prisoners. "Last month," the announcement states, "Task Force 134 Detainee Operations began releasing an average 50 detainees a day in accordance with the Security Agreement. The signed agreement between the U.S. and the GOI requires all deatinees to be released in a safe and orderly manner or transferred to Iraqi custody pursuant to a judicial order."
Flipping from prisoners to refugees, at the US State Department today, spokesperson Gordon Duguid was asked about Iraqi refugees in the US and stated, "Once anyone arrives in the US, they have the same rights and privileges as all American citizens. We will ask the relevant office here, Ambassador Foley's office, what beyond that the United States can provide to Iraqi refugees. But that is as far as I can go." The State Dept followed up after the press conference explaining "Refugees in the US receive refugee benefits from the Department of State, then state welfare benefits through the Department of Health and Human Services." Asked whether they could travel to Iraq (actually, asked if they could return, but it was seen interpreted as travel to), Duguid responded that there weren't any restrictions. The State Dept followed up after the press conference noting, "To return to the US, refugees must have obtained a 'permission to return' from USCIS (US Citizenship and Immigration Services) office before departing the US." [Video is currently up, transcript should be up shortly.] Meanwhile AFP reports Germany is expecting 400 refugees from Jordan and Syria and that these 400 are part of 2,500 Iraqi refugees Germany intends to welcome." In all, Europe intends to welcome 10,000 Iraqi refugees. There are approximately two million external Iraqi refugees and 2.5 million internal Iraqi refugees according to United Nations estimates. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail has posted photos of the living conditions for some internal Iraqi refugees.
Turning to Iraqi politics, The Iraqi Islamic Party (IPP) is the party of Iraq's vice president Tariq al-Hashimi. It was in the news most recently when thugs ("Awakening") demanded the vote in Anbar Province's provincial election be 'fixed' by the so-called election commission. The thugs got their way. IPP is back in the news cycle. Alaa Majeed (UPI) reports they have spoken out against the visit by the chair of Iran's Assembly of Experts, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani: "IIP members said the visit is unwelcome and called on the Iraqi government to launch an investigation into Iranian interference in Iraqi internal affairs, which some say brought the war-torn country to the brink of civil conflict." AFP reports that demonstrations against Rafsanjani's visit took place in Ramadi today with people carrying banners which read "The criminal Rafsanjani is a symbol of aggression and evil in Iraq" and "Rafsanjani's visit is inauspicious, a humilitation and a stain on the soild of Iraqi." UPI notes that (Sunni) Vice President al-Hashimi "did not attend a welcoming ceremony for Rafsanjani." Alaa Majeed (UPI) adds that there is now a push by by Shi'ite cleric Salih al-Haidari to 'encourage' al-Hashimi to meet with Rafsanjani.
While that gets sorted out, a sheik was targeted in Iraq today. Al Bawaba notes an attack on a Sheik outside Samarra. Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that the attack took place in Salahuddin Province (village of Tal al Thahab), utilized two sticky bombs attached beneath the sheik's vehicle and claimed the lives of Sheik Dhiab, "his mother, brother and son". Reuters states there were four dead but describe them as the sheik, "his wife and two children".
In other violence today . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad suicide bombing which claimed the lives of 2 police officers, the bomber and left twelve people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left three people injured, and a Mosul suicide bombing which claimed the lives of 2 police officers, the bomber and left ten people injured/
Shootings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 16-year-old male shot dead in Mosul. Reuters notes an attorney shot dead in Kirkuk and 1 Iraqi soldier shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in outside Kirkuk.
Today AP's Lara Jakes reports on the US military's 'soft power' which is really counter-insurgency. At some point, maybe long after the illegal war is over, people are going to have get honest about what was done in Iraq. The Washington Post takes a step towards an elevated honesty by noting today "the resilience of al-Qaeda in Iraq and other groups". Maybe that's a sign of some maturity and honesty to come down the pike? As noted in Monday and Tuesday's snapshots, Wikileaks has posted a RAND study. The November 2008 study was written by Russell W. Glenn and S. Jamie Gayton, is over 300 pages and [PDF format warning] entitled "Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fourth in a Series of Joint Urban Operations and Counterinsurgency Studies." The RAND study makes clear that the 'enemy' is more complex than the media tends to portray it as they toss around "al Qaeada in Mesopatamia" or "al Qaeda in Iraq" or (David Martin, CBS News) "al Qaeda." We'll note two sections from the RAND study. First from page two:The many overlapping insurgent, terrorist, criminal, and other foes that together comprise the heterogeneous enemy in Iraq -- and an only somewhat less varied one in Afghanistan -- continue to feed on their damaged societies. What appear to be randmo bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities sometimes constitute a well-conceived insurgent campaign of exhaustion.And from page fourteen:Previous U.S. experiences with COIN operations demonstrate how difficult it is to obtain informaion on even a single insurgent threat. Consider the situation confronted in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. In that case, a single, coherent entity dominated threat analysis from the macro perspective (though it might have several interacting components, e.g., the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong, of VC). In Iraq, the number of insurgent organizations alone makes intel collection and analysis several orders of magnitude more problematic. Add criminal, terrorist, supposedly legitimate political, rogue military and police, or other threats and the task is yet further quantum levels more difficult.Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) reports on the RAND report and observes:
Written in what can best be described as something akin to a technical writing assignment, the report echoes the recent statements from US generals in the Iraq/Afghan theaters and is reflected in the recent decision by Barack Obama to reduce the numbers of US troops in Iraq to 50,000 over the next 16 months and escalate the battle to subdue Afghanistan. If there is one thing that this document makes clear, it is that the Pentagon and its civilian enablers have no intention of leaving Iraq or Afghanistan on their own. Furthermore, it is their intention to take the lessons they believe they have learned in those two countries and apply them to Pakistan and wherever else their manifest destiny compels them to subdue.
This is not the Pentagon Papers of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations/wars. It is a document that hides the nature of the US operations in those countries behind an emasculated technospeak, rendering the true nature of the killing and destruction done in the name of the people of the US and the west. The contemporary version of the policy discussions that were revealed in the Pentagon Papers about the US operation in Vietnam are not here. Nor are the cables and directives that sent men off to kill and die. Those documents have yet to be uncovered. The usefulness of this report is in its look into the mindset of a modern imperial machine: a machine that never questions its mission or the human misery it causes but keeps its mind trained only on how to carry out that mission as efficiently as possible. The banality of the evil of modern warfare is contained in every neutered sentence of this document and the thousands of others like them. It is repeated in the newspeak of government officials and the sycophantic media that reports their words without challenging their consequences. The circle of complicity continues is completed when the public accepts the arguments made by those officials and media as being the only argument that exists.
Meanwhile Anne Flaherty (AP) looks into where Barack's campaign promise of lifting the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the US military openly stands currently and discovers
lip service and not much more: "The move enables Obama to say he's making good on his campaign promise to reverse the law, but doesn't lock him into doing so anytime soon. The carefully calculated statement, released this week by White House spokesman Tommy Vietor, leaves enough wiggle room to prevent the hot-button issue from consuming Obama's foreign policy agenda". While Barack does nothing, people suffer. Malcolm Garcia (McClatchy Newspapers) reported last month on Amy Brian -- the latest known person kicked out of the US military for being gay. She told him, "I got along with everybody. My close friends knew I was gay. I never said it -- it was just known and wasn't a problem." Until someone decided it was an 'issue' and she was kicked out. Garcia noted 2008 figures were not yet available but at least 12,500 gays and lesbians have been discharged for their sexuality since 1994.
Lastly, Black Agenda Report is sporting a redesign. And, as always, also sporting hard hitting articles. Example, former US House Representative and Green Party 2008 presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney writes:
So, it's clear. I'm about to step into marshy soil here, by noting that I found 19 questionable Obama policies or statements in his Joint Congressional speech delivered three days before his announcement that upon the end of the U.S. combat mission in Iraq, up to 50,000 U.S. troops could remain through 2011, after the "pullout."
And while various "mint" operations are peddling Obama "Change" coins for purchase, complete with a certificate of authenticity, I wade further into the muck by noting that the President continues the giveaway of our hard-earned coins to an economic team intent on keeping mismanagement structures in place, serving economic ends that do not constitute the common good. I would refer readers to the many statements that I issued during the final days of our Power to the People Green Party Presidential campaign about re-creating an economic system truly and finally owned by the people, operating in our interest. It is possible to do that. All it requires is enough political will.
But what forces me out into the open marshland of "non-mainstream" political punditry has to do with the latest Obama "pullout": the decision to withdraw from the April 2009 Geneva United Nations World Conference Against Racism, dubbed Durban II.
We heard the same palaver in 2001 from the same forces inside our country, basically that a discussion of Zionism, in the context of such a Conference, would be anti-Semitic; therefore all the world's dispossessed and marginalized people must continue to suffer and sacrifice while muting their grievances so that no discussion of Israel would take place on the world stage in this context.
Well, in 2001, upon hearing this line of reasoning, I went to then-Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and asked if I could be appointed as the CBC Task Force Chair on Durban. The non-participation argument was also a handy "peg on the track" with the potential of derailing many conversations, including a real discussion about the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and the issue of reparations. Respectful of the excellent preparatory work that had been done, I wanted to avoid that outcome.
iraq
nprmorning edition
thomas e. ricks
ron jacobsashley smith
dahr jamail
alaa majeed
eric margolis
the washington post
mcclatchy newspapershussein kadhim
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
AP gets creative with figures for violence
Tuesday. I want winter to be over so bad. Am I the only one? It seems like it has been winter forever and ever. I want some heat. It's too cold. I was in the grocery store yesterday, in the frozen foods, and this man asks, "Are you cold?" I didn't realize my teeth were chattering. But they were. I want spring. Where is spring?
Okay, to cheer up, here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Shutting Down The Domestic Arts Czar""
And that's how Al Distraction's reign as Domestic Arts Czar ends, Huey (Boondocks) sends him packing. If only Huey could also send the War Hawks packing. This is from Debra Sweet's "Continuing Occupations, “Good” Wars, and the Wartime President:"
Thursday, Obama announced plans to remove some troops from Iraq over a 19 month period, unless the generals advise him otherwise. The remaining 30,000 to 50,000 troops will be re-named “advisors” and stay indefinitely; the 17 US bases will remain in US control.
Those who are breathing a sigh of relief that US troops are being slowly removed from Iraq should stop and realize that this is part of an overall strategy to deepen and strengthen, not end, US domination of the region. Those who think our job is to “help” Barack Obama carry out this plan are not looking at the interests of the people here, or in the Middle East, in stopping this occupation immediately.
From World Can’t Wait Steering Committee member Elaine Brower: It’s NOT OK!
“As I sit here tonight listening to the crap about extending troop withdrawal 19 months, instead of 16 months, and keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq as so called “advisers” or “trainers” or whatever they want to nickname them, I am outraged! I expected this, but did you? This is wrong. The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq.
And as Barack lies, AP shows how to spin. Read this sentence and prepare for the quiz after: "Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces last month hit their second-lowest level in nearly four years with 283 deaths linked to war-related violence, according to an Associated Press tally." The lowest month must have been January because by figures the Iraqi government released (so they are undercounting), February was up 35% from January. So AP choses to lead with that propaganda as opposed to leading with reality: "Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces rose 35% last month." My sentence would be news. What AP offers? Propaganda?
Speaking of propaganda: Tom Hayden. What's "The difference between Tom Hayden and a turd"? That's my Dad's riddle that my mother included in her post last night. The answer is: A turd flushes down. :D I love my dad. :D Ma and I are both noting C.I.'s "The failures of the Tom Haydens" tonight because it is hilarious and true. Way to go, C.I.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 3, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Iran and Iraq get cozy, some voices speak out against the continued war on Iraq, one soldier won't have to deploy to Iraq, and more.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-North Soldier died from injuries sustained during an indirect fire attack in Mosul, Iraq, Mar. 3. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the U.S. Department of Defense." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4255.
The deaths continue to mount because the illegal war continues and that's because a War Hawk is in the White House. That last one was George W. Bush, the current one is Barack H. Obama. Jack A. Smith (Dissident Voice) observes:
In the last two weeks of February, President Barack Obama -- upon whom so many peace supporters had counted to change Washington's commitment to wars and militarism -- delivered these three blows to his antiwar constituency:
1. By ordering 17,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan Feb. 17, President Obama is continuing and expanding George W. Bush's war. It's Obama's war now, and it's getting much bigger.
2. By declaring Feb. 27 that up to 50,000 U.S. soldiers would remain in Iraq after "combat brigades" departed, President Obama is continuing the war in a country that remains a tragic victim of the Bush Administration's aggression and which has taken the lives of over a million Iraqi civilians and has made refugees of 4.5 million people.
3. By announcing Feb. 26 that his projected 2010 Pentagon budget was to be even higher than budgets sought by the Bush Administration, President Obama was signaling that his commitment to the U.S. bloated war machine -- even at a time of serious economic recession -- was not to be questioned.
Whether or not Obama's actions will revive the peace movement is another matter. Antiwar activism during the election year was minimal. And now that a Democrat is in the White House it may be further reduced, since most peace backers voted for Obama. The movement's strength will be tested at the demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities on the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war March 21.
The actions are being led by The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
In his Dissident Voice article, Jack A. Smith goes on to cite two polls which may or may not be enough to determine public sentiment but what is known is that when gatekeepers grab the rulers and slap the wrists of the people, it takes longer for the ball to get rolling. For example, in August 2001, Bully Boy Bush was a joke. Then came 9-11 and, with it, the self-appointed guardians of discousre. They're out in full force again and this time their names include Tom Hayden. They can try to slow the awakening that's coming, but that's all their cheerleading and garbage will do, slow the awakening. Smith lists multiple cowards and also notes a recent column, Justin Ramondo's "The Silence of the Liberals" (Anti-war.com; this is the column Marcia highlighted last week):Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."In short: we aren't leaving.
The embarrassing, aging tool Tom Hayden showed up yesterday to tell the world he still loves Barack. And that's fine, Tom-Tom but don't confuse your love and lust with actual activism. As we noted at Third on Sunday:
So to Tom-Tom, Carl Davidson, Jeffy Cohen, Leslie Cagan, Medea and all the other wet-pantied, lovesick fools, we urge you to declare your love for Barack, to work towards bedding down with Barack and to stop pretending you are a part of -- let alone a leader of -- the peace movement. Just walk right up to him and say, "Barack, this circus ride goes round and round with you or without you but it'd be cool if you'd hop on and give a spin.. You won't regret it." Who knows what will happen? But, lovelies, we'd caution to be sure Michelle's not in ear shot when you proposition Barack. And we again remind you . . . Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin' Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start That won't get you into his heart
The sooner you start openly working on what . . . excuse us, on who you want and stop pretending to give a damn about Iraq, the better it will be for the real peace movement.
Who knew that in 2009, the tired and deceitful 'leaders' would attempt to pass drooling off as 'action'? ("Wishin' And Hopin'" written by Hal David and Burt Bacharach, most famously sung by Dusty Springfield.) While Tom Hayden rushes around with his tongue out and his hands down his pants, Alan Bjerga (Bloomberg News) reports not everyone's thinking with their loins, George McGovern's actually speaking out:
McGovern, 86, said he supports Obama's plan to increase spending to stimulate the U.S. economy, while faulting the president for his willingness to keep troops in Iraq. Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 makes him "exactly the same" as former President George W. Bush in his conduct of the war and continues to spend money needed for economic recovery. "What's the change?" McGovern said. "Guys are still dying over there. Guys are coming home with mental and emotional problems that will linger on for years."
As Ruth observed last night, "Poor Tom Hayden. George McGovern could not have chosen a worse time to speak out for Tom Hayden. Mr. Hayden is spit polishing Barack's knob today as per usual. (My grandson Jayson will love that I have included that phrase in the previous sentence.) And along comes George McGovern who is everything Mr. Hayden wanted to be but never managed to pull off. Poor Tom Hayden. Believe your daddy just sent you to your room without dinner." Or as Rebecca put it, "tom hayden, what an embarrassment. and he looks all the more childish when mcgovern can do what hayden won't. mcgovern endorsed barack. he didn't just endorse barack, he took back his endorsement of hillary to endorse barack. and here mcgovern is calling out barack while tom hayden wonders whether to let barack go balls deep or not."
The country's got more than a bunch of aging bobby soxers like Leslie Cagan, Tom Hayden, et al getting all wet-pantied for Barack. In the real world Barack's draw down has resulted in some showing a spine. John Yaukey (Gannet via Honlulu Advertiser) reports that US House Rep Neil Abercrombie told CNN that US forces on the ground in Iraq need to "be leaving faster than President Obama has ordered" and the quote is, "I think it can be done faster." Yaukey observes, "Abercrombie's comments signal what could become a growing rift between some Democrats and Obama on policy in Iraq." Abercrombie also questioned Barack's claim that the 'surge' was a success stating, "we Bribed people. We paid people not to kill us." Abercrombie is not lying. He is not being inflamatory. He is repeating what US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and General David Petreaus repeatedly told Congress in the days of testimony back at the start of April. (Here, we called Petreaus and Crocker's 'logic' the fork-over-the-lunch-money-so-no-one-gets-beat-up policy.) On the same topic, Mark Johnson, Ryan Beckwith and Steven Thomma (McClatchy Newspapers) report on some of the Democrats speaking out including US House Rep Lynn Woolsey ("I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that a force of 50,000 troops could remain in Iraq. This is unacceptable.") and US House Rep Dennis Kucinich ("You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history."). Senator Russ Feingold is also quoted but that's the statment we quoted three times last week. With another perspective on the Iraq War, Endy M. Bayuni (Washington Post's Post Global) offers:It took years for Americans to realize that it was a war they could not win. Nixon and Kissinger agonized over whether to cut the country's losses and leave Vietnam, or stay and maintain America's integrity, pride and international standing.In the end, it was public opinion in America that forced the United States government to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. It was not so much the thought of the Vietnamese death toll as the rising death toll of young Americans drafted into the military that turned the public opinion against its own government.Americans suffered the humiliation of a war defeat as it never had before. One would expect that that trauma and scar would have been enough to prevent the United States from launching another war in a foreign land. Bush and Cheney did not read history well, and they took America to another war some 40 years later, which is where we are today: a war America cannot win, and an ethnic war just waiting to erupt as soon as American troops pull out.The real question to ask is not whether the United States should send the soldiers back if ethnic strife returns in Iraq. The problem of Iraq is for the Iraqis to solve, and for its immediate neighbors to help. Unless Americans are still thinking of controlling Iraq's oil, they really have no business meddling in Iraqi politics.
Bayuni is the chief editor of The Jakarta Post. And in this age of Barack the War Hawk, the US military breathlessly announces: "A team of Soldiers from Alpha Troop, 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, made history Feb. 23 when the unmanned aerial vehicle they were operating became the first armed Warrior Alpha unmanned aerial system to fire missiles in combat." Staff Sgt. Jerry Rhoades is quoted stating, "We neutralized both targets" and those targets included "insurgents." What a proud moment for Barack. Some presidents can just hope for creating long lasting global tensions like a cold war but Barack can take pride in the fact that more ways of death destruction are being discovered on his watch.
While War Hawk Barack can take pride in additional destruction abilities, ties increase between Iraq and one of its neighbors. "We hope occupation of Iraq will end as soon as possible and the Iraqi people will build a unified and independent state without presence of aliens and successfully achieve development," the Tehran Times quotes Iranian Chair of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani declaring Monday in a Baghdad press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Alsumaria explains: "Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki who welcomed the Iranian guest emphasized the importance of exchanging visits between both countries on high levels. Al Maliki asserted that Iranian-Iraqi relations have overcome the effects of the former regime polices noting that Iraq is keen on establishing optimal relations with neighboring countries." The Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO aka People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran) was raised by Talabani, according to Xinhau which reports he declared he wants them out of Iraq. Xinhau also notes that the two met at Talabani's "residence at the edge of the heavily fortified Green Zone in Central Baghdad" as Rafasnjani began his "first visit to Iraq since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979." UPI notes the increased ties between the two countries: "Both countries reached a series of agreements during the visit, which brought a series of top officials to Iran. For his part, Fawzi Hariri, the Iraqi minister of industry, signed a memorandum of understanding with his Iranian counterpart, Ali-Akbar Mehrabian, to expand ties in the mining industry.Iran's judiciary chief, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, also welcomed renewed ties between the neighboring countries, adding that Iraq's progress promises "a brilliant prospect" for improved relations." This in addition, Hurriyet reminds, to the "four-way electricity network" between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey that was announced on Saturday. Prensa Latina notes that this is a reciprocal visit following Talabani's "three-day visit to Teheran". On the ground among the Iraqi people, the visit was less well received. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy explains:Today was one of the worst days in the life of the western side of Baghdad. An Iranian official who started his visit to Baghdad yesterday decided to visit the holy shrine of Imam Mousa al Kadhim in Kadhemiyah neighborhood. For the sake of the guest, all the roads were blocked and hundreds of different security forces spread everywhere. And for his sake also, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis couldn't go to their schools, offices and stores. For the sake of the guest, the taxi drivers could [not] earn a penny to their families. For the sake of the guest, my uncle who suffers a heart failure and came from another province to go to a hospital in Baghdad had to make a long trip to reach the hospital and I don't know whether he caught his turn or not and for the sake of the guest,I had to pay extra money to the taxi driver to get me to the office because my driver couldn't leave his house.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with her Iraqi counterpart yesterday. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbani and Hillary spoke in Egypt at the International Confrence for the reconstruction of Gaza, Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes and: "During the meetng they discussed bilateral relations and President Barack Obama's plan for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, as well as Iraq's regional relations in addition to discussing Iraq's welcome to host the
Ministerial Meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Jordan and the United States in Baghdad in the coming period." They note that Clinton offered thanks for the Iraqi support of Chris Hill's nomination as the US Ambassador to Iraq.
Meanwhile the independent Kurdistan Regional Government announces an influx of British companies conducting business in the region as expalined by "Ms. Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan Regional Government's High Representative to the UK, at a business seminar in London" Saturday. Ms. Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman is quoted explaining, "Already many people from the Middle East, Europe and North America are doing business in the Kurdistan Region. We would like to see more British companies making the most of the opportunities in Kurdistan and the whole of Iraq. Stronger trade and investment ties can only add to the richness of relations between our two countries." The KRG notes that Sterling Energy's Andrew Grosse and Middle East Minerals Bob Haddow spoke at the conference and shared their experiences of conducting business in the Kurdistan region.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people wounded and a Baquba roadside bombing which left seven people wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one person shot dead in Mosul and "Werya Fattah Agha al Kalkai, brother to Adnan Agha al Kakai, prominent notable of al Kakai clan in Kirkuk" was shot dead in Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad (and twelve discovered last month according to Iraqi police).
Dropping back to the January 26th snapshot to note a new development:
This morning the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Four Coalition Soldiers died Jan. 26, when their aircraft crashed in Northern Iraq. The cause is unclear at this time and does not appear to be by enemy action. An investigation is ongoing. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4236 with 15 for the month thus far. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) cited an unnamed Iraqi police source who states the aircraft was a helicopter and they note, "Initial reports from the U.S. military said two aircraft were involved, but later reports said it was only one aircaft that went down in the incident, which occured around 2:15 a.m." In a later update (1:23 p.m. EST), they note that it was two helicopters. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reminds, "The crash was the first since Nov. 15, when an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter landed with difficulty after hitting wires in the northern city of Mosul. Two US pilots were killed. The worst crash of the conflict was in January 2005, when a U.S. Marine CH53E Super Stallion helicopter went down in western Iraq, killing 30 Marines and a Navy sailor." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds, "At least 70 American helicopters have gone down since the war started in March 2003, according to military figures. Of those, 36 were confirmed to have been shot down." Jordan's Al Bawaba notes the US military refuses to say where the crash took place but it appears to have been outside Kirkuk based on unnamed sources: "One observer indicated that the crash report was very unusual, because if two Blackhawk helicopters were involved as the U.S. Military claims then they would have carried at the least eight crewmembers in both machines, but only four were reported . He suggested several possible explanations, including that the aircraft involved were actually attack helicopters, which carry only two crew each, that only one helicopter had crashed (which makes the claim of a mid-air collision highly unlikely), or that there was a far higher casualty list from the incident, which the Americans were deliberately hiding." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) locates the crash similiary, "An Iraqi police general responsible for Salahuddin province said two small helicopters had collided near the city of Kirkuk, 155 miles north of Baghdad."
Over the weekend, Duluth News Tribune and AP reported that despite claims to the contrary by the military last month, the two helicopters that crashed in January crashed due to "enemy fire" according to Fort Drum military authorities. The crashes took the lives of four US service members: Philip E. Windorski, Matthew Kelley, Joshua Tillery and Benjamin Todd: "All were warrant officers in the 10th Mountain Division's 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, married and had children. Windorski had three children. A funeral for Windorski was held in Grand Rapids on Feb. 7. During the ceremony two military helicopters flew over."
In news of war resistance, 28-year-old Kristoffer Walker is an Iraq War veteran who has stated he is not returning to Iraq. His decision has led so-called professionals to make fools out of themselves as two Wisconsin papers' editorial boards flaunted how loose their grasp of the basic facts were. (A right-wing, student newspaper also disagreed with Walker's decision; however, they got their facts right putting them way ahead their allegedly professional counterparts.) By contrast, the Shepherd Express picked Kristoffer Walker as a Hero of the Week:This couldn't have been an easy decision. But Spc. Kristoffer Walker of Green Bay isn't returning to Iraq. Walker enlisted in the Army after 9/11 and served one year in Iraq. He later joined the Army Reserve; his unit was called up in July and deployed in October. Now home on leave, Walker said he won't return to the battlefield. "I signed up to defend the Constitution and defend the country against foreign enemies. But I'm not going to do something immoral and contrary to the contract I signed up for," he told a reporter.Meanwhile a parent has been informed they don't have to deploy to Iraq. Monday Tom Foreman Jr. (AP) reported on Lisa Pagan who was discharged (honorably) four years ago and has been recalled to duty despite attempting to receive a hardship waiver. Pagan arrived at Fort Benning, Georgia yesterday with son Eric and daughter Elizabeth. Eric Marrapodi and Chris Lawrence (CNN) reported last night that Pagan will be discharged -- no word on what sort of discharge she will be receiving. And that's a good segue for noting another person who was discharged and now the military wants to recall. Matthis Chiroux who wrote last month:March 12, I'll attend a board hearing in St. Louis, Missouri, to determine what the nature of my discharge from the Individual Ready Reserve will be. The Army has alleged "misconduct" and they're shooting for a "general discharge," but I'm pushing for "honorable," as my refusal to deploy was not an act of misconduct.I will attend this hearing in uniform as ordered, but only for the purpose of these administrative proceedings. I'm not contesting the fact that I did not report as ordered to deploy to Iraq. However, I intend to paint a clear picture of my convictions to the military, and I seek to corroborate them with first hand accounts of occupation. No person is bound to act against the dictates of conscience, let alone their understanding of the law. I know the occupation of Iraq and further the Global War on Terror to be an illegitimate and ultimately murderous campaign waged for economic gain, fueled by misinformation and greed. I know it to be in violation of not only international law, but the U.S. Constitution. Far more importantly, it is against the dictates of my own conscience, and never again will I compromise my humanity to support or ignore the crimes of my government.
As noted yesterday, Wikileaks has posted a RAND study.. The November 2008 study is over 300 pages and [PDF format warning] entitled "Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fourth in a Series of Joint Urban Operations and Counterinsurgency Studies" Russell W. Glenn and S. Jamie Gayton are the authors. We covered the text yesterday. The appendixes are filled with interesting and often illuminating quotes (usually from unnamed people) such as this one:
Part of the problem was that [the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad] never spoke to the common Iraqi. They ignored all those people. And even in Baghdad, they ignored the common Iraqi. . . . When we left in June 2004, it was yet another group of hand-picked Iraqi exiles who were put in charge. . . . . I[f] you speak to people in Baghdad, the educated middle class says, "Why didn't anyone come to us? Why didn't anyone try to get us involved in the process?"
That quote and the way the authors of the report address is demonstrate how counter-insurgency is not a tool of peace, it is war on an indigenous people. The response to that quote should be that obviously the local actors, the inhabitants of the region need to have the right of self-deterimination. However, the authors assert that the lesson is: "Determine which groups are fundamental to recognizing and granting the coalition legitimacy." No, that is not the same thing as self-determination. It's not even the same thing as listening to the Iraqi people. It is recommending that you find key actors to hide behind, key actors who can give US plans the appearance of legitimacy. They continue, "Thereafter, ascertain how to convince key influencers in those groups that it is the coalition cause that is legitimate and not that of opposing entities and that it is in their best interests to support the coalition in both the immediate and longer terms." Because, the authors indicate (knowingly or otherwise), it's not about democracy, it's not about self-rule. It is about tricking a people, it is about controlling them. Counter-insurgency is war on a native people. It is disgusting and it is appalling. And it is supported by the current administration in the US. Barack had Monty McFate, Sarah Sewall and Samantha Power (among others) all on board his campaign and they are ass deep in the counter-insurgency. When they carry it over to Africa (as they hope to), some so-called 'independent' voices may finally find it in them to raise an objection.
Lasly, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) wonders if the US is a complete rogue state at this point:
A colleague noted that it sounded like we lived in a rogue nation. Recently, it seemed as if President Obama was saying that he, the elected "Commander in Chief", was having to negotiate with the military about when to leave Iraq. Now, through Janet Napolitano, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, Obama and Napolitano are claiming that the federal immigration raid in Washington State was done without their knowledge. I believe that if President Obama is telling the truth, it is a frightening time for Americans, when our military and our law enforcement are so powerful and out of control OR equally as disturbing, President Obama is lying and posturing in monstrous proportions.
iraq
the tehran timesalsumariamcclatchy newspapershurriyetupiendy m. bayuni
justin raimoboa.n.s.w.e.r.iraq veterans against the war
john yaukeyduluth news tribunemark johnsonryan beckwithsteven thommamcclatchy newspapers
ned parkersaif hameedthe los angeles timesanthony shadidthe washington post
kristoffer walkerthe shepherd expresstom foreman jr.matthis chiroux
kimberly wilder
Okay, to cheer up, here's Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Shutting Down The Domestic Arts Czar""
And that's how Al Distraction's reign as Domestic Arts Czar ends, Huey (Boondocks) sends him packing. If only Huey could also send the War Hawks packing. This is from Debra Sweet's "Continuing Occupations, “Good” Wars, and the Wartime President:"
Thursday, Obama announced plans to remove some troops from Iraq over a 19 month period, unless the generals advise him otherwise. The remaining 30,000 to 50,000 troops will be re-named “advisors” and stay indefinitely; the 17 US bases will remain in US control.
Those who are breathing a sigh of relief that US troops are being slowly removed from Iraq should stop and realize that this is part of an overall strategy to deepen and strengthen, not end, US domination of the region. Those who think our job is to “help” Barack Obama carry out this plan are not looking at the interests of the people here, or in the Middle East, in stopping this occupation immediately.
From World Can’t Wait Steering Committee member Elaine Brower: It’s NOT OK!
“As I sit here tonight listening to the crap about extending troop withdrawal 19 months, instead of 16 months, and keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq as so called “advisers” or “trainers” or whatever they want to nickname them, I am outraged! I expected this, but did you? This is wrong. The occupation is wrong, and those of us in the anti-war movement have been screaming this at the top of our lungs for the last 6 years, even before the first boots were on the ground in Iraq.
And as Barack lies, AP shows how to spin. Read this sentence and prepare for the quiz after: "Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces last month hit their second-lowest level in nearly four years with 283 deaths linked to war-related violence, according to an Associated Press tally." The lowest month must have been January because by figures the Iraqi government released (so they are undercounting), February was up 35% from January. So AP choses to lead with that propaganda as opposed to leading with reality: "Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces rose 35% last month." My sentence would be news. What AP offers? Propaganda?
Speaking of propaganda: Tom Hayden. What's "The difference between Tom Hayden and a turd"? That's my Dad's riddle that my mother included in her post last night. The answer is: A turd flushes down. :D I love my dad. :D Ma and I are both noting C.I.'s "The failures of the Tom Haydens" tonight because it is hilarious and true. Way to go, C.I.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, March 3, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces another death, Iran and Iraq get cozy, some voices speak out against the continued war on Iraq, one soldier won't have to deploy to Iraq, and more.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-North Soldier died from injuries sustained during an indirect fire attack in Mosul, Iraq, Mar. 3. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the U.S. Department of Defense." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4255.
The deaths continue to mount because the illegal war continues and that's because a War Hawk is in the White House. That last one was George W. Bush, the current one is Barack H. Obama. Jack A. Smith (Dissident Voice) observes:
In the last two weeks of February, President Barack Obama -- upon whom so many peace supporters had counted to change Washington's commitment to wars and militarism -- delivered these three blows to his antiwar constituency:
1. By ordering 17,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan Feb. 17, President Obama is continuing and expanding George W. Bush's war. It's Obama's war now, and it's getting much bigger.
2. By declaring Feb. 27 that up to 50,000 U.S. soldiers would remain in Iraq after "combat brigades" departed, President Obama is continuing the war in a country that remains a tragic victim of the Bush Administration's aggression and which has taken the lives of over a million Iraqi civilians and has made refugees of 4.5 million people.
3. By announcing Feb. 26 that his projected 2010 Pentagon budget was to be even higher than budgets sought by the Bush Administration, President Obama was signaling that his commitment to the U.S. bloated war machine -- even at a time of serious economic recession -- was not to be questioned.
Whether or not Obama's actions will revive the peace movement is another matter. Antiwar activism during the election year was minimal. And now that a Democrat is in the White House it may be further reduced, since most peace backers voted for Obama. The movement's strength will be tested at the demonstrations in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities on the sixth anniversary of the Iraq war March 21.
The actions are being led by The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
In his Dissident Voice article, Jack A. Smith goes on to cite two polls which may or may not be enough to determine public sentiment but what is known is that when gatekeepers grab the rulers and slap the wrists of the people, it takes longer for the ball to get rolling. For example, in August 2001, Bully Boy Bush was a joke. Then came 9-11 and, with it, the self-appointed guardians of discousre. They're out in full force again and this time their names include Tom Hayden. They can try to slow the awakening that's coming, but that's all their cheerleading and garbage will do, slow the awakening. Smith lists multiple cowards and also notes a recent column, Justin Ramondo's "The Silence of the Liberals" (Anti-war.com; this is the column Marcia highlighted last week):Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."In short: we aren't leaving.
The embarrassing, aging tool Tom Hayden showed up yesterday to tell the world he still loves Barack. And that's fine, Tom-Tom but don't confuse your love and lust with actual activism. As we noted at Third on Sunday:
So to Tom-Tom, Carl Davidson, Jeffy Cohen, Leslie Cagan, Medea and all the other wet-pantied, lovesick fools, we urge you to declare your love for Barack, to work towards bedding down with Barack and to stop pretending you are a part of -- let alone a leader of -- the peace movement. Just walk right up to him and say, "Barack, this circus ride goes round and round with you or without you but it'd be cool if you'd hop on and give a spin.. You won't regret it." Who knows what will happen? But, lovelies, we'd caution to be sure Michelle's not in ear shot when you proposition Barack. And we again remind you . . . Just wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin' Plannin' and dreamin' his kisses will start That won't get you into his heart
The sooner you start openly working on what . . . excuse us, on who you want and stop pretending to give a damn about Iraq, the better it will be for the real peace movement.
Who knew that in 2009, the tired and deceitful 'leaders' would attempt to pass drooling off as 'action'? ("Wishin' And Hopin'" written by Hal David and Burt Bacharach, most famously sung by Dusty Springfield.) While Tom Hayden rushes around with his tongue out and his hands down his pants, Alan Bjerga (Bloomberg News) reports not everyone's thinking with their loins, George McGovern's actually speaking out:
McGovern, 86, said he supports Obama's plan to increase spending to stimulate the U.S. economy, while faulting the president for his willingness to keep troops in Iraq. Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 makes him "exactly the same" as former President George W. Bush in his conduct of the war and continues to spend money needed for economic recovery. "What's the change?" McGovern said. "Guys are still dying over there. Guys are coming home with mental and emotional problems that will linger on for years."
As Ruth observed last night, "Poor Tom Hayden. George McGovern could not have chosen a worse time to speak out for Tom Hayden. Mr. Hayden is spit polishing Barack's knob today as per usual. (My grandson Jayson will love that I have included that phrase in the previous sentence.) And along comes George McGovern who is everything Mr. Hayden wanted to be but never managed to pull off. Poor Tom Hayden. Believe your daddy just sent you to your room without dinner." Or as Rebecca put it, "tom hayden, what an embarrassment. and he looks all the more childish when mcgovern can do what hayden won't. mcgovern endorsed barack. he didn't just endorse barack, he took back his endorsement of hillary to endorse barack. and here mcgovern is calling out barack while tom hayden wonders whether to let barack go balls deep or not."
The country's got more than a bunch of aging bobby soxers like Leslie Cagan, Tom Hayden, et al getting all wet-pantied for Barack. In the real world Barack's draw down has resulted in some showing a spine. John Yaukey (Gannet via Honlulu Advertiser) reports that US House Rep Neil Abercrombie told CNN that US forces on the ground in Iraq need to "be leaving faster than President Obama has ordered" and the quote is, "I think it can be done faster." Yaukey observes, "Abercrombie's comments signal what could become a growing rift between some Democrats and Obama on policy in Iraq." Abercrombie also questioned Barack's claim that the 'surge' was a success stating, "we Bribed people. We paid people not to kill us." Abercrombie is not lying. He is not being inflamatory. He is repeating what US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and General David Petreaus repeatedly told Congress in the days of testimony back at the start of April. (Here, we called Petreaus and Crocker's 'logic' the fork-over-the-lunch-money-so-no-one-gets-beat-up policy.) On the same topic, Mark Johnson, Ryan Beckwith and Steven Thomma (McClatchy Newspapers) report on some of the Democrats speaking out including US House Rep Lynn Woolsey ("I am deeply troubled by the suggestion that a force of 50,000 troops could remain in Iraq. This is unacceptable.") and US House Rep Dennis Kucinich ("You cannot leave combat troops in a foreign country to conduct combat operations and call it the end of the war. You can't be in and out at the same time. We must bring a conclusion to this sorry chapter in American history."). Senator Russ Feingold is also quoted but that's the statment we quoted three times last week. With another perspective on the Iraq War, Endy M. Bayuni (Washington Post's Post Global) offers:It took years for Americans to realize that it was a war they could not win. Nixon and Kissinger agonized over whether to cut the country's losses and leave Vietnam, or stay and maintain America's integrity, pride and international standing.In the end, it was public opinion in America that forced the United States government to swallow the bitter pill of defeat. It was not so much the thought of the Vietnamese death toll as the rising death toll of young Americans drafted into the military that turned the public opinion against its own government.Americans suffered the humiliation of a war defeat as it never had before. One would expect that that trauma and scar would have been enough to prevent the United States from launching another war in a foreign land. Bush and Cheney did not read history well, and they took America to another war some 40 years later, which is where we are today: a war America cannot win, and an ethnic war just waiting to erupt as soon as American troops pull out.The real question to ask is not whether the United States should send the soldiers back if ethnic strife returns in Iraq. The problem of Iraq is for the Iraqis to solve, and for its immediate neighbors to help. Unless Americans are still thinking of controlling Iraq's oil, they really have no business meddling in Iraqi politics.
Bayuni is the chief editor of The Jakarta Post. And in this age of Barack the War Hawk, the US military breathlessly announces: "A team of Soldiers from Alpha Troop, 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, made history Feb. 23 when the unmanned aerial vehicle they were operating became the first armed Warrior Alpha unmanned aerial system to fire missiles in combat." Staff Sgt. Jerry Rhoades is quoted stating, "We neutralized both targets" and those targets included "insurgents." What a proud moment for Barack. Some presidents can just hope for creating long lasting global tensions like a cold war but Barack can take pride in the fact that more ways of death destruction are being discovered on his watch.
While War Hawk Barack can take pride in additional destruction abilities, ties increase between Iraq and one of its neighbors. "We hope occupation of Iraq will end as soon as possible and the Iraqi people will build a unified and independent state without presence of aliens and successfully achieve development," the Tehran Times quotes Iranian Chair of Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani declaring Monday in a Baghdad press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Alsumaria explains: "Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki who welcomed the Iranian guest emphasized the importance of exchanging visits between both countries on high levels. Al Maliki asserted that Iranian-Iraqi relations have overcome the effects of the former regime polices noting that Iraq is keen on establishing optimal relations with neighboring countries." The Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO aka People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran) was raised by Talabani, according to Xinhau which reports he declared he wants them out of Iraq. Xinhau also notes that the two met at Talabani's "residence at the edge of the heavily fortified Green Zone in Central Baghdad" as Rafasnjani began his "first visit to Iraq since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979." UPI notes the increased ties between the two countries: "Both countries reached a series of agreements during the visit, which brought a series of top officials to Iran. For his part, Fawzi Hariri, the Iraqi minister of industry, signed a memorandum of understanding with his Iranian counterpart, Ali-Akbar Mehrabian, to expand ties in the mining industry.Iran's judiciary chief, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, also welcomed renewed ties between the neighboring countries, adding that Iraq's progress promises "a brilliant prospect" for improved relations." This in addition, Hurriyet reminds, to the "four-way electricity network" between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey that was announced on Saturday. Prensa Latina notes that this is a reciprocal visit following Talabani's "three-day visit to Teheran". On the ground among the Iraqi people, the visit was less well received. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy explains:Today was one of the worst days in the life of the western side of Baghdad. An Iranian official who started his visit to Baghdad yesterday decided to visit the holy shrine of Imam Mousa al Kadhim in Kadhemiyah neighborhood. For the sake of the guest, all the roads were blocked and hundreds of different security forces spread everywhere. And for his sake also, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis couldn't go to their schools, offices and stores. For the sake of the guest, the taxi drivers could [not] earn a penny to their families. For the sake of the guest, my uncle who suffers a heart failure and came from another province to go to a hospital in Baghdad had to make a long trip to reach the hospital and I don't know whether he caught his turn or not and for the sake of the guest,I had to pay extra money to the taxi driver to get me to the office because my driver couldn't leave his house.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with her Iraqi counterpart yesterday. Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbani and Hillary spoke in Egypt at the International Confrence for the reconstruction of Gaza, Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes and: "During the meetng they discussed bilateral relations and President Barack Obama's plan for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, as well as Iraq's regional relations in addition to discussing Iraq's welcome to host the
Ministerial Meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Jordan and the United States in Baghdad in the coming period." They note that Clinton offered thanks for the Iraqi support of Chris Hill's nomination as the US Ambassador to Iraq.
Meanwhile the independent Kurdistan Regional Government announces an influx of British companies conducting business in the region as expalined by "Ms. Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan Regional Government's High Representative to the UK, at a business seminar in London" Saturday. Ms. Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman is quoted explaining, "Already many people from the Middle East, Europe and North America are doing business in the Kurdistan Region. We would like to see more British companies making the most of the opportunities in Kurdistan and the whole of Iraq. Stronger trade and investment ties can only add to the richness of relations between our two countries." The KRG notes that Sterling Energy's Andrew Grosse and Middle East Minerals Bob Haddow spoke at the conference and shared their experiences of conducting business in the Kurdistan region.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left two people wounded and a Baquba roadside bombing which left seven people wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one person shot dead in Mosul and "Werya Fattah Agha al Kalkai, brother to Adnan Agha al Kakai, prominent notable of al Kakai clan in Kirkuk" was shot dead in Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad (and twelve discovered last month according to Iraqi police).
Dropping back to the January 26th snapshot to note a new development:
This morning the US military announced: "TIKRIT, Iraq -- Four Coalition Soldiers died Jan. 26, when their aircraft crashed in Northern Iraq. The cause is unclear at this time and does not appear to be by enemy action. An investigation is ongoing. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense." The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4236 with 15 for the month thus far. Ned Parker and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) cited an unnamed Iraqi police source who states the aircraft was a helicopter and they note, "Initial reports from the U.S. military said two aircraft were involved, but later reports said it was only one aircaft that went down in the incident, which occured around 2:15 a.m." In a later update (1:23 p.m. EST), they note that it was two helicopters. Anthony Shadid (Washington Post) reminds, "The crash was the first since Nov. 15, when an OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter landed with difficulty after hitting wires in the northern city of Mosul. Two US pilots were killed. The worst crash of the conflict was in January 2005, when a U.S. Marine CH53E Super Stallion helicopter went down in western Iraq, killing 30 Marines and a Navy sailor." Sam Dagher (New York Times) adds, "At least 70 American helicopters have gone down since the war started in March 2003, according to military figures. Of those, 36 were confirmed to have been shot down." Jordan's Al Bawaba notes the US military refuses to say where the crash took place but it appears to have been outside Kirkuk based on unnamed sources: "One observer indicated that the crash report was very unusual, because if two Blackhawk helicopters were involved as the U.S. Military claims then they would have carried at the least eight crewmembers in both machines, but only four were reported . He suggested several possible explanations, including that the aircraft involved were actually attack helicopters, which carry only two crew each, that only one helicopter had crashed (which makes the claim of a mid-air collision highly unlikely), or that there was a far higher casualty list from the incident, which the Americans were deliberately hiding." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) locates the crash similiary, "An Iraqi police general responsible for Salahuddin province said two small helicopters had collided near the city of Kirkuk, 155 miles north of Baghdad."
Over the weekend, Duluth News Tribune and AP reported that despite claims to the contrary by the military last month, the two helicopters that crashed in January crashed due to "enemy fire" according to Fort Drum military authorities. The crashes took the lives of four US service members: Philip E. Windorski, Matthew Kelley, Joshua Tillery and Benjamin Todd: "All were warrant officers in the 10th Mountain Division's 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, married and had children. Windorski had three children. A funeral for Windorski was held in Grand Rapids on Feb. 7. During the ceremony two military helicopters flew over."
In news of war resistance, 28-year-old Kristoffer Walker is an Iraq War veteran who has stated he is not returning to Iraq. His decision has led so-called professionals to make fools out of themselves as two Wisconsin papers' editorial boards flaunted how loose their grasp of the basic facts were. (A right-wing, student newspaper also disagreed with Walker's decision; however, they got their facts right putting them way ahead their allegedly professional counterparts.) By contrast, the Shepherd Express picked Kristoffer Walker as a Hero of the Week:This couldn't have been an easy decision. But Spc. Kristoffer Walker of Green Bay isn't returning to Iraq. Walker enlisted in the Army after 9/11 and served one year in Iraq. He later joined the Army Reserve; his unit was called up in July and deployed in October. Now home on leave, Walker said he won't return to the battlefield. "I signed up to defend the Constitution and defend the country against foreign enemies. But I'm not going to do something immoral and contrary to the contract I signed up for," he told a reporter.Meanwhile a parent has been informed they don't have to deploy to Iraq. Monday Tom Foreman Jr. (AP) reported on Lisa Pagan who was discharged (honorably) four years ago and has been recalled to duty despite attempting to receive a hardship waiver. Pagan arrived at Fort Benning, Georgia yesterday with son Eric and daughter Elizabeth. Eric Marrapodi and Chris Lawrence (CNN) reported last night that Pagan will be discharged -- no word on what sort of discharge she will be receiving. And that's a good segue for noting another person who was discharged and now the military wants to recall. Matthis Chiroux who wrote last month:March 12, I'll attend a board hearing in St. Louis, Missouri, to determine what the nature of my discharge from the Individual Ready Reserve will be. The Army has alleged "misconduct" and they're shooting for a "general discharge," but I'm pushing for "honorable," as my refusal to deploy was not an act of misconduct.I will attend this hearing in uniform as ordered, but only for the purpose of these administrative proceedings. I'm not contesting the fact that I did not report as ordered to deploy to Iraq. However, I intend to paint a clear picture of my convictions to the military, and I seek to corroborate them with first hand accounts of occupation. No person is bound to act against the dictates of conscience, let alone their understanding of the law. I know the occupation of Iraq and further the Global War on Terror to be an illegitimate and ultimately murderous campaign waged for economic gain, fueled by misinformation and greed. I know it to be in violation of not only international law, but the U.S. Constitution. Far more importantly, it is against the dictates of my own conscience, and never again will I compromise my humanity to support or ignore the crimes of my government.
As noted yesterday, Wikileaks has posted a RAND study.. The November 2008 study is over 300 pages and [PDF format warning] entitled "Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fourth in a Series of Joint Urban Operations and Counterinsurgency Studies" Russell W. Glenn and S. Jamie Gayton are the authors. We covered the text yesterday. The appendixes are filled with interesting and often illuminating quotes (usually from unnamed people) such as this one:
Part of the problem was that [the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad] never spoke to the common Iraqi. They ignored all those people. And even in Baghdad, they ignored the common Iraqi. . . . When we left in June 2004, it was yet another group of hand-picked Iraqi exiles who were put in charge. . . . . I[f] you speak to people in Baghdad, the educated middle class says, "Why didn't anyone come to us? Why didn't anyone try to get us involved in the process?"
That quote and the way the authors of the report address is demonstrate how counter-insurgency is not a tool of peace, it is war on an indigenous people. The response to that quote should be that obviously the local actors, the inhabitants of the region need to have the right of self-deterimination. However, the authors assert that the lesson is: "Determine which groups are fundamental to recognizing and granting the coalition legitimacy." No, that is not the same thing as self-determination. It's not even the same thing as listening to the Iraqi people. It is recommending that you find key actors to hide behind, key actors who can give US plans the appearance of legitimacy. They continue, "Thereafter, ascertain how to convince key influencers in those groups that it is the coalition cause that is legitimate and not that of opposing entities and that it is in their best interests to support the coalition in both the immediate and longer terms." Because, the authors indicate (knowingly or otherwise), it's not about democracy, it's not about self-rule. It is about tricking a people, it is about controlling them. Counter-insurgency is war on a native people. It is disgusting and it is appalling. And it is supported by the current administration in the US. Barack had Monty McFate, Sarah Sewall and Samantha Power (among others) all on board his campaign and they are ass deep in the counter-insurgency. When they carry it over to Africa (as they hope to), some so-called 'independent' voices may finally find it in them to raise an objection.
Lasly, Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) wonders if the US is a complete rogue state at this point:
A colleague noted that it sounded like we lived in a rogue nation. Recently, it seemed as if President Obama was saying that he, the elected "Commander in Chief", was having to negotiate with the military about when to leave Iraq. Now, through Janet Napolitano, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, Obama and Napolitano are claiming that the federal immigration raid in Washington State was done without their knowledge. I believe that if President Obama is telling the truth, it is a frightening time for Americans, when our military and our law enforcement are so powerful and out of control OR equally as disturbing, President Obama is lying and posturing in monstrous proportions.
iraq
the tehran timesalsumariamcclatchy newspapershurriyetupiendy m. bayuni
justin raimoboa.n.s.w.e.r.iraq veterans against the war
john yaukeyduluth news tribunemark johnsonryan beckwithsteven thommamcclatchy newspapers
ned parkersaif hameedthe los angeles timesanthony shadidthe washington post
kristoffer walkerthe shepherd expresstom foreman jr.matthis chiroux
kimberly wilder
Monday, March 02, 2009
Comics and Chris Hedges and Third
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day. Monday, Monday, Tom Hayden go away. :D It's Monday. Mondays are cause for groans. Just like Tom Hayden!
Hey, when's the last time you saw that scamp, Dennis the Menace? Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Making Dennis the Menace""
Did that cheer you up? If not, this should, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Rounding up Lucy"
I love those comics but if they didn't do it for you, go to my mother's site tonight. She's got a joke she'll be posting. Dad thought it up. He called me and said, "Is it funny?" I said, "I'll post it!" He said he'd give it to my mom first. So she's posting it and go check it out. I think you'll laugh.
Okay, this is Chris Hedges' conclusion to "It’s Obama’s War, Now:"
I could live with the prolonged injustice of the occupation in Iraq if I thought there would really be peace, that we could then help rebuild the country we destroyed and that we had restored the rule of law by rejecting the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, something that under post-Nuremberg laws is defined as a criminal "war of aggression." I could live with 19 months more of the war if I knew it would really be the end. But the war in Iraq, like Afghanistan, will go on. Our imperial projects and killing will continue under the Obama presidency. Many more, including some of our own, will die.
The only hope now lies in renewed protests against the war and a reinvigorated anti-war movement. This time the movement should hold fast, as stalwarts like Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader have, to the moral imperative of peace and not the false hopes offered by the Democrats. They cannot be trusted. Politics is a game of pressure. Abandon that pressure and you lose.
I can tell you right now, I'm going to push for that to be a Truest statement of the week at Third this coming Sunday. Let's get into Third now. Dallas worked on the edition as link locator, soundboard and a great deal more. Here's who else worked on the edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
And what did we come up with?
Truest statement of the week -- This is John Walsh, from his amazing article last week calling out the PATHETIC Democrats of America (PDA). (Hey, that's Tommy Hayden's group!)
Truest statement of the week II -- And this is . . . John Walsh! The first time ever that one person got two truests in one week. John Walsh earned it.
A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition and does a solid job and then some.
Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin' -- I love this editorial. It pissed Tom Hayden off. That only made me love it even more. Anything we can do to piss Tom Hayden is pretty good in my book. Tom Hayden wants to end the Iraq War . . . when a Republican is in the White House. He only cares about the illegal war when he can use it to go after Republicans. Tom, you are so Pathetic. Lie down, spread your legs and beg Barack to come aboard. I doubt he will because you're not really a cover boy. But, hey, you won't know until you try. Go for it, Tommy.
TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff -- Ava and C.I. are amazing. They just are. I knew they were covering Sharpton in some form because of his TV special. I didn't know what else they'd be working in but, damn, amazing. Tom Hayden writes another limpid piece on Iraq that restates the same thing he always said and does so in a lifeless manner. Ava and C.I. didn't stop following the illegal war in 2006 so they're able to keep it fresh and address what's actually happening today. This will have you outraged and laughing -- sometimes at the same time.
More faux change from Barack -- All Barack had to do was drop the coffin policy. Instead, he dropped it and put in a half-ass measure that's still be worked out but means that the new policy will be weaker than the policy we had before Bush pushed through the ban.
Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered -- I like this. And Jim forgot to add that we downloaded Dusty's Gold (or they did) and had a problem. It was skipping. They played the first track and it was. C.I. said, Do the download again and they said there was no way to start over. I heard C.I. groan and she must have grabbed the laptop. Next thing I know Jim's saying, "Oh, you can start it over." :D So this time they downloaded it with "Save" and then "Open" after and that allowed the problems to be taken care of and it plays just fine.
Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all. -- Ray LaHood. I may try to write about him this week. In case I don't, the White House had a big laugh at his expense and the next day a lot of the press laughed at him as well. He wasn't loco. He may be wrong, but he wasn't crazy.
The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis -- Ava and C.I. didn't work on this. The rest of us did and we loved writing this. If C.I. had written it, it wouldn't have been like this. (C.I. told me, "It would have been weaker." C.I. would have worried about Phyllis' feelings.) So I was especially surprised to see it quoted in the snapshot today by C.I. and even more so when I saw the sections C.I. included. :D
Liar-in-chief Barack -- Ava and C.I. caught Barry lying. He did not say he would listen to the military commanders about 16 months. He said he would listen about how to best do the 16 month 'withdrawal.' He explained that in April of last year, during a televised debate. Busted, Barry, you got busted! It's in Ava and C.I.'s TV article (above) but we wanted to really emphasize that.
TV Spotlight: Washington Week -- Ava and C.I. wrote this to include a longer excerpt and also to answer a few e-mails Ty had mentioned.
The Condi II -- Susan Rice is The Condi II. Ha! :D I love it.
The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin -- Read that statement and be outraged. How dare he and how the hell did CBS ever let that air to begin with?
Iraq roundtable -- Great roundtable. (The one we did Friday night.)
Highlights -- Betty, Ruth, Cedric, Wally, Rebecca, Kat, Stan, Marcia, Elaine and I wrote this and picked out the highlights unless we note otherwise.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack's Friday speech gets some analysis, the US military announces deaths, a RAND report shows up on Wikileaks and more.
Friday Barack Obama spoke at Camp Lejeune. The spin was his decision to go from a 16-month 'withdrawal' to a 19 one was no surprise and he had always, always, always said he would listen to commanders on the ground. No. That's a lie. Sunday, Ava and my "TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff," covered the exchange between ABC's Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama during the April 16, 2008 debate. But anyone who followed the Democratic Party's campaign for the presidential nomination knows the way it worked: Hillary gave an answer and then Barack tried to make it his own. So today we'll start by noting Hillary's answer. And you should notice that when Charlie Gibson moves over to Barack, he is clearing asking Barack if he is giving "the same rock-hard plegde" that Hillary just gave. From the transcript:
GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director of your campaign, Howard Wolfson, on a conference call recently was asked, is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month, whatever the realities on the ground? And Wolfson said, I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it. The answer is, yes. So, if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?
CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why. Thankfully, we have a system in our country, of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice. And then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president, as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goal posts when it comes to Iraq. And I am convinced that it is in America's best interests, it is in the best interests of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interests of Iraq that upon taking office I will ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days. I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner because, obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment, is dangerous. I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States. Because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdrawal that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years. I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq. But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do. But I think it's important that this decision be made. And I intend to make it.
GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified. Saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying: I know better than the military commanders here?
CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios. But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing, as well, is there -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world. It's not only about Iraq. It is about ending the war in Iraq so that we can begin paying attention to all of the other problems we have. There isn't any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not gotten the resources that it needs. We hear that from our military commanders responsible for that region of the world. And there are other problems that we have failed to address. So the bottom line for me is: We don't know what will happen as we withdraw. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq. The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future. Our military will continue to be stretched thin. And our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to re-assert our leadership and our moral authority in the world. And I think those are the kind of broad issues that a president has to take into account.
GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that." So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus." Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.
The buck does stop with Barack Obama who is now the president of the United States and he told the American people in the debate last April that he would stick to a 16-month withdrawal and that was the "mission." He would listen to the military commanders about how to implement the "mission," but the civilian command was the one responsible for setting the mission. He mocked Bully Boy Bush for falling back on "I'm just taking cues from General Peteraeus." And yet, Friday, when Barack sold his broken promise, he pushed the blame for it off on the military commanders. The buck stops with Barack Obama. He told the American people one thing in April and did another thing Friday. That's called "lying."
A lot of people believe that his announcement of a draw down means that the approximately 144,000 (or 142,000) troops in Iraq will begin leaving Iraq at a steady pace. That is not the case. For this year, the expectation is that it will drop 10,000 -- to either 134,000 or 132,000 -- and no more. January 2010, a 'draw down' is expected to begin. If nothing changes, of course, and something always changes. ABC News' Martha Raddatz explained this on Friday's Washington Week:
Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says -- Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen. Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe. Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.
Note that as this is dicated, Washington Week has streaming video up of Friday's show but has not yet posted the transcript. Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) evaluates Barack's speech today and offers, "The more I consider it, the more I think President Obama's Camp Lejeune speech last Friday was about how to stay in Iraq for a while, not about how to get out. . . . What's more, the planned troop reductions won't really happen in a big way until sometime in 2010, so Iraq can get through its national elections. (And a memo to everyone who is counting on the SOFA to bail us out of Iraq: Guys, that was about getting Iraq through 2009, not about what happens in 2011.)" He could have been directing the parenthetical to Phyllis Bennis (but he wasn't) who showed up last week so uninformed that The Third Estate Sunday Review awarded her a Katrina. (Ava and I were working on our TV pieces, we didn't help write the Katrina article.) Phyllis repeats the lie Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn's been pimping that the White House was forced to sign that treaty. (If link to Phyllis article doesn't work, it's because you have to be a ZNet sustainer to see it.) The Third gang takes Phyllis to school, "Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack. The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution. . . . Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality." Phyllis also foolishly appears to have no idea on when (some) US troops might start leaving. When she grasps that only 10,000 tops will leave in the ten months left in this year -- and maybe grasps that will put the number at around the same number before Bully Boy Bush's 2007 'surge' -- she may feel that "three months" or one day more matters. Right now, she's worthless. Sorry, Phyllis, that's the reality. Chris Hedges (World Can't Wait) never saw himself as Barack's handmaiden which is why he can speak the truth so many others silence:
Barack Obama has shown that he is as capable of doublespeak as any other politician when he announced an end to the war in Iraq. Combat troops are to be pulled out of Iraq by August 2010, he said, but some 50,000 occupation troops will remain behind. Someone should let the Iraqis know the distinction. I doubt any soldier or Marine in Iraq will notice much difference in 19 months.
Many combat units will simply be relabeled as noncombat units. And what about our small army of well-paid contractors and mercenaries? Will Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater (which recently changed its name to Xe), all of whom have made fortunes off the war, pack up and go home? What about the three large super-bases, dozens of smaller military outposts and our imperial city, the Green Zone? Will American corporations give up their lucrative control of Iraqi oil?
The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. Lies and deception, which launched the war in the first place, are being employed by Democrats to maintain it. This is not a withdrawal. It is occupation lite. And as long as American troops are on Iraqi soil the war will grind on, the death toll on each side will continue to mount and we will remain a lightning rod for hatred and rage in the Middle East. Add to this Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and even his most purblind supporters will have to admit the new president is as intent on maintaining American empire as the old.
USA Today offers the editorial "Obama declares end to U.S. presence in Iraq -- sort of:"
Despite Obama's certitude, the best answer is: maybe. Yes, the war is winding down, and Iraq is far calmer than it was two years ago. But the situation remains fluid, and Obama's commitment to get out is part goal, part guessing game.The president's bid to fulfill the promise he made on the campaign trail -- to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office -- always came with a big asterisk. He would leave 35,000 to 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq well beyond that promised drawdown period, now extended from 16 to 19 months. That's about a third of the 142,000 troops there now. What's more, the drawdown will be back-loaded, with troops leaving only slowly until after national elections this December. And when would those "non-combat" troops come home? Under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, by the end of 2011. Even that isn't set in concrete, however. "If we're there beyond that, it'll be because of a new agreement ... negotiated with President Obama and based on what he thinks is in the best interests of our country," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on Meet the Press.
At the New York Times, Emily S. Rubb covers the same Meet the Press apperance USA Today only mentions but somehow Rubb forgets to include the pertinent section. Intent on offering a feel-good experience, Rubb ignores that Gates repeated what he'd emphasized on Friday: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011. It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011. So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011." And could the US remain in Iraq after 2011, Secretary Gates? "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see. I mean, it's a hypothetical. The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point. So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative. I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point." Back to Sunday's Meet the Press (transcript to Gates' segment here) where Gates admitted that, yes, troops could be sent back in. (The Times wasn't interested in that despite the fact that their own Michael Gordon pressed Barack on that point in November of 2007 and Barack admitted that was the case.) At the Washington Post's Post Global Rami G. Khouri offers this opinion on troops going back in after some being leaving, "Absolutely not. American troops should leave Iraq and stay out. If ethnic strife flares up again in Iraq beyond its current levels, it will probably be due to three possible causes: lingering resentments and active revenge for the abuses of the Baathist regime; destructive forces unleashed by the American-led invasion that removed the entire state structure; or, meddling by external forces from neighboring countries. A return of American forces would not resolve any of those issues or lower their intensity, but would only exacerbate them." Meanwhile, link provided for laughter, Tom Hayden pretends he's of some use to the world and wants to insist that Thomas E. Ricks is wrong, wrong, wrong and Barack's announcment proves it and . . . Wipe the drool from your mouth, Tom-Tom, or use it to soak Barack's balls. But don't pretend you've offered anything resembling critical thought or even a summary. Ricks remains an analyst, you remain the ex-husband who pulled a Brinks truck up to your divorce settlement. Not content to spew at Thomas E. Ricks (who's actually been to Iraq, Tom, what's your excuse?), Tom-Tom goes after Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader supporters, Cynthia McKinney supporters and any lefty who refused to support the Christ-child at the ballot box, "When there was a choice between supporting Barack Obama and attending rallies organized by various Maoists, Trotskyists and neo-anarchists opposed to Obama and electoral politics, the grassroots peace movement headed for the precincts by the thousands." You just have to laugh, you just have to laugh.
Turning to one of the costs of the illegal war. Saturday the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here Feb. 28." Today they announce, "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died March 2 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol north of Baghdad." The announcements bring the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4254. The month drew to a close Saturday and while the media dropped interest in Iraq, violence increased. China's Xinhua explains, "Iraq's monthly civilian death toll in February rose slightly to a total of 258 from the previous month that showed the lowest level since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, authorities said on Sunday." These are figures which come from Iraq's ministries so these are low balled figures. AFP reports it's a 35% increase from January, "A total of 258 Iraqis were killed in violence in February, a sharp rise from the previous month that saw the lowest casualty figures since the 2003 US-led invasion, authorities said Sunday. Statistics compiled by the Defense, Interior and Health ministries showed that 211 civilians, 17 soldiers and 30 policemen lost their lives to violence across the country in February." So what can you do? You can stand up and join with The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War for an action this month. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which left three people injured, a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left three more wounded and a Khalis bicycle bombing that claimed 3 lives and left sixteen people injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Mosul.
In Iraq, Kim Gamel (AP) reports the January 31st provincial elections remain a sore spot (and can be appealed through March 9th with seating of the winners to take place March 24th) as approximately two-thousand demonstrated against the results in Diyala Province today. Gamel reports they were Shi'ites and claim fraud in the voting whose results or 'results' gave 15 seats to Sunnis, 6 to Kurds, 5 to Shi'ites and 3 to an unnamed "secular party." Zaid Sabah and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) call this demonstration "the first significant" one and note the demand "that the electoral commission be replaced, declaring that it was influenced by Sunni officials. Many Shiite voters in the province could not find their names on voter lists while large numbers of people displaced by violence could not return to their home areas to cast ballots, Shiite politicians have said."
Staying with Iraqi politics, let's drop back to the Jan. 12th snapshot:Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him. Today's March 2nd. They've had over two months to find a new Speaker -- it was their decision to oust Mahmoud al-Mashhadni -- and they still haven't done their job. Friday afternoon, Gina Chon filed "Iraq Parliament Members Squabble Over Next Speaker" (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) noting that Parliament still cannot pick a Speaker:Now lawmakers are waiting for the country's Supreme Court to rule on how many votes are needed to select the next speaker. About a week ago, 136 lawmakers of the 230 who were present chose the Iraqi Islamic Party nominee Ayad al-Sammaraie as the next speaker. But some argued that the rules say he needs an absolute majority of the 275-member parliament, which is 138 votes.The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political party, accuses Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite Islamic Dawa Party, of unfairly trying to block Mr. al-Sammaraie, who is seen as a strong personality who could challenge Mr. Maliki's agenda in parliament. Those who opposed the vote say they are just following the rules.In addition to fighting to become speaker of the parliament, Mr. al-Sammaraie also has the tough job of being head of the body's finance committee, which is currently studying ways to trim Iraq's $60 billion proposed national budget for 2009 by an additional 7 percent. Alarmed by falling oil prices, lawmakers say the current budget based on oil at $50 a barrel is unrealistic and further cuts are needed. There have already been three different versions of the budget submitted by the ministry of finance because of the falling oil prices.
In news of governmental leaks, Wikileaks posts a RAND study today. The November 2008 study is over 300 pages and [PDF format warning] entitled "Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fourth in a Series of Joint Urban Operations and Counterinsurgency Studies" Russell W. Glenn and S. Jamie Gayton and it's noted, "The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command. The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community under Contract W74V8H-06-C-0002." The American people paid for the study and they didn't even toss out "And by viewers like you."
The text of the actual report is 86 pages. Appendixes and bibliography take it to over 300 pages. From page two, we'll note this passage:
The many overlapping insurgent, terrorist, criminal, and other foes that together comprise the heterogeneous enemy in Iraq -- and an only somewhat less varied one in Afghanistan -- continue to feed on their damaged societies. What appear to be randmo bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities sometimes constitute a well-conceived insurgent campaign of exhaustion.
We note the above on Iraq for two reasons. First, because the news media, most recently David Martin on Friday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, too often tries to 'short-hand' it to "al Qaeda." (Not even al Qaeda in Mesapotamia, just "al Qaeda.") Second because it leads in to this passage on pages 5 - 6:
Western Baghdad in September 2007 provides us a window on how some insurgents ply a strategy of exhaustion at the tactical level, one that challenges coalition leaders in both the intel and metrics realms. Shi'a militia groups, often one or another form of Jaish al Mahdi (JAM), would find a Sunni mosque within or near a mixed Shi'a and Sunni neighborhood. JAM forces would attack the mosque to draw fire from Sunni defenders, thereafter making an anonymous report of the shooting to nearby Iraqi Army (IA) forces in conjunction with a request for action to subdue the alleged Sunni instigators. Army forces (comprised priemarily of Shi'a personnel) would respond and declare the mosque troublesome. The imam would be removed and the mosque closed. Having eliminated a vital community resource for Sunni worshipers, JAM members further encourage local Sunnis to leave, often employing one or more of the following tactics:
* denying the neighborhood public services
* threatening individuals, e.g., putting a bullet in someone's mailbox with a note that the receiving family will be killed if it does not depart within 24 hours
* moving Shi'a families into homes abandoned by Sunnis
* establishing local Shi'a prayer sites.
Page 14 again makes clear that the military -- and military intelligence -- see the 'enemy' differently than the media repeatedly portrays it. Counterintelligence (war on a people) is "COIN" in the passage below:
Previous U.S. experiences with COIN operations demonstrate how difficult it is to obtain informaion on even a single insurgent threat. Consider the situation confronted in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. In that case, a single, coherent entity dominated threat analysis from the macro perspective (though it might have several interacting components, e.g., the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong, of VC). In Iraq, the number of insurgent organizations alone makes intel collection and analysis several orders of magnitude more problematic. Add criminal, terrorist, supposedly legitimate political, rogue military and police, or other threats and the task is yet further quantum levels more difficult.
Page 16 makes clear that COIN is war on the people with the following statements, "Checking for weapons might be the primary reason for soldiers or marines stopping vehicles at a traffic-control point (TCP). However, the location of TCPs should be influenced -- if not driven -- by a desire to collect information in situations that permit communication without exposing the talkers to insurgent retribution." Page 17 informs of "plans for the U.S. Army to increase the strength of its military-intel branch by more than 7,000 personnel by 2013" while page 18 repeats the 'need' for those in military intel to serve longer tours of duty because "Counterinsurgencies are marathons, not sprints. They are measured in years if not decades" (page 19). Then it's on to some whines (Orrin DeForest on why, oh why, couldn't they have had a "databank" during Vietnam), some 'comparisons' (cops in "Anytown, USA" have access to a database) to argue the 'need' for a database. First off, a police database is on individuals with warrants, etc. That's not really what's being proposed here and everyone grasps that, so let's not kid. Second of all, the ones using the database in "Anytown, USA" and the ones accessing it are people entrusted by the local population. If the police in "Anytown, USA" become an occupying force, there would be a huge backlash to their access to a database. Translation, your comparisons are faulty and illogical.
The study then moves on the ways in which intel sharing is 'harmed.' Such as little sharing across branches or across countries. For all the pages spent on this problem, they never notice the most obvious reason for 'need-to-know' blocking in any environment: a petty tyrant setting her or himself as an 'expert' who must be in control and in the loop at all times.
The report then worships CIA and Ford Foundation (they're the same thing) gadfly Richard Bissell. There's no time for the report to note that Bissell recruited organized crime to do a hit (Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Trafficante, Meyer Lansky and Carlos Marcello) and when that failed then planned the illegal Bay of Pigs invasion. They do have time to note Bissell being fueled by the Cold War and working on aeral spying of the USSR, the sort of thing that the report's authors feel is needed today with all those 'war on terror' types breathing all over the globe. In that regard, they note how successful they feel the Predator drones have been. The authors then develop further the notion that soldiers and marines are "sensors" and must be utilized as such.
We'll come back to the report in a moment but are jumping away at the soldiers and marines as "sensors" for a moment. Saturday, Steven Lee Myers "Soldiers in Iraq React Cautiously to Obama Deadlines for Troop Withdrawal" appeared in the New York Times. In that article, he spoke with various troops about Barack Obama's speech. At the paper's Baghdad Bureau Blog, Stephen Farrell revealed, "Finding an American on the streets of Baghdad is not as easy as it used to be. . . . You still see convoys on the main highways, of course. Raids and operations continue. But on the streets, on a day by day, hour by hour basis, there are far fewer Americans visible, and designedly so." The authors of the RAND report might need to counsel those they're advising that you don't do that, that once you begin spying on a people, you can't put it down and pick it up at will, you either keep it up or quickly lose ground.
Back to the report which yammers on about "metrics" at length and wants the military to leave the concrete for the metaphysical (lots of luck with that). At page 68, it gets interesting again when the authors decide to offer praise they can't back up. You have to wonder if anyone objected to the assertion at any point? Or if they figured that US tax payers can be bilked to pay for hokum? The authors write:
Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds provide money at lower tactical echelons that permit a unit to have an immediate impact in addressing community needs. They have generally been used well in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but their distribution has sometimes been less efective than desired. In some instances, an immediate win later brought notable drawbacks, as when generators purchased to assist those without power in turn created a diesel-fuel shortage. In other cases, the resulting product -- a well of refurbished community center -- can prove a temporary respite, since no one in the receiving community has knowledge of how to maintain the end result or parts needed for repair are available.
They can evaluate the CERP funds? Really? Well they may be called before Congress to do that because, thus far, Congress has been repeatedly stonewalled during testimony.
CERP was an issue during the September 10th House Armed Services Committee hearing (and see this entry by Mike). This is Committe Chair Ike Skelton's exchange with DoD's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman:
Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll share the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.Edelman then tries to stall and Skelton cuts him off with, "Remember you're talking to the American taxpayer." Edelman then replies that it is a fair question. He says CERP is important because it's flexible. It's important because they're just throwing around, if you ask me. They're playing big spender on our dime.Skelton: The issue raises two serious questions of course. Number one is they have a lot of money of their own. And number two the choice of the type of projects that are being paid for. I would like to ask Mr. Secretary if our committee could receive a list of expenditures of $100,000 or more within the last year. Could you do that for us at your convience please?Edelman: We'll work with our colleagues in the controller's office and - and . . . to try and get you --Skelton: That would be very helpful.
How did two authors evaluate a program (in time for a report issued in November) that Congress couldn't even get answers on? The truth is they didn't evaluate the CERP program despite their 'judgment' in the report. And around the time you start thinking this report will never end, they start quoting Sun Tzu (page 78). 20 years ago, they'd still have been padding the report with a quote from Niccolo Machiavelli. And that really takes us up to Appendix A which we may go into tomorrow. The key point is that the authors want a CIA-type military. That won't happen. Not just because the military on the ground sticks to the concrete tasks and not the esoteric but also because an intelligence apparatus already exists: Military intelligence. One of the most abusive elements when it came to spying on American citizens during Vietnam and the element everyone's played dumb on this decade despite the fact that they have been caught -- not just implicated -- in press reports of the last seven years spying on US citizens (citizens who are not serving in the military) who are on US soil. The RAND study forgets that when two abusive agencies collide, the citizenry tends to benefit. May that always be the case.
the common illsthe third estate sunday reviewlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
iraqpbswashington weekgwen ifillmartha raddatzabc newsthe new york timesemily s. rubb
steven lee myers
the washington postzaib sabahsudarsan raghavangina chonthe wall st. journalmcclatchy newspaperschris hedges
kim gamel
usa today
Hey, when's the last time you saw that scamp, Dennis the Menace? Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Making Dennis the Menace""
Did that cheer you up? If not, this should, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Rounding up Lucy"
I love those comics but if they didn't do it for you, go to my mother's site tonight. She's got a joke she'll be posting. Dad thought it up. He called me and said, "Is it funny?" I said, "I'll post it!" He said he'd give it to my mom first. So she's posting it and go check it out. I think you'll laugh.
Okay, this is Chris Hedges' conclusion to "It’s Obama’s War, Now:"
I could live with the prolonged injustice of the occupation in Iraq if I thought there would really be peace, that we could then help rebuild the country we destroyed and that we had restored the rule of law by rejecting the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, something that under post-Nuremberg laws is defined as a criminal "war of aggression." I could live with 19 months more of the war if I knew it would really be the end. But the war in Iraq, like Afghanistan, will go on. Our imperial projects and killing will continue under the Obama presidency. Many more, including some of our own, will die.
The only hope now lies in renewed protests against the war and a reinvigorated anti-war movement. This time the movement should hold fast, as stalwarts like Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader have, to the moral imperative of peace and not the false hopes offered by the Democrats. They cannot be trusted. Politics is a game of pressure. Abandon that pressure and you lose.
I can tell you right now, I'm going to push for that to be a Truest statement of the week at Third this coming Sunday. Let's get into Third now. Dallas worked on the edition as link locator, soundboard and a great deal more. Here's who else worked on the edition:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ
and Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends.
And what did we come up with?
Truest statement of the week -- This is John Walsh, from his amazing article last week calling out the PATHETIC Democrats of America (PDA). (Hey, that's Tommy Hayden's group!)
Truest statement of the week II -- And this is . . . John Walsh! The first time ever that one person got two truests in one week. John Walsh earned it.
A note to our readers -- Jim breaks down the edition and does a solid job and then some.
Editorial: Wishin' And Hopin' -- I love this editorial. It pissed Tom Hayden off. That only made me love it even more. Anything we can do to piss Tom Hayden is pretty good in my book. Tom Hayden wants to end the Iraq War . . . when a Republican is in the White House. He only cares about the illegal war when he can use it to go after Republicans. Tom, you are so Pathetic. Lie down, spread your legs and beg Barack to come aboard. I doubt he will because you're not really a cover boy. But, hey, you won't know until you try. Go for it, Tommy.
TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff -- Ava and C.I. are amazing. They just are. I knew they were covering Sharpton in some form because of his TV special. I didn't know what else they'd be working in but, damn, amazing. Tom Hayden writes another limpid piece on Iraq that restates the same thing he always said and does so in a lifeless manner. Ava and C.I. didn't stop following the illegal war in 2006 so they're able to keep it fresh and address what's actually happening today. This will have you outraged and laughing -- sometimes at the same time.
More faux change from Barack -- All Barack had to do was drop the coffin policy. Instead, he dropped it and put in a half-ass measure that's still be worked out but means that the new policy will be weaker than the policy we had before Bush pushed through the ban.
Amazon.com: Bargains and sexism offered -- I like this. And Jim forgot to add that we downloaded Dusty's Gold (or they did) and had a problem. It was skipping. They played the first track and it was. C.I. said, Do the download again and they said there was no way to start over. I heard C.I. groan and she must have grabbed the laptop. Next thing I know Jim's saying, "Oh, you can start it over." :D So this time they downloaded it with "Save" and then "Open" after and that allowed the problems to be taken care of and it plays just fine.
Crazy Ray LaHood? Not so crazy after all. -- Ray LaHood. I may try to write about him this week. In case I don't, the White House had a big laugh at his expense and the next day a lot of the press laughed at him as well. He wasn't loco. He may be wrong, but he wasn't crazy.
The Katrina goes to Phyllis Bennis -- Ava and C.I. didn't work on this. The rest of us did and we loved writing this. If C.I. had written it, it wouldn't have been like this. (C.I. told me, "It would have been weaker." C.I. would have worried about Phyllis' feelings.) So I was especially surprised to see it quoted in the snapshot today by C.I. and even more so when I saw the sections C.I. included. :D
Liar-in-chief Barack -- Ava and C.I. caught Barry lying. He did not say he would listen to the military commanders about 16 months. He said he would listen about how to best do the 16 month 'withdrawal.' He explained that in April of last year, during a televised debate. Busted, Barry, you got busted! It's in Ava and C.I.'s TV article (above) but we wanted to really emphasize that.
TV Spotlight: Washington Week -- Ava and C.I. wrote this to include a longer excerpt and also to answer a few e-mails Ty had mentioned.
The Condi II -- Susan Rice is The Condi II. Ha! :D I love it.
The Bronze Booby goes to . . . David Martin -- Read that statement and be outraged. How dare he and how the hell did CBS ever let that air to begin with?
Iraq roundtable -- Great roundtable. (The one we did Friday night.)
Highlights -- Betty, Ruth, Cedric, Wally, Rebecca, Kat, Stan, Marcia, Elaine and I wrote this and picked out the highlights unless we note otherwise.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, March 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Barack's Friday speech gets some analysis, the US military announces deaths, a RAND report shows up on Wikileaks and more.
Friday Barack Obama spoke at Camp Lejeune. The spin was his decision to go from a 16-month 'withdrawal' to a 19 one was no surprise and he had always, always, always said he would listen to commanders on the ground. No. That's a lie. Sunday, Ava and my "TV: Felons, Frauds and Fluff," covered the exchange between ABC's Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama during the April 16, 2008 debate. But anyone who followed the Democratic Party's campaign for the presidential nomination knows the way it worked: Hillary gave an answer and then Barack tried to make it his own. So today we'll start by noting Hillary's answer. And you should notice that when Charlie Gibson moves over to Barack, he is clearing asking Barack if he is giving "the same rock-hard plegde" that Hillary just gave. From the transcript:
GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director of your campaign, Howard Wolfson, on a conference call recently was asked, is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month, whatever the realities on the ground? And Wolfson said, I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it. The answer is, yes. So, if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one, and said, this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?
CLINTON: Yes, I am, Charlie. And here's why. Thankfully, we have a system in our country, of civilian control of the military. And our professional military are the best in the world. They give their best advice. And then they execute the policies of the president. I have watched this president, as he has continued to change the rationale and move the goal posts when it comes to Iraq. And I am convinced that it is in America's best interests, it is in the best interests of our military, and I even believe it is in the best interests of Iraq that upon taking office I will ask the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisers to immediately put together for me a plan so that I can begin to withdraw within 60 days. I will make it very clear that we will do so in a responsible and careful manner because, obviously, withdrawing troops and equipment, is dangerous. I will also make it clear to the Iraqis that they no longer have a blank check from the president of the United States. Because I believe that it will be only through our commitment to withdrawal that the Iraqis will begin to do what they have failed to do for all of these years. I will also begin an intensive diplomatic effort, both within the region and internationally, to begin to try to get other countries to understand the stakes that we all face when it comes to the future of Iraq. But I have been convinced and very clear that I will begin to withdraw troops within 60 days. And we've had other instances in our history where some military commanders have been very publicly opposed to what a president was proposing to do. But I think it's important that this decision be made. And I intend to make it.
GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified. Saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying: I know better than the military commanders here?
CLINTON: No, what I'm saying, Charlie, is that no one can predict what will happen. There are many different scenarios. But one thing I am sure of is that our staying in Iraq, our continuing to lose our men and women in uniform, having many injured, the Iraqi casualties that we are seeing, as well, is there -- is no way for us to maintain a strong position in the world. It's not only about Iraq. It is about ending the war in Iraq so that we can begin paying attention to all of the other problems we have. There isn't any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected. It has not gotten the resources that it needs. We hear that from our military commanders responsible for that region of the world. And there are other problems that we have failed to address. So the bottom line for me is: We don't know what will happen as we withdraw. We do know what will happen if we stay mired in Iraq. The Iraqi government will not accept responsibility for its own future. Our military will continue to be stretched thin. And our soldiers will be on their second, third, even their fourth deployment. And we will not be able to re-assert our leadership and our moral authority in the world. And I think those are the kind of broad issues that a president has to take into account.
GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that." So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?
OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. And one of the things that's been interesting about the president's approach lately has been to say, "Well, I'm just taking cues from General Petraeus." Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And, unfortunately, we have had a bad mission set by our civilian leadership, which our military has performed brilliantly. But it is time for us to set a strategy that is going to make the American people safer. Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics, once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately, in an orderly fashion, out of Iraq, and we are going to have our combat troops out. We will not have permanent bases there. Once I have provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. But, ultimately, the buck stops with me as the commander-in-chief.
The buck does stop with Barack Obama who is now the president of the United States and he told the American people in the debate last April that he would stick to a 16-month withdrawal and that was the "mission." He would listen to the military commanders about how to implement the "mission," but the civilian command was the one responsible for setting the mission. He mocked Bully Boy Bush for falling back on "I'm just taking cues from General Peteraeus." And yet, Friday, when Barack sold his broken promise, he pushed the blame for it off on the military commanders. The buck stops with Barack Obama. He told the American people one thing in April and did another thing Friday. That's called "lying."
A lot of people believe that his announcement of a draw down means that the approximately 144,000 (or 142,000) troops in Iraq will begin leaving Iraq at a steady pace. That is not the case. For this year, the expectation is that it will drop 10,000 -- to either 134,000 or 132,000 -- and no more. January 2010, a 'draw down' is expected to begin. If nothing changes, of course, and something always changes. ABC News' Martha Raddatz explained this on Friday's Washington Week:
Gwen Ifill: And then, Martha, we get to today, in which he goes to Camp Leujune and he says 'we are -- I'm going to keep another campaign promise. I said we were going to be out of Iraq in sixteen months, well, maybe eighteen months, and then he says -- Martha Raddatz: Or nineteen. Gwen Ifill: Or nineteen. 50,000 troops are going to stay behind. But they'll be gone by 2011. Is any of this possilbe. Martha Raddatz: I, well, I think first of all you've got to look at his language. Certainly, they're going to start the draw down. And what I've been told is in the next six months, they'll only have eight to ten thousand soldiers and Marines leaving Iraq. The bulk of the draw down that he promised will start in probably January and February and then you'll have 80,000 troops pulling out of Iraq from January to August. That would leave 50,000 trooops. The thing I would quibble with is they will no longer have combat missions. Look at what the mission will be. And General Ray Odierno sent a letter out to the troops today saying essentially their goals would be training Iraqi secruity forces, conducting coordinated counterterrorism mission and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. I don't really know how you do that without combat troops and frankly all of the US forces are trained combat troops.
Note that as this is dicated, Washington Week has streaming video up of Friday's show but has not yet posted the transcript. Thomas E. Ricks (author of the new book The Gamble) evaluates Barack's speech today and offers, "The more I consider it, the more I think President Obama's Camp Lejeune speech last Friday was about how to stay in Iraq for a while, not about how to get out. . . . What's more, the planned troop reductions won't really happen in a big way until sometime in 2010, so Iraq can get through its national elections. (And a memo to everyone who is counting on the SOFA to bail us out of Iraq: Guys, that was about getting Iraq through 2009, not about what happens in 2011.)" He could have been directing the parenthetical to Phyllis Bennis (but he wasn't) who showed up last week so uninformed that The Third Estate Sunday Review awarded her a Katrina. (Ava and I were working on our TV pieces, we didn't help write the Katrina article.) Phyllis repeats the lie Crazy Ass Patrick Cockburn's been pimping that the White House was forced to sign that treaty. (If link to Phyllis article doesn't work, it's because you have to be a ZNet sustainer to see it.) The Third gang takes Phyllis to school, "Reality, Phyll, the White House pushed that treaty masquerading as a SOFA through. They did so over Democratic Congressional opposition -- that was Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Russ Feingold, Susan Davis and pretty much everyone including, yes, Barack. The White House ignored the objections, just as they ignored the Constitution. . . . Lying to yourself that the treaty the White House wrote and pushed through was forced on the White House may help you cum, Phyllis, but it's not reality." Phyllis also foolishly appears to have no idea on when (some) US troops might start leaving. When she grasps that only 10,000 tops will leave in the ten months left in this year -- and maybe grasps that will put the number at around the same number before Bully Boy Bush's 2007 'surge' -- she may feel that "three months" or one day more matters. Right now, she's worthless. Sorry, Phyllis, that's the reality. Chris Hedges (World Can't Wait) never saw himself as Barack's handmaiden which is why he can speak the truth so many others silence:
Barack Obama has shown that he is as capable of doublespeak as any other politician when he announced an end to the war in Iraq. Combat troops are to be pulled out of Iraq by August 2010, he said, but some 50,000 occupation troops will remain behind. Someone should let the Iraqis know the distinction. I doubt any soldier or Marine in Iraq will notice much difference in 19 months.
Many combat units will simply be relabeled as noncombat units. And what about our small army of well-paid contractors and mercenaries? Will Dyncorp, Bechtel, Blackwater (which recently changed its name to Xe), all of whom have made fortunes off the war, pack up and go home? What about the three large super-bases, dozens of smaller military outposts and our imperial city, the Green Zone? Will American corporations give up their lucrative control of Iraqi oil?
The occupation of Iraq will not be disrupted. Lies and deception, which launched the war in the first place, are being employed by Democrats to maintain it. This is not a withdrawal. It is occupation lite. And as long as American troops are on Iraqi soil the war will grind on, the death toll on each side will continue to mount and we will remain a lightning rod for hatred and rage in the Middle East. Add to this Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan and even his most purblind supporters will have to admit the new president is as intent on maintaining American empire as the old.
USA Today offers the editorial "Obama declares end to U.S. presence in Iraq -- sort of:"
Despite Obama's certitude, the best answer is: maybe. Yes, the war is winding down, and Iraq is far calmer than it was two years ago. But the situation remains fluid, and Obama's commitment to get out is part goal, part guessing game.The president's bid to fulfill the promise he made on the campaign trail -- to remove all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office -- always came with a big asterisk. He would leave 35,000 to 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq well beyond that promised drawdown period, now extended from 16 to 19 months. That's about a third of the 142,000 troops there now. What's more, the drawdown will be back-loaded, with troops leaving only slowly until after national elections this December. And when would those "non-combat" troops come home? Under a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, by the end of 2011. Even that isn't set in concrete, however. "If we're there beyond that, it'll be because of a new agreement ... negotiated with President Obama and based on what he thinks is in the best interests of our country," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday on Meet the Press.
At the New York Times, Emily S. Rubb covers the same Meet the Press apperance USA Today only mentions but somehow Rubb forgets to include the pertinent section. Intent on offering a feel-good experience, Rubb ignores that Gates repeated what he'd emphasized on Friday: "I think what he was referring to was that under the terms of the Status Of Forces Agreement, which is what we are operating under now, all US forces must be out by the end of 2011. It will require a new agreement -- or it would require a new agreement, a new negotiation -- almost certainly an Iraqi initiative -- to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011. So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011." And could the US remain in Iraq after 2011, Secretary Gates? "Well, I think we'll have to wait and see. I mean, it's a hypothetical. The Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point. So it remains to be seen whether they will take an initiative. I think what we should be -- my own view would be that we should be prepared to have some very modest-sized presence for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing, perhaps, intelligence support and so on beyond that. But again, it's hypothetical, because such a -- no such request has been made, and no indication that it will be at this point." Back to Sunday's Meet the Press (transcript to Gates' segment here) where Gates admitted that, yes, troops could be sent back in. (The Times wasn't interested in that despite the fact that their own Michael Gordon pressed Barack on that point in November of 2007 and Barack admitted that was the case.) At the Washington Post's Post Global Rami G. Khouri offers this opinion on troops going back in after some being leaving, "Absolutely not. American troops should leave Iraq and stay out. If ethnic strife flares up again in Iraq beyond its current levels, it will probably be due to three possible causes: lingering resentments and active revenge for the abuses of the Baathist regime; destructive forces unleashed by the American-led invasion that removed the entire state structure; or, meddling by external forces from neighboring countries. A return of American forces would not resolve any of those issues or lower their intensity, but would only exacerbate them." Meanwhile, link provided for laughter, Tom Hayden pretends he's of some use to the world and wants to insist that Thomas E. Ricks is wrong, wrong, wrong and Barack's announcment proves it and . . . Wipe the drool from your mouth, Tom-Tom, or use it to soak Barack's balls. But don't pretend you've offered anything resembling critical thought or even a summary. Ricks remains an analyst, you remain the ex-husband who pulled a Brinks truck up to your divorce settlement. Not content to spew at Thomas E. Ricks (who's actually been to Iraq, Tom, what's your excuse?), Tom-Tom goes after Chris Hedges, Ralph Nader supporters, Cynthia McKinney supporters and any lefty who refused to support the Christ-child at the ballot box, "When there was a choice between supporting Barack Obama and attending rallies organized by various Maoists, Trotskyists and neo-anarchists opposed to Obama and electoral politics, the grassroots peace movement headed for the precincts by the thousands." You just have to laugh, you just have to laugh.
Turning to one of the costs of the illegal war. Saturday the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here Feb. 28." Today they announce, "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died March 2 from combat related injuries while conducting a patrol north of Baghdad." The announcements bring the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4254. The month drew to a close Saturday and while the media dropped interest in Iraq, violence increased. China's Xinhua explains, "Iraq's monthly civilian death toll in February rose slightly to a total of 258 from the previous month that showed the lowest level since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, authorities said on Sunday." These are figures which come from Iraq's ministries so these are low balled figures. AFP reports it's a 35% increase from January, "A total of 258 Iraqis were killed in violence in February, a sharp rise from the previous month that saw the lowest casualty figures since the 2003 US-led invasion, authorities said Sunday. Statistics compiled by the Defense, Interior and Health ministries showed that 211 civilians, 17 soldiers and 30 policemen lost their lives to violence across the country in February." So what can you do? You can stand up and join with The National Assembly to End the Wars, the ANSWER coalition, World Can't Wait and Iraq Veterans Against the War for an action this month. From IVAW's announcement:IVAW's Afghanistan Resolution and National Mobilization March 21stAs an organization of service men and women who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, stateside, and around the world, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War have seen the impact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the people of these occupied countries and our fellow service members and veterans, as well as the cost of the wars at home and abroad. In recognition that our struggle to withdraw troops from Iraq and demand reparations for the Iraqi people is only part of the struggle to right the wrongs being committed in our name, Iraq Veterans Against the War has voted to adopt an official resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and reparations for the Afghan people. (To read the full resolution, click here.) To that end, Iraq Veterans Against the War will be joining a national coalition which is being mobilized to march on the Pentagon, March 21st, to demand the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and further our mission and goals in solidarity with the national anti-war movement. This demonstration will be the first opportunity to show President Obama and the new administration that our struggle was not only against the Bush administration - and that we will not sit around and hope that troops are removed under his rule, but that we will demand they be removed immediately.For more information on the March 21st March on the Pentagon, and additional events being organized in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orlando, to include transportation, meetings, and how you can get involved, please visit: www.pentagonmarch.org or www.answercoalition.org.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing which left three people injured, a Balad Ruz roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left three more wounded and a Khalis bicycle bombing that claimed 3 lives and left sixteen people injured.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 person shot dead in Mosul.
In Iraq, Kim Gamel (AP) reports the January 31st provincial elections remain a sore spot (and can be appealed through March 9th with seating of the winners to take place March 24th) as approximately two-thousand demonstrated against the results in Diyala Province today. Gamel reports they were Shi'ites and claim fraud in the voting whose results or 'results' gave 15 seats to Sunnis, 6 to Kurds, 5 to Shi'ites and 3 to an unnamed "secular party." Zaid Sabah and Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) call this demonstration "the first significant" one and note the demand "that the electoral commission be replaced, declaring that it was influenced by Sunni officials. Many Shiite voters in the province could not find their names on voter lists while large numbers of people displaced by violence could not return to their home areas to cast ballots, Shiite politicians have said."
Staying with Iraqi politics, let's drop back to the Jan. 12th snapshot:Willam Brockman Bankhead was the Speaker of the US House of Representatives for over four years. He died unexpectably of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. (For those unfamiliar with Bankhead, he was the father of Tallulah Bankhead.) The following day, Sam Rayburn became Speaker of the House. The following day. December 23rd, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was forced out of the Speakership of the Iraqi Parliament. The week prior he had stated he was resigning. He attempted to take that back but a large number wanted him gone as Speaker and had wanted him gone for some time with repeated public efforts to oust him. Today's March 2nd. They've had over two months to find a new Speaker -- it was their decision to oust Mahmoud al-Mashhadni -- and they still haven't done their job. Friday afternoon, Gina Chon filed "Iraq Parliament Members Squabble Over Next Speaker" (Wall St. Journal's Baghdad Life) noting that Parliament still cannot pick a Speaker:Now lawmakers are waiting for the country's Supreme Court to rule on how many votes are needed to select the next speaker. About a week ago, 136 lawmakers of the 230 who were present chose the Iraqi Islamic Party nominee Ayad al-Sammaraie as the next speaker. But some argued that the rules say he needs an absolute majority of the 275-member parliament, which is 138 votes.The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni political party, accuses Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite Islamic Dawa Party, of unfairly trying to block Mr. al-Sammaraie, who is seen as a strong personality who could challenge Mr. Maliki's agenda in parliament. Those who opposed the vote say they are just following the rules.In addition to fighting to become speaker of the parliament, Mr. al-Sammaraie also has the tough job of being head of the body's finance committee, which is currently studying ways to trim Iraq's $60 billion proposed national budget for 2009 by an additional 7 percent. Alarmed by falling oil prices, lawmakers say the current budget based on oil at $50 a barrel is unrealistic and further cuts are needed. There have already been three different versions of the budget submitted by the ministry of finance because of the falling oil prices.
In news of governmental leaks, Wikileaks posts a RAND study today. The November 2008 study is over 300 pages and [PDF format warning] entitled "Intelligence Operations and Metrics in Iraq and Afghanistan, Fourth in a Series of Joint Urban Operations and Counterinsurgency Studies" Russell W. Glenn and S. Jamie Gayton and it's noted, "The research described in this report was prepared for the United States Joint Forces Command. The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community under Contract W74V8H-06-C-0002." The American people paid for the study and they didn't even toss out "And by viewers like you."
The text of the actual report is 86 pages. Appendixes and bibliography take it to over 300 pages. From page two, we'll note this passage:
The many overlapping insurgent, terrorist, criminal, and other foes that together comprise the heterogeneous enemy in Iraq -- and an only somewhat less varied one in Afghanistan -- continue to feed on their damaged societies. What appear to be randmo bombings, kidnappings, and other atrocities sometimes constitute a well-conceived insurgent campaign of exhaustion.
We note the above on Iraq for two reasons. First, because the news media, most recently David Martin on Friday's CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, too often tries to 'short-hand' it to "al Qaeda." (Not even al Qaeda in Mesapotamia, just "al Qaeda.") Second because it leads in to this passage on pages 5 - 6:
Western Baghdad in September 2007 provides us a window on how some insurgents ply a strategy of exhaustion at the tactical level, one that challenges coalition leaders in both the intel and metrics realms. Shi'a militia groups, often one or another form of Jaish al Mahdi (JAM), would find a Sunni mosque within or near a mixed Shi'a and Sunni neighborhood. JAM forces would attack the mosque to draw fire from Sunni defenders, thereafter making an anonymous report of the shooting to nearby Iraqi Army (IA) forces in conjunction with a request for action to subdue the alleged Sunni instigators. Army forces (comprised priemarily of Shi'a personnel) would respond and declare the mosque troublesome. The imam would be removed and the mosque closed. Having eliminated a vital community resource for Sunni worshipers, JAM members further encourage local Sunnis to leave, often employing one or more of the following tactics:
* denying the neighborhood public services
* threatening individuals, e.g., putting a bullet in someone's mailbox with a note that the receiving family will be killed if it does not depart within 24 hours
* moving Shi'a families into homes abandoned by Sunnis
* establishing local Shi'a prayer sites.
Page 14 again makes clear that the military -- and military intelligence -- see the 'enemy' differently than the media repeatedly portrays it. Counterintelligence (war on a people) is "COIN" in the passage below:
Previous U.S. experiences with COIN operations demonstrate how difficult it is to obtain informaion on even a single insurgent threat. Consider the situation confronted in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. In that case, a single, coherent entity dominated threat analysis from the macro perspective (though it might have several interacting components, e.g., the North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong, of VC). In Iraq, the number of insurgent organizations alone makes intel collection and analysis several orders of magnitude more problematic. Add criminal, terrorist, supposedly legitimate political, rogue military and police, or other threats and the task is yet further quantum levels more difficult.
Page 16 makes clear that COIN is war on the people with the following statements, "Checking for weapons might be the primary reason for soldiers or marines stopping vehicles at a traffic-control point (TCP). However, the location of TCPs should be influenced -- if not driven -- by a desire to collect information in situations that permit communication without exposing the talkers to insurgent retribution." Page 17 informs of "plans for the U.S. Army to increase the strength of its military-intel branch by more than 7,000 personnel by 2013" while page 18 repeats the 'need' for those in military intel to serve longer tours of duty because "Counterinsurgencies are marathons, not sprints. They are measured in years if not decades" (page 19). Then it's on to some whines (Orrin DeForest on why, oh why, couldn't they have had a "databank" during Vietnam), some 'comparisons' (cops in "Anytown, USA" have access to a database) to argue the 'need' for a database. First off, a police database is on individuals with warrants, etc. That's not really what's being proposed here and everyone grasps that, so let's not kid. Second of all, the ones using the database in "Anytown, USA" and the ones accessing it are people entrusted by the local population. If the police in "Anytown, USA" become an occupying force, there would be a huge backlash to their access to a database. Translation, your comparisons are faulty and illogical.
The study then moves on the ways in which intel sharing is 'harmed.' Such as little sharing across branches or across countries. For all the pages spent on this problem, they never notice the most obvious reason for 'need-to-know' blocking in any environment: a petty tyrant setting her or himself as an 'expert' who must be in control and in the loop at all times.
The report then worships CIA and Ford Foundation (they're the same thing) gadfly Richard Bissell. There's no time for the report to note that Bissell recruited organized crime to do a hit (Sam Giancana, Johnny Roselli, Santo Trafficante, Meyer Lansky and Carlos Marcello) and when that failed then planned the illegal Bay of Pigs invasion. They do have time to note Bissell being fueled by the Cold War and working on aeral spying of the USSR, the sort of thing that the report's authors feel is needed today with all those 'war on terror' types breathing all over the globe. In that regard, they note how successful they feel the Predator drones have been. The authors then develop further the notion that soldiers and marines are "sensors" and must be utilized as such.
We'll come back to the report in a moment but are jumping away at the soldiers and marines as "sensors" for a moment. Saturday, Steven Lee Myers "Soldiers in Iraq React Cautiously to Obama Deadlines for Troop Withdrawal" appeared in the New York Times. In that article, he spoke with various troops about Barack Obama's speech. At the paper's Baghdad Bureau Blog, Stephen Farrell revealed, "Finding an American on the streets of Baghdad is not as easy as it used to be. . . . You still see convoys on the main highways, of course. Raids and operations continue. But on the streets, on a day by day, hour by hour basis, there are far fewer Americans visible, and designedly so." The authors of the RAND report might need to counsel those they're advising that you don't do that, that once you begin spying on a people, you can't put it down and pick it up at will, you either keep it up or quickly lose ground.
Back to the report which yammers on about "metrics" at length and wants the military to leave the concrete for the metaphysical (lots of luck with that). At page 68, it gets interesting again when the authors decide to offer praise they can't back up. You have to wonder if anyone objected to the assertion at any point? Or if they figured that US tax payers can be bilked to pay for hokum? The authors write:
Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds provide money at lower tactical echelons that permit a unit to have an immediate impact in addressing community needs. They have generally been used well in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but their distribution has sometimes been less efective than desired. In some instances, an immediate win later brought notable drawbacks, as when generators purchased to assist those without power in turn created a diesel-fuel shortage. In other cases, the resulting product -- a well of refurbished community center -- can prove a temporary respite, since no one in the receiving community has knowledge of how to maintain the end result or parts needed for repair are available.
They can evaluate the CERP funds? Really? Well they may be called before Congress to do that because, thus far, Congress has been repeatedly stonewalled during testimony.
CERP was an issue during the September 10th House Armed Services Committee hearing (and see this entry by Mike). This is Committe Chair Ike Skelton's exchange with DoD's Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S. Edelman:
Ike Skelton: The department's understanding of the allowed usage of CERP funds seems to have undergone a rather dramatic change since Congress first authorized it. The intent of the program was originally to meet urgent humanitarian needs in Iraq through small projects undertaken under the initative of brigade and battalion commanders. Am I correct?Edelman: Yes, sir.Ike Skelton: Thank you. The answer was "yes." Last year the Department of Defense has used millions of CERP dollars to build hotels for foreign visitors, spent $900,000 on a mural at the Baghdad International Airport and, as I understand this second piece of art, that CERP funds were used for. I'm not sure that the American tax payer would appreciate that knowing full well that Iraq has a lot of money in the bank from oil revenues and it is my understanding that Iraq has announced that they're going to build the world's largest ferris wheel. And if they have money to build the world's largest ferris wheel why are we funding murals and hotels with money that should be used by the local battallion commander. This falls in the purview of plans and policy ambassador.Edelman: No, no, it's absolutely right and I'll share the stage here -- I'll share the stage quite willing with uh, with Admiral Winnefeld with whom I've actually been involved in discussions with for some weeks about how we provide some additional guidance to the field and some additional requirements to make sure that CERP is appropriately spent.Edelman then tries to stall and Skelton cuts him off with, "Remember you're talking to the American taxpayer." Edelman then replies that it is a fair question. He says CERP is important because it's flexible. It's important because they're just throwing around, if you ask me. They're playing big spender on our dime.Skelton: The issue raises two serious questions of course. Number one is they have a lot of money of their own. And number two the choice of the type of projects that are being paid for. I would like to ask Mr. Secretary if our committee could receive a list of expenditures of $100,000 or more within the last year. Could you do that for us at your convience please?Edelman: We'll work with our colleagues in the controller's office and - and . . . to try and get you --Skelton: That would be very helpful.
How did two authors evaluate a program (in time for a report issued in November) that Congress couldn't even get answers on? The truth is they didn't evaluate the CERP program despite their 'judgment' in the report. And around the time you start thinking this report will never end, they start quoting Sun Tzu (page 78). 20 years ago, they'd still have been padding the report with a quote from Niccolo Machiavelli. And that really takes us up to Appendix A which we may go into tomorrow. The key point is that the authors want a CIA-type military. That won't happen. Not just because the military on the ground sticks to the concrete tasks and not the esoteric but also because an intelligence apparatus already exists: Military intelligence. One of the most abusive elements when it came to spying on American citizens during Vietnam and the element everyone's played dumb on this decade despite the fact that they have been caught -- not just implicated -- in press reports of the last seven years spying on US citizens (citizens who are not serving in the military) who are on US soil. The RAND study forgets that when two abusive agencies collide, the citizenry tends to benefit. May that always be the case.
the common illsthe third estate sunday reviewlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
iraqpbswashington weekgwen ifillmartha raddatzabc newsthe new york timesemily s. rubb
steven lee myers
the washington postzaib sabahsudarsan raghavangina chonthe wall st. journalmcclatchy newspaperschris hedges
kim gamel
usa today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)