Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Dad day

First this is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tarsands" that went up Sunday

tarsand

Second, I'm just too tired to blog tonight.

Sorry.

My daughter tripped and knocked out a tooth this morning so we were at the dentist most of the morning and I'm just exhausted, sorry.





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

 
Monday, June 22, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, 2 blowhards tell Iraqi Sunnis what Iraqi Sunnis feel, Iraq tops a new list, Iraq's national guard proposal just isn't happening, and much more.




Let's start with crap.










  • 1h1 hour ago
    "if you looked at who has harmed the Sunni people the most since 2008, it would easily be the Islamic State movement"
    35 retweets 23 favorites


    • Oh, Medhi, we love you.

    We love all the 'special' from Al Jazeera -- the channel that went silent because of the deal the owner made with Nouri al-Maliki back in the day.

    People are periodically shocked that Al Jazeera self-censors and lies but, remember, we told you about it in real time.

    Mehdi  links to Joel Wing -- are you sides aching yet?  And Joel's interviewed Mr. Naval War College.



    He interviewed a part of the war machine who, no surprise, wants you to know the Islamic State has done more damage.

    Why?

    Because Craig Whiteside is an idiot, a liar or a whore.

    He can pick which one.

    It doesn't matter because he doesn't know what he's talking about.


    [Joel Wing King Dumb Ass]: 2. A conventional wisdom has formed about how the Islamic State was able to rebuild itself after its nadir in 2008. Most of that argument centers on Syria providing a rebirth for the group, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s autocratic politics. You’ve written those were important, but there was more to the story. What else do you think was pivotal for the group’s re-emergence?


    [Idiot/Liar/Whore Craig Whiteside:]  We tend to rely on these simplistic narratives to explain complex events like the resurgence of the IS. Not to defend the indefensible, but I don’t think you can say that Maliki’s autocratic politics – as counterproductive as they were - can physically force someone to join a horrific organization like the Islamic State. The Sunnis know exactly who IS is and what they are capable of doing. I mean, if you looked at who has harmed the Sunni people the most since 2008, it would easily be the Islamic State movement, which has killed thousands of Sunnis in its return to power (and advertised this fact in real time on jihadist websites by the way). So I don’t see the IS resurgence simply as a result of some grievance narrative against Maliki, or from the very real advantages the IS movement did see from their investment and leverage of the chaos in Syria to recruit, upgrade weapons, and secure additional funding from extortion and oil sales. It is more complex than that.



    A conventional wisdom?

    Rebirth from 2008?


    Even in the administration, there is not agreement that you can trace the Islamic State back to 2008 in Iraq.  Let alone prior.

    Even in the Pentagon, there is disagreement on that.

    And I can quote Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on that.

    And as for "some grievance narrative against Maliki"?

    What a bunch of cheap liars.



    The murders carried out by Nouri al-Maliki will continue to emerge.


    The Sunnis were targeted.

    Even removing the ethnic cleansing -- which Nouri carried out with the US government's help -- pre-2008 leaves you with a lot of dead.

    And that's before we get to the other issues.

    The Islamic State did not run off a Sunni politician.  Tareq al-Hashemi was run off by Nouri al-Maliki.

    It was Nouri who staged a dawn raid on a Sunni politician's home, after all.

    It was Nouri who tortured peaceful protesters.



    Craig, don't remember you saying a damn word when that took place but, of course, you wouldn't.


    And it's cute how after so many Sunnis have spoken to the press, Captain Blowhard knows better than the Sunni people.

    Here's Alice Fordham reporting on NPR's Morning Edition on February 3, 2015:


    Now his group is in a de facto alliance with al-Qaida's successor, ISIS. Their thinking is similar. They fight alongside each other. Dabbash's views are typical of a broad spectrum of Sunnis in Iraq - Islamist, tribes, one-time supporters of Saddam Hussein. They feel victimized by Iraq's Shiite-led government, and many fight against the Shiite-dominated army, either joining ISIS or allying with them, even if they find the group extreme. 



    Here's Nour Malas and Ghassan Adnan (Wall St. Journal) reporting May 22nd:


    While some of his Sunni kinsmen in Anbar province set about working with Shiite militias on a strategy to oust Islamic State, Emad al-Jumaili was making a very different kind of plan.
    The tribal elder was busy preparing to guard his home and family from those same militias.

    “I have always said I would much prefer to be killed by a Sunni terrorist organization than a Shiite terrorist organization,” said Mr. Jumaili.



    Abigail Hauslohner (Washington Post) reported July 12, 2014:


    The worshipers and other Sunnis interviewed in Baghdad said they have little affinity for the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State that routed Iraqi forces last month and declared a “caliphate” across a vast swath of the country.
    But as the militants take aim at Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, these educated, professional Sunnis leave no doubt that their sympathies lie with the insurgents.

    “It’s a revolution against oppression,” Moussa said. “We believe there will be a zero hour here in Baghdad soon. The Sunnis have nothing to lose.”



    We could do this all day.

    But what do Sunni Iraqis know about themselves, right?

    So much better to have their own words 'corrected' by Captain Blowhard.


    In August of 2014, Lucy Fisher (New Statesman) observed, "After all, the plight of the nation’s Sunnis, disenfranchised under Nouri al-Maliki’s Shia-dominated government, is well known."


    And they are well known -- except to blow hards like Joel Wing and Captain Big Mouth.


    Joel Wing is a danger to himself and others.

    He's infamous for promoting a whack job whose public meltdown included that the CIA and others were following him around, harassing him at public libraries, blah blah blah crazy insane.

    Joel is also infamous for insisting that KRG President Massoud Barzani was powerless and his rule  over -- those are e-mails Jim and I continue to laugh about  to this day, Joel -- back in 2011.

    In other words, where there is wrong, there is Joel Wing.

    Count on it, over and over again.

    Thanks for playing, Joel.  It's always fun to watch you make an ass out of yourself.

    By the way, from time to time Joel Wing thinks we can be friends.  He never gets that I wouldn't give a damn about him, wouldn't even slam him, if he didn't have his long, long history of attacking the Sunnis.

    Explain this one, Joel:
















    • Oh, that's right, you can't -- or more precisely: You won't.



    Sorry, Joel, I don't need a xenophobe for a friend.  Don't e-mail.


    Or in the words of Blondie


    You got a big mouth,  I'm happy to see
    Your foot is firmly entrenched where a molar should be
    If you talk much louder you could get an award
    From the federal communications board

     Don't be cruel
    Be  a thing -- sweet thing, as a rule
    Don't be sad
    I left you in the street, you're pre-fab
    I had to get away.
    Don't go away sad
    Don't go pre-fab
    Don't go be bad
    Don't go away mad
    Just go away, go away

    -- "Just Go Away," written by Debbie Harry, first recorded by Blondie on their album Parallel Lines.



    This morning, we noted:

     Voting this month on a new national anthem?
    That's a trifle.
    That's something you can maybe do if you're addressing the serious issues.
    But when you're ignoring the national guard prospect that you've agreed to form but done nothing on, when you're ignoring working towards political solutions and when you're working against the Constitution (such as the move to defy the Constitution on the death penalty by giving the power to decide executions to the Minister of Justice when the Constitution places that authorization solely in the hands of the presidency council), when you still can't pay the KRG their part of the national budget, you really don't have time to waste or dick around on issues like the national anthem.



    Now All Iraq News reports that (Shi'ite) National Alliance MP Muhammad Naji is stating that the national guard bill will be voted on . . . "next legislative term."

    If that delay alone isn't disgusting enough, he adds, "we will approve on condition that it is not related to the local provinces."

    But that's exactly what it's about -- the local provinces.

    The plan US President Barack Obama has been arguing for since Summer 2014 is for local forces.  The National Guard would be a group where the KRG forces took care of the KRG, Sunni forces took care of predominately Sunni localities and the Shi'ite forces took care of the rest.

    The entire basis of the plan is "local provinces."

    So what the politician is really saying is: "We ignored it for months -- as we took US tax dollars and utilized US military support -- and now we've kicked it back to the next legislative session where we will again ignore it."



    Meanwhile, Josh Rogin and Eli Lake (Bloomberg News) report:


     Two senior administration officials confirmed to us that U.S. soldiers and Shiite militia groups are both using the Taqqadum military base in Anbar, the same Iraqi base where President Obama is sending an additional 450 U.S. military personnel to help train the local forces fighting against the Islamic State. Some of the Iran-backed Shiite militias at the base have killed American soldiers in the past.
    Some inside the Obama administration fear that sharing the base puts U.S. soldiers at risk. The U.S. intelligence community has reported back to Washington that representatives of some of the more extreme militias have been spying on U.S. operations at Taqqadum, one senior administration official told us. That could be calamitous if the fragile relationship between the U.S. military and the Shiite militias comes apart and Iran-backed forces decide to again target U.S. troops.



    The report was noted in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by John Kirby.
    QUESTION: On Iraq, there are reports talking about the Taqaddum base that – which is considered to be used for the 45 percent – for the 450 advisors – U.S. advisors to be positioned there. So it’s – there are reports talking about that this is also shared by the Shia militias which is considered as Iranian-backed Shia militias. And there are reports that are talking about that these militias are spying on the U.S. advisors or the other personnels there. Do you have any response for that, or do you have any concerns if the Shia militia’s also positioned in this base?

     MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen the reports. I don’t know to what degree Shia militia members are on al-Taqaddum and the base or where they are. I mean, I would refer you to the Defense Department for that kind of thing. That’s certainly not something that we would speak to here at the State Department.

     QUESTION: But in any case like that, if you positioned these advisors, is that going to be something – will be used by U.S. advisors or other Iraqi forces?

     MR KIRBY: Again, you’re asking questions that are much better put to the Defense Department. What we’ve said is that all the forces operating against ISIL inside Iraq need to be under the command and control of Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Government. Prime Minister Abadi has made that very, very clear that that’s his expectation. As for the particulars of who’s on what base and how close they are, I think you just – I’d have to refer you to the Defense Department.

     QUESTION: And lastly, I wanted --
    MR KIRBY: I wasn’t trying to do an Abbott and Costello thing there either.
    QUESTION: Last one on Iraq? One more?

     MR KIRBY: Yeah.
    QUESTION: The WikiLeaks document talking about the Iraqi officials and Iraqi – some of the Iraq Sunni politicians and also political parties got fund from the Saudi Arabia. Do you think this is going to impact – have a negative impact on the Iraq and Saudi relations? I mean, including also U.S. in the past encouraged the – promoting the relations between Iraq and Saudi and also even opening the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Baghdad – one of the good steps seen by the State Department as a good step of relations between Iraq. So do you think these kind of documents revealed will have a negative impact on that relation?

     MR KIRBY: We’ve made it pretty clear policy that we’re not going to talk about the content of leaked documents, so just not going to touch that.
    Abigail.

     QUESTION: State Department issued – or updated a travel warning today warning U.S. citizens from going and joining the conflict in Iraq. Just wondering, as the last one was at the end of April and there’s usually a greater length of time, is there any new concern regarding U.S. citizens traveling to Iraq to join the conflict?

     MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t read too much into the timing of this particular travel warning. As you know, they’re routinely reviewed. Now they’re always on a six-month thing, but they can be reviewed and updated outside the six-month window, and that was the case with this one. But you’re right, it did specifically talk about Americans going to join the conflict, and I think that that’s an issue that we have been continuing to watch and to be concerned about. And I think it just follows – makes good sense to – as we looked at this travel warning to update it.
    But it wasn’t driven by – and I wouldn’t want to leave you with the idea that it was driven by a specific case or a specific incident or a specific terrorist in mind or anything like that. The flow of foreign fighters, even those from the United States into the fight, remains a significant concern for the coalition. As I’ve said before, more than 30 nations have taken administrative and legal action to try to stem that flow. The United States is one of those nations that’s trying to do that, and I think this travel warning simply follows on just good, prudent thinking about a tough problem.

     QUESTION: John, I have a quick question on Mosul. Do you have an update about the situation in Mosul? Because it’s – Kurdish politicians are arguing that ISIL is losing ground within Mosul because of some logistical problems.

     MR KIRBY: Yeah, I --

     QUESTION: Do you agree with them?

     MR KIRBY: Yeah, when I took off the uniform, I stopped doing battlefield updates.

     QUESTION: (Laughter.)


     MR KIRBY: You’re going to have to go to the Defense Department.




    Away from the chuckles, the news is not good for Iraq.  Action On Armed Violence has released the results of their latest study which finds civilian deaths and injuries on the rise throughout the world with Iraq topping the list with 10,735 civilian casualties in 2014.

    In today's violence, Xinhua reports, "A total of 25 people were killed and 28 wounded on Monday in air strikes, clashes with the Islamic State (IS) militants and violent attacks across Iraq, security sources said."


    Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Tarsands" went up Sunday and new content at Third:



    Lastly, the Feminist Majority Foundation is attempting to halt a 'trade' pact that promises little for the people but a great deal for corporations that want to trample on the environment, workers rights, human rights and much more:
    Yes, I want to sign the petition to stop Fast Track and the Trans Pacific Partnership.
    The TPP is no deal for women. It hurts women workers and undermines women’s rights and human rights, while also threatening environmental regulations, availability of affordable medicines, food safety, and more. That’s why over 2,000 organizations, including the Feminist Majority, AFL-CIO, National Organization for Women, NAACP, People for the American Way, Pride at Work, and the Sierra Club, have opposed legislation to fast track the TPP. 
    Help us stop the TPP in its tracks. Tell your Senators to oppose Fast Track.
    In order to address your message to the appropriate recipient, we need to identify where you are.
    Please look up and use your full nine-digit zip for the best results. 









    iraq







    Posted by at

    Sunday, June 21, 2015

    Beauty and the Beast

    Beauty and the Beast is airing new episodes on The CW. 

    Thursday night's was the second episode of the season.

    The same people who turned US soldier Vincent into part beast have turned a computer guy into a man who can shoot electricity out of his hands.

    He also has a tumor and is trying to save himself and killing people in the process.

    Vincent and Cat go after him and he escapes only to go after JT who has a shot that ElectroBoy thinks will save him.

    With JT in trouble, Vincent and Cat head to the hospital to rescue him and they talk to Tess on the phone so she joins them.  (Tess and Cat are police officers and Tess is also JT's girlfriend.)

    JT refuses to let ElectroBoy have the shot when the FBI agent needs it to stay alive.

    ElectroBoy is about to kill JT when he and Vincent fight.

    Cat talks them both down and ElectroBoy ends up having experimental surgery on his tumor.

    Later Vincent asks her if she ever tires of talking him down (when he goes primal beast, it is not always easy for him to pull back to human form) and she says sometimes but -- flashing her engagement ring -- she notes this is for better or worse.

    Meanwhile, Tess' brother plans to go out for captain of the police squad and JT tells her she should go out for it because she'd make a much better one.  She thinks about it and decides he's right (especially since her brother mocked her for the idea).

    This season's overall plot is going to be about how Cat and Vincent were wrong to think they were free.  Whomever created Vincent is still out there creating/altering people.

    My guess is that if the season ends with a wedding, the wedding won't take place and instead Cat will be kidnapped at the wedding.

    A nice twist would be if the 'damsel' in distress was Vincent.

    If he disappeared, it would play into a theme that's developing.

    He's a little edgy about living with Cat.

    That was true last episode.

    This episode he was even 'beasting out' at times over the idea (he would develop a beast hand while moving his stuff into Cat's).

    So if it was Vincent who got kidnapped, it would certainly make sense for Cat to assume he'd had a panic attack and bailed.



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

     
    Saturday, June 20, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the refugee crisis continues, Susan Rice declares the Iraq War an "accomplishment" and much more.



    Hillary Clinton is running for president for the year book photo.

    Possessing only a blood lust for war, she has no plans to help people.

    She also has no real record of success.

    She can be elected to office, for example, but she accomplishes nothing of value once in office.

    Her last non-campaign 'win' was probably, as Wally and Cedric pointed out, when she bested Barbara Bush in the cookie bake off.


    So when it's time to spin success for Hillary, what do you do?

    Go to America's biggest liar of all, the woman who lied on not one, not two, not three but four public affairs programs all on the same Sunday.

    Yes, Susan I Love The Iraq War Rice.


    Dirty Rice talked 'accomplishments' to Bloomberg's Mark Halperin:


     MARK HALPERIN: What would you say are the three biggest accomplishments of Secretary Hillary Clinton when she was at State?

    SUSAN RICE: Well, first of all, I think you would have to put them in context of the administration's accomplishments.

    HALPERIN: Anything that she participated in a meaningful way.

    RICE: She participated in everything that we did in the first term in a meaningful way.

    First of all, in the first term, we were able to bring to conclusion two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And she was very much involved in supporting those transitions. In the presidents first term also we initiated and now have sustained what we call, the re-balance to Asia, the Asia-Pacific.


    There were at least 35 violent deaths in Iraq yesterday, according to Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com).

    Barack is raising the number of US 'trainers' in Iraq to 3,500.

    And Lie Face Susan Rice gives a televised interview where she claims as an accomplishment the Iraq War ended.

    Only supreme liar Susan Rice could deliver that one with a straight face.

    The Iraq War ended?

    Who forgot to tell Iraq?

    The US government involvement in the Iraq War ended?

    Tell it to the State Dept, the Defense Dept, the White House, the US Embassy in Baghdad . . .

    Susan Rice, she may go down as the biggest liar in the 21st century.


    There's also the refugee crisis which effects Iraq two ways.


    First up, there's the influx of refugees from Syria (both Syrians and returning Iraqis who earlier sought asylum in Iraq).





    1. 9h9 hours ago
      There are almost 60 million refugees in the world, like the Syrians I met in Iraq with                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
      View photo 248 retweets 425 favorites



    Near the end of last year, Refugees International noted:


     As Syria’s civil war has dragged on, the direction of forced migration for many Iraqi refugees has reversed. Tens of thousands of Iraqis who sought refuge in Syria between 2003 and 2011 have returned home, joining about a million Iraqis who were already internally displaced. This year, the advance of the Islamic State group in central Iraq forced more than three-quarters of a million people from their homes, bringing the total number of Iraqi IDPs to roughly two million. 



    And at the end of last month, the United Nations Refugee Agency Tweeted:
    Iraq: We are deeply concerned about obstacles facing desperate people fleeing

    6:39 AM - 31 May 2015

     


    Alsumaria reports that Angelina Jolie, actress and UN Goodwill Ambassador, is in Turkey visiting Iraqi and Syrian refugees in a camp in Mardin.  


    angelina


    While in Turkey, Jolie and Antonio Guterres (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) met with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey (pictured above). 

     


    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued the following:


    UNHCR Special Envoy Angelina Jolie Pitt has been commemorating World Refugee Day with Syrian refugees in Turkey, which has overtaken Pakistan to become the world's largest refugee-hosting nation with more than 1.77 million in urban areas and government-run camps.
    The Special Envoy and UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres also met Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to thank him and his people for the country's generosity towards Syrian and Iraqis refugees and to discuss the challenges that Turkey and other host nations face, and their need for support.
    In her capacity as co-founder of the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative, Jolie Pitt also raised her work on women's rights and the global campaign against sexual violence in conflict. Later, while visiting the Midyat Refugee Camp in Mardin, south-eastern Turkey, she made a powerful World Refugee Day call for more action to prevent conflict and support refugees. Her statement follows:
    "We are here for a simple reason: This region is at the epicentre of a global crisis. Nearly 60 million people are displaced from their homes. That is one in every 122 people on our planet. Our world has never been richer or healthier or more advanced. Yet never before have so many people been dispossessed and stripped of their basic human rights. We should call this what it is: not just a "refugee crisis," but a crisis of global security and governance, that is manifesting itself in the worst refugee crisis ever recorded – and a time of mass displacement.
    "The greatest single source of these massive refugee flows is Syria. In the space of four years, Turkey has become the country with the largest number of refugees anywhere in the world, with 1.8 million displaced Syrian and Iraqis. Lebanon, where I was yesterday, is hosting an even greater density of displaced people: every fourth person in Lebanon is now a Syrian
    refugee. People are running out of places to run to. If you are an Iraqi or a Syrian fleeing violence, where do you go? Every border country is being pushed beyond its limits.
    "That is why we see so many dying at sea. It is not a "new trend," it is a result of those fleeing country after country and finding no safe place. These are not economic migrants looking for a better life, these are desperate refugees who are fleeing war and persecution. The average stay in a refugee camp is 17 years. Think of your own life. Think of what that would mean. For many, it is their entire childhood. During displacement you might be able to get an education, or continue your education. But very likely, you will not.
    "As a refugee, you cannot legally work in a host country. So your skills and education will dull over those long years and your much-needed contribution will be lost. As a refugee you learn how the world feels about you. You know if your suffering causes outrage and compassion – or if it is mostly ignored. Familes like the six young people I met yesterday, living in Lebanon without parents, on half food rations and paying US$100 a month to live in a tent because UNHCR does not have the funds or capability to take full care of everyone – they know.
    "We should see this time in displacement as the time where we should take the most care, and give the most support. Not because they are vulnerable, but because in fact they are the
    future stability of all the countries we say we are so concerned about. So my first message is that it is due time for people to respect the plight of refugees and see their value. We must protect them, and invest in them. They are not a problem, they are part of the solution to this global crisis. They are the potential for the rebuilding and restabilization of countries.
    "But second, even more than this, I plead to the international community and leaders of the world to recognize what this moment in mass human displacement means. This is not just another day. This World Refuge Day marks some frightening truths about our inability to manage international crisis – about our inability to broker peace and find lasting solutions.
    Today – as happened every day on average last year – over 40,000 people will be forced from their homes. And it will be the same tomorrow. And the next day. And every day after that, if this political inertia continues.
    "It is hard to point to a single instance where as an international community we are decisively addressing the root causes of refugee flows. Displacement is multiplying because the wars don't end, and countries emerging from conflict don't get the support they need. We handle crises by discussing either boots on the ground or aid relief. The global crisis is showing us that this narrow view of dealing with conflict is wrong and ineffective. UNHCR, along with other UN and NGO agencies, cannot be expected to manage the chaos of a population the size of France displaced.
    "I have spent the last 14 years among the UNHCR staff. I know their dedication. Even love for refugees. I have also seen them overwhelmed and emotional over the last few years. They and other UN agencies and NGOs are filling a gap left by the international community. We are past the breaking point. The answer to a world crisis like this is not how many financial
    appeals can be met. Or in truth, by what percentage they can be met. I am of course grateful for the funds countries have contributed even if they are not enough to meet all the needs.
    But I say to those countries, your job is not to fund displacement but to prevent it. To end it.
    "Displacement at 60 million is a sign of our inability to work together as a community, to apply all our laws and uses our collective institutions effectively. To live by our standards and keep our word. There is an explosion of human suffering and displacement on a level that has never been seen before, and it cannot be manage by aid relief, it must be managed by diplomacy and law. This is a central problem. We cannot pick and choose which human rights violations we will and won't tolerate.
    "We have the tools we need – the resolutions, the doctrines, the conventions, the courts. But if these tools are misused, inconsistently applied or applied in a self-serving way, we will continue on this trend of displacement and it will grow and grow. It is inhumane to expect all of these families to tolerate this kind of life. We all know what needs to be done, we must do better. And it is self-evident that we have to start with Syria.
    "I call, again, on the United Nations Security Council: Send your ministers and ambassadors here. Witness this crisis for yourself. See that it simply cannot go on. And that it is past time
    for a credible plan to reach a political solution to end the conflict. I thank the people of Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan for their generosity, and all host countries. To all the families here, and around our world, marking this Holy Month, I say, "Ramadan Kareem." And I pay tribute to refugees themselves – the people we rightly celebrate today, not only here in Turkey but around the world. Thank you."



    Mike Vulpo (E!) notes:


    The Hollywood actress and her daughter Shiloh Jolie-Pitt traveled to Turkey Saturday afternoon in honor of World Refugee Day.
    After visiting a Syrian and Iraqi refugee camp, Mrs. Brad Pitt couldn't help but voice her appeal for world leaders to get involved with what could be the "worst refugee crisis ever recorded."


    Sunday's Zaman notes:


    "There is an explosion of human suffering and displacement on a level that has never been seen before," Jolie said, warning that Syrians and Iraqis were running out of safe havens as neighbouring states reached the limit of their capacity.
    "It is hard to point to a single instance where, as an international community, we are decisively addressing the root causes of refugee flows," she said.


    But none of that exists in the world that Susan Rice lives.

    In that world of lies, the Iraq War ended.

    And it was an accomplishment, no less, according to Susan Rice.


    The refugees haven't seen any accomplishment.

    Reuters notes that "US and caolition forces targeted the Islamic State on Friday with 16 air strikes in Iraq."

    Yet Susan Rice claims that the Iraq War is over and that this is an accomplishment that Barack and Hillary can share.





    Lastly, David Bacon's latest book is The Right to Stay Home: How US Policy Drives Mexican Migration.  This is from "PICKING PEAS SHOULD BRING A BETTER LIFE," Rosalia Martinez, as told to David Bacon:


     I'm Triqui, from Rio Venado in Oaxaca.  I've been here 7 years, working in the fields all the time.  Right now I'm picking peas.  Other times in the year I work in the broccoli.

    The worst part about working in the peas is that you have to work on your knees. After a day on your knees they hurt a lot, and when you stop it's hard to extend your leg.  It hurts, even when they give you a break for 15 minutes every two hours.  I don't take pills for the pain, but I know many people who do.

    Sometimes your knees break down.  That's happened to a lot of people.  Their knees go out permanently and they can't work anymore.

    Another problem is the dust, which has chemicals in it.  Until two years ago they didn't give you glasses to keep the dust out.  Now they do, but by now most people who work in the peas have problems with their eyes.

    What they pay us is not fair.  They want you to pick 130 pounds in ten hours, and the piece rate is 45¢, so we make very little.  The hourly wage is supposed to be $9.50 per hour, but when you're working on the piece rate it's less.  You can make $100 in a day sometimes, but other times it's $80 or $70.  It depends on how much you can pick.



















    Posted by at

    Friday, June 19, 2015

    Will the real Cranky Clinton please shut up, please shut up

    Cranky Clinton insists it's time for America to accept some "hard truths" on guns.

    To quote President Barack Obama from 2008, "Who does she think she is? Annie Oakley?"

    If Cranky wants to offer some "hard truths" she might get honest about many things -- like her War Hawk nature.

    Or how about she offers some "hard truths" on how to remain in a bad marriage?

    Until then, maybe she should just cease lecturing the nation?


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


     
    Thursday, June 18, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Gen Martin Dempsey states why the US is in Iraq "right now," we implode the media lie that it's John McCain and a bunch of Republicans questioning Barack Obama's plan or 'plan' for Iraq, Ash Carter offers an extremely screwed up version of what a "political solution" is in Iraq, and much more.



    US Defense Secretary Ash Carter declared Wednesday that he found it hard to believe that Baghdad would fall to the Islamic State because so many of the Iraqi forces were being used to surround it and he did not believe Shi'ites would allow it to fall.

    He was speaking to Congress, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee in a joint appearance with Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    "That's why we're there right now," Dempsey quickly added to Carter's response.  "I mean the threat to Erbil was what drew us into the kinetic portion of this fight as well as the threat to Baghdad and the fact that we have our diplomatic presence there in the form of our Embassy and thousands of American citizens.  So -- Look, we will always protect our national interest with -- uh, unilaterally.  And some of the recent special operations strikes and some of the other kinetic strikes that you have seen us conduct -- both manned and unmanned -- and let's not forget that . . ."

    As Dempsey meandered on and on, droning from one point to the next, rarely landing  on an actual point (were he a singer, we'd say he sang all around the note without ever actually hitting it), it became clear that US President Barack Obama's plan or 'plan' was as muddled as Dempsey's answer.


    Which may be why, today, the US State Dept's John Kirby tried to stay far, far from the hearing.
    QUESTION: Yeah. A follow-up on Iraq is you have been talking about the reforms in the Iraqi army, but there are reports also, the Foreign Affairs and International Crisis Group. They are talking about the fragmentation among Peshmerga also, the politicizing by the PUK and KDP forces. There are also a plan by the minister of Peshmerga to reform, and the ministry of Peshmerga too. Would you support this kind of reforms, or are you also concerned about the fragmentation among the Peshmerga forces?
    MR KIRBY: I don’t think I’m going to make any statements here today about the reform of the Peshmerga. I mean, our focus is fighting against ISIL inside Iraq and in Syria. It’s a broad coalition. We’re working through the government in Baghdad. That’s how the support is getting to the Pesh, is through Baghdad, and I think we’d let the Iraqi Government speak to reforms in there.
    What I will say is, writ large, we are constantly as a part of this mission looking for ways to help Iraq improve the capability, competence and the battlefield performance of Iraqi Security Forces. And two, a measure of that has been our support to help advise and assist Peshmerga as well.
    I’ve got just time for a couple more. Back here.
    QUESTION: Just on yesterday’s comments made by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at the hearing. He said a couple of things, one about Iraq. He said the United States did have a policy for the possibility of the disintegration of Iraq as a country. He said we will enable the local forces and they will not be a single country at that time. Can you elaborate more on that and do you really believe that Iraq is going to disintegrate, that’s why you have a policy for it?
    MR KIRBY: I didn’t see those particular comments, and again, I am not the spokesman for the Secretary of Defense. So it’s not my place to speak to what he said or what he meant. Again, I’ll go back to – our policies remain unchanged, that the – we’re working with Prime Minister Abadi’s government, the elected Government of Iraq, which is a sovereign nation, and the support that we provide them militarily and otherwise goes through the government in Baghdad.

     QUESTION: Also on Syria --
    MR KIRBY: Now, I will – I do want to add that one of the things that – about Prime Minister Abadi’s leadership that we have noted with respect is the fact that he is trying to decentralize a little bit and he is trying to empower governors to act more on their behalf.
    QUESTION: You do support a decentralized system of governance for Iraq, right?
    MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?
    QUESTION: You do support a decentralized system of governance?

    MR KIRBY: We support Prime Minister Abadi’s efforts to decentralize some control in a federal-like way. But ultimately, these are his decisions that he has to make and obviously to be responsive to his electorate, the Iraqi people. But yes, we support his efforts – and these are his efforts. We’re – it’s not – we’re not making him do it; he’s doing this.


    They support Haider al-Abadi.

    How very sad.

    They supported thug Nouri al-Maliki before.

    They don't support the Iraqi people, please grasp that.

    Please grasp the stupidity of mistaking a leader (a puppet) for the object of support.

    Thug Nouri was supported.

    So much so that when he lost the 2010 elections, Barack backed Nouri in his refusal to step down as prime minister.

    So for eight months, the country was brought to a standstill (this is the political stalemate) and it only moved forward after the US government strong armed Iraqi leaders into signing off on The Erbil Agreement which went around the Iraqi voters, went around the Iraqi Constitution, and decreed loser Nouri would have a second term.

    Again, the US government does not support the Iraqi people.

    Instead, it's support whatever psychopath or loser they install as the head of the Iraqi government.

    They support this thug until it's too embarrassing on the international stage to continue to support him.

    Then they put the rabid dog down and move on to another.


    Barack has no real strategy or plan.

    For months, the press has lied about it and covered for him.

    When they have allowed criticism to seep through, they've portrayed it as part of 'madman' John McCain's attacks and those other Republicans who stand with him.

    Certainly, the media lie insists, no Democrats are opposed to Barack's plan.
    US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard: You know we've heard a lot about this first line of effort that you outlined in your opening remarks to address the political and the sectarian situation in Iraq.  And I think it's important as we look at this question of what is our strategy to defeat ISIS, it's important that we operate in the world that actually exists -- not the one that we hope or we wished could exist or would exist in the future.  It's important to recognize that while these ideals are good to have, we're operating in the world that exists today.  So even as we look at this administration's policy, the previous administration's policy, the billions of dollars and the thousands of lives that have been spent in holding onto this unified central government policy -- even as we hear rhetoric from Prime Minister Abadi, the reality is that experts both who wear the uniform and those who have studied the Middle East for very long time all say for practical purposes you have three regions in Iraq, it's a fractured country with the Kurds in the north, the Shias have their strong hold in Baghdad essentially and you have the Sunni territories largely to the west.  So when you look at this question and you look at, Mr. Secretary, your answer to Mr. O'Rourke's question with regards to give us an example how there has been a plan or there is a plan in place to allow for this and support governance and the ability, for example, for the Sunni tribes to secure themselves.  And you talked about how this would happen in the future, help the Iraqi people put a plan in place for governance as territory is recovered.  But my question goes to Tikrit.  This is an offensive that took place not that long ago.  I questioned before this offensive occurred two members of the administration: What was the plan?  And there was no plan at that time.  And we saw as a result, once Tikrit was taken, Sunni families were terrorized by Shia militias, homes were burned down, businesses were looted and, as a result, you continue to see why these Sunni people have no motivation to go and fight for this so-called Iraqi security force, this Iraqi government that shuts down bridges when they're trying to run away from ISIS.  So, as you say, it's essential Sunni fighters are brought into the fold, I think we all recognize that the Sunni people need to be empowered but this is why there's no faith by many in Congress and the Sunni tribes most importantly that there is a plan in place to empower them.

     Secretary Ash Carter:  I, uh, very much respect your expertise and your perspective, uh, on-on this and one of my favorite sayings is that "Hope is not a strategy."  And this is a strategy, uh, the strategy, the particular part of the strategy which has to do with the integrity of the Iraqi state is a challenging one, no question about it, for all the reasons you described. It is -- if it can be achieved -- better than sectarianism for the Iraqi people and for what we want which is ISIL's lasting defeat.  Is it difficult to achieve?  Yes.  Does it involve as an essential ingredient empowering the Sunnis and giving them the will to participate?  Absolutely.  Is Tikrit a good example of what we're trying to achieve?  No.  It wasn't.  That's the whole point. That was a -- That was not an ordered operation under the exclusive control of the Iraqi government, uhm, and it did -- it had the kind of aftermath that exactly incentivizes us in trying to get Sunnis into the fight because if you put Shias into the Sunni fight, you know how that ends.  That is not lasting, uh, defeat.  So that's why we're trying to get the Sunnis into the fight.  I think you are uh-uh-uh asking exactly the right question.  I think it's more than hope.  I think there's some prospect that we can do this.  We're determined to do it.  There are plenty of Iraqis that say that they will support that strategy and that, uhm, uh, we can make it succeed. 
    US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.  I would just continue to urge the administration to -- to consider changing its policy on supporting this government in Baghdad.  You mentioned sectarianism is the problem.  I would argue that this government in Baghdad is further adding fuel to the fire of sectarianism by allowing these Shi'ite militias, by allowing this sectarianism persecution and oppression to continue  which only allows further oxygen for ISIS to continue to exist and continue to grow in Sunni territories.  Thank you.



    That's Iraq War veteran and Democratic House Representative Tulsi Gabbard.

    And she's making strong remarks.

    She's noting that the current actions of the Iraqi government are "further adding fuel to the fire of sectarianism" and encouraging support for the Islamic State.

    The exchange also made clear that Ash Carter doesn't understand what a political solution is.

    Gabbard referred to US House Rep Beto O'Rourke's earlier remarks.  O'Rourke is also a Democrat.  He's also bothered by the plan or 'plan.'

    And many would be bothered by it if the press would get honest about it.

    Let's look at what Carter has to say when O'Rourke questions the plan or 'plan.'
    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  Mr. Secretary, in the nine lines of effort that comprise our strategy, the first one that you cited is political and you said that every other line of effort follows from that -- we must be successful politically if we're going to be successful at all in any of these other lines of strategy and if we are going to achieve our goals in the region.  You gave as an example in your opening testimony building governance.  Can you tell us where we have built governance in that region successfully?  And the follow up question to that is how long will that take since everything follows the success of that first line of effort?
    Secretary Ash Carter:  That - It- uh - is a very good question.  It's a very complicated task.  And-and in-in-in Iraq it will mean when helping the Iraqis, helping them, when they recover territory from ISIL to build a system of governance that the people who live there support and are willing to support and defend in the long term.  You say, 'Where have we had success?'  My own view is we've had considerable success in Afghanistan.  I was just speaking to President [Mohammed Ashraf] Ghani yesterday morning.  He was reporting the results of the campaign there -- again, the Afghan security forces which we are enabling, which we trained and equipped and are enabling.  The national unity government of president Ghani and CEO [Abdullah] Abdullah which is a multi-sectarian government holding together.  This in Afghanistan, which, I think, if you go back 15 years would say, a very unlikely place for that to be done.  So we have assisted and enabled that. Our people are very good at that.  We're not at that stage yet in Iraq.  But when we get to that stage, I think that we will participate in an international effort to help these places that are tragically demolished to rebuild themselves and govern themselves.
    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  So 15 years in Afghanistan to get to a successful example of building governance in this region and including the fact that we've been in Iraq in one form or another since 2003, invested tens of billions of dollars to assist in building governance, trained and equipped an army that melted in the face of the enemy, I have some serious reservations about the potential to achieve success on this first line of effort.  The third line of effort that you mentioned is helping to produce a capable, committed local ground force.  You admitted that we had budgeted to train and equip 24,000, have only been able to recruit 7,000.  You add to that the only ground forces apart from the Iraqi army are these Shia militias funded and led and armed by Iran.  Is this a serious proposal ?  Is this a serious line of effort that we can seriously expect to succeed given the most recent failures and your admission that the Iraqi national army lacks the will to fight?  
    Secretary Ash Carter: Well it's a serious uh-uh-uh effort but it hinges upon Sunni fighters coming into the Iraqi security forces being trained and equipped by us in the coalition, enabled by us but fighting for their homeland.  That's the essential ingredient.  Uhm, that was absent starting last summer -- quite clearly absent.  Not everywhere. Cause IS -- Earlier we talked about the Peshmerga, I mentioned the CTS and other units of the Iraqi security forces that did fight.  And as you indicate, there are Shia militias which we don't support -- we only support those that fall under the government of Iraq as part of our overall strategy of supporting a multi-sectarian government uh,uh there.  So that is, uh-uh, the strategy.  It-it's difficult -- I think the gap between 7,000 and 24,000 -- the whole point of Tacadum is to try to close that gap because we're trying to close that with Sunni fighters, that's the essential ingredient and I think we need --  we're going to get on track to try to close that gap and that's important. 
    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  In an exchange earlier, one of my colleagues and you had agreed that one of our primary missions is to support soldiers and families.  Uhm, I can think of no greater way of supporting them than ensuring that we have a strategy that can succeed when we're going to place them in harms way and acknowledge that many of them will lose their lives or have their lives change irrevocably upon return so I hope there's a plan B from the administration.  
    Secretary Ash Carter: Ah --
    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: With that I yield back.
    Secretary Ash Carter: Amen to that. That's yet another reason why they deserve -- as you deserve -- a clear explanation of what we're trying to accomplish. 



    So much of what Carter said was troublesome including the use of failed state Afghanistan as an example of success.

    Troublesome also includes this statement:


    But when we get to that stage, I think that we will participate in an international effort to help these places that are tragically demolished to rebuild themselves and govern themselves.


    The US will "help these places that are tragically demolished to rebuild themselves and govern themselves"?

    I'm sorry, did Afghanistan attempt suicide?

    I kind of remember the US government attacking the country.

    While what's happened in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq (among others) is tragic and they have even been "tragically demolished" -- all three were "tragically demolished" by the US government.

    Carter's testimony really appears to suggest that the countries took down themselves, demolished themselves or imploded by accident with no assistance from the US government.



    Secretary Ash Carter: Well it's a serious uh-uh-uh effort but it hinges upon Sunni fighters coming into the Iraqi security forces being trained and equipped by us in the coalition, enabled by us but fighting for their homeland.  That's the essential ingredient.  Uhm, that was absent starting last summer -- quite clearly absent.  Not everywhere. Cause IS -- Earlier we talked about the Peshmerga, I mentioned the CTS and other units of the Iraqi security forces that did fight.  And as you indicate, there are Shia militias which we don't support -- we only support those that fall under the government of Iraq as part of our overall strategy of supporting a multi-sectarian government uh,uh there.  So that is, uh-uh, the strategy.  It-it's difficult -- I think the gap between 7,000 and 24,000 -- the whole point of Tacadum is to try to close that gap because we're trying to close that with Sunni fighters, that's the essential ingredient and I think we need --  we're going to get on track to try to close that gap and that's important. 



    Carter's talking about what he hopes will happen.

    Hasn't happened yet in Iraq -- but he hopes it will.

    He hopes.

    While insisting that "hope is not a strategy," he builds his actions around empty hope that's failed to pan out so far.


    You sort of picture him having transferred every American tax dollar into dimes and then parking himself at one of the cheap slot machines while he pulls the lever over and over just knowing that it's got to pay off at some point.


    As bothersome as that and other remarks by Carter were, here's where it really falls apart:


    Secretary Ash Carter:  That - It- uh - is a very good question.  It's a very complicated task.  And-and in-in-in Iraq it will mean when helping the Iraqis, helping them, when they recover territory from ISIL to build a system of governance that the people who live there support and are willing to support and defend in the long term.



    This is a political solution?

    This is what the administration is now calling a political solution?

    You topple a city or town the Islamic State controls and then you set up some installed government and this is a political solution?

    You do this, according to Carter, bit by bit?

    The first obvious question is: And what of the Sunni cities that aren't controlled by the Islamic State?

    How do they get this so-called 'political solution'?

    They clearly don't.

    But this isn't a political solution.

    A political solution is addressing the ways in which Sunnis are shut out of the government -- not to mention targeted by the government.

    This is the national government.

    Ash Carter must think the world a fool if he truly believes that the biggest complaint of Sunnis in 2013 and 2014 was that their local governments were not working for them.

    Their biggest complaint was about the national government and it remains the focus of ire.

    A year-plus worth of protests by Sunnis were kicked off by the actions of the national government and these protests were against the national actions of the government.

    Unless Ash Carter's declaring that the US government -- as many Shi'ite Iraqis fear -- is about to split up the country into three regions, his so-called 'political solution' for local cities (under the control of the Islamic State) does nothing to address the political solution.


    If this were the "Syrian snapshot," we'd quote US House Rep Tammy Duckworth's strong exchange. As Dempsey prattled on up "we have had some difficulty recruiting and retaining" fighters among the (so-called) Syrian rebels, Duckworth asked him, "So at what point is there diminished returns?  I mean, if you have so few recruits that can meet this criteria and the commitment is so great, is it worth it?"

    That's a serious question.

    It deserved a serious response.

    Instead, Dempsey offered, "But we've got to partner with somebody."

    Oh, so it's prom night and everyone must get laid.

    No, the US government doesn't have to partner with anybody.

    The belief that it does explains a lot of conflicts and wars.

    And, for the record, Tammy Duckworth is a Democrat (now serving in the House and currently running for the US Senate).  She's also an Iraq War veteran.  But the point is, the media's narrative that it's John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte -- all Republicans -- calling out the plan or 'plan'?  It's a lie.

    It's always been a lie.

    The media's real interested in creating straw man and divisions these days.

    The media's not too committed in telling the American people what's really going on.

    An exception would be Kristina Wong (The Hill) who has consistently covered conflicts between Congress and the White House in the last year and who today notes:

    Two House Democrats want their colleagues to sign a letter to President Obama urging him to resist calls to escalate U.S. military involvement in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  
    Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a former Marine, and Rep. Mark Takai (D-Hawaii), an Army National Guard lieutenant colonel — both members of the Armed Services Committee — say the U.S. should not fight the Iraqi military's battles for them. 



    We covered the hearing in Wednesday's snapshot.  We've noted another aspect of it today.  We'll offer a third report on it in Saturday's snapshot.

    This was an important hearing and we will take the time to examine parts of it.

    I'm not really impressed with what's passed for coverage of it from media outlets.

    Deb Riechmann (AP) and Jacqueline Klimas (Washington Times) have offered some of the strongest coverage of the hearing.


    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 61 violent deaths across Iraq today.








    Posted by at

    Thursday, June 18, 2015

    Parry continues his return to things that matter

    Okay, I applauded Robert Parry for a column recently that brought him back to the land of the living.

    I was hoping this wasn't a one-off but a sign that he was returning to the important work he used to do in the B.B.O. era (before Barack Obama).

    And he has another column that I can link to:



    June 16, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Consortium News" - Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having written about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
    Though Power is a big promoter of the “responsibility to protect” – or “R2P” – she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning “human rights” into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
    Thus, in Power’s view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
    In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.



    My only criticism on the above?

    That C.I. was calling out War Hawk Samantha Power in 2007 and 2008 while so many painted her as a woman of peace.

    Other than noting that we could have really used this column back then, I have no negative critique to offer.


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


     
    Wednesday, June 17, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the US plan for continued war on Iraq is addressed in Congress, Congress refuses to demand US forces leave Iraq, the State Dept thinks they can rewrite vocabulary when reality doesn't go there way, and much more.



    "I would hope," US House Rep Adam Smith  declared this morning,  "that we would have learned over the course of the last 14 years of having a substantial presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan that the west showing up in the Muslim world and saying 'we're here solve your problems' isn't going to get it done."


    He was speaking at the House Armed Services Committee hearing.  Smith is the Ranking Member on the Committee, US House Rep Mac Thornberry is the Chair and today they were hearing testimony from Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff).


    Thornberry had questions regarding US President Barack Obama's decision to send 450 more US troops into Iraq and to set them up at a base in Anbar Province.

    This decision has had many vocal critics.

    Such as Daniel Wagner (Huffington Post) who observed:

     Mr. Obama apparently believes that being seen to be doing something is better than doing nothing, but he is wrong. The U.S. tried a war, installing a prime minister, and implementing a post-war counter-insurgency strategy. None of them worked for a reason: The Iraqi government is the wrong partner.
    It took a long time for the U.S. to acknowledge that continuing to back Nouri al-Maliki for as long as it did was a big mistake, but by the time it did, it was really too late to salvage the situation. Iran is running the government and a feckless military. Trying to support the government or the military now is based on an alternate reality that 'could' have become true a dozen years ago, but bears little resemblance to the reality today. What will it take for the U.S. government to admit that what it is doing isn't working?


     The editorial board of the Baltimore Sun pointed out Tuesday:, "Sending a few hundred troops merely gives the impression that he is taking action while really just kicking the can down the road for the next American president to contend with."  From the May 21st snapshot:


     And what's especially sad is he went on and on while campaigning for president (the first time) about how the answer wasn't to play "kick the can."  He was, he insisted, someone who took action and made decisions.
    But his Iraq action is nothing but kick the can.
    Every day, you can picture him praying, "Just semi-hold together until January 2017, just semi-hold together until January 2017."
    The whole point of his (minimum) three year action on Iraq that he started in mid 2014 was that he wouldn't be the one left holding the bag at the end.
    So he grits his teeth and lies, "I don't think we're losing."

    Aamer al-Qaisi (World Meets Us) observes:

    There is nothing new in what the Americans have to say. On the tenth of June last year when Mosul fell, the Americans told us to expect a long war that could take three years. Only now - a year after Mosul's fall, it has become five years. We know nothing about the most recent projections of the American administration after it altered its strategy from merely encouraging the arming of various warring factions and the Peshmerga to now accepting the participation of the Popular Mobilization Forces [Shiite militias] in efforts to liberate occupied cities from Daesh!
    Amid all the "creative chaos" of the American approach, we stand a year out from the fall of Mosul, four million people have fled, there is a waterfall of blood and the political cracks are deepening by the day – free gifts for Daesh, which it uses to extend its aggression and hatred toward everything human in this country ...
    Posted By Worldmeets.US

    The truth we must courageously face up to is that we are fighting Daesh without any kind of strategy – political or military. We are in fact in the heart of the chaos. Politically, our wonderful politicians continue to exchange insults and accusations while brandishing slogans of reconciliation, national unity and Iraqi brotherhood. That is all for internal consumption – and we're fed up with it. Militarily, we continue to lack united leadership and a military strategy that could serve as a compass for all those fighting Daesh. Our military victories lack purpose and depth in terms of returning displaced people to their homes and restoring social peace in liberated cities that have been destroyed by war!


    Those are only a few of the critics of Barack's announcement last week.

    The announcement was more of the same -- announcing to continue the same actions begun back in August of last year.


    The actions have not produced any visible successes.

    And when people note that reality, the White House responds that this is not something which can succeed overnight and that this is something which will require years.

    That stalling tactic is used as an attempt to silence criticism and to shirk oversight.

    Which is why this moment during the hearing is so important:


     Chair Mac Thornberry:  So what's the reasonable time period for us to check back and see whether this is working as we hope?

     Secretary Ash Carter:  I honestly think it's-it's reasonable for you to ask in-in weeks, uh, because, uh, I --  we're already getting an inflow of, uh, Sunni fighters.  We'll put them through the training program.  We have the capacity to do that.

    That was one of two key moments in the hearing.

    We'll note more of the hearing tomorrow but today we're focusing on the above and one other moment.

    In the above exchange, Carter is stating clearly that in weeks, not years, it will be possible to render a judgment of success or failure.

    A year ago, Barack told the world that the only answer to Iraq's crises was a political solution.  He stressed a military solution was not going to solve the deeper problems.

    And yet he's tasked the entire administration -- even the State Dept -- with working on the military aspect.

    Why is that?

    We offered that he was using the State Dept not just to get 'coalition' partners who could join in the air bombing campaign but also to get other countries to send in troops.

    The Iraq War is not ending.


    And the second big moment in the hearing covered that.


    Ranking Member Adam Smith: The Chairman and I met last week with the Sunni leader of the Iraqi Parliament [Salim al-Jabouri] and one of the things he said during our meeting that surprised me a little bit as we were talking about the difficulty of getting support from the Baghdad government and sort of shifting focus to where could the Sunnis in that path sort of from Anbar up into Syria where ISIL is most dominant and he expressed disappointment, frankly, that the other Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia, UAE -- or even Turkey, to go up north.  It did not seem to really be willing to provide much support -- uhm, even Jordan as well -- uhm, for the Sunnis in that area.  Uhm, number one is do you agree with that assessment?  I tend to take this guy at his word.  Uhm, and number two, why?  Uhm, it would seem to me that defeating ISIL is something that would be very important to Saudi Arabia -- amongst the others there.  Why aren't they doing more, uh, to help those groups that want to resist ISIS in that part of Iraq and Syria? 

     Secretary Ash Carter:  That's a critical question and it goes back to something that you said in your opening statement about other Sunnis and Arab forces countering ISIL.  And I too met with Mr. Jabouri last-last week who said the same thing  and I think he was speaking on behalf of a number of the Sunni forces -- political forces in western Iraq who would like to see more support and recognize -- as I think you noted and the Chairman noted in the operning statements -- that Americans and westerners  are, uh -- can lead and enable but if they get too high a profile that becomes a problem in its own right.

     Ranking Member Adam Smith:  Exactly.

     Secretary Ash Carter:  Therefore all the more reason to get others uh, uh involved -- Sunnis involved in the fight.  Now the-the head -- one thing I'll note is the heads of state of the GCC were here in Washington and we went to Camp David -- about three weeks ago.  And I would say that this was one of the major themes of our conversation with them.  The other one being, to get them back to what the Chairman said checking Iranian malign influence which they're also concerned about.  Their concern about ISIL is genuine but their actions, I think, can be greatly strengthened.  And that was one of the principle things that we talked about, getting - leading them in the train and equip program --

     Ranking Member Adam Smith:  But again --

     Secretary Ash Carter:  Sorry?

     Ranking Member Adam Smith:  Yeah, I got all that.  But why?  Why isn't -- What, in your opinion, having worked with these people, why isn't it happening?

     Secretary Ash Carter:  Well  one reason is that they simply lack the capacity and so we talked a lot about building special operations forces that had counter -- as opposed to air forces.  We have enough air forces.  We're looking for ground forces. 



    We're looking for ground forces.

    Let it sink in.

    The American pubic will not stomach  a large US military presence in Iraq.

    That's why Barack's slowly -- generally by the 500s -- increased the US military presence in Iraq.

    But it's also why the State Dept has been tasked with urging other countries to send their militaries into Iraq.


    Canada did.

    And they've already seen a body count.

    Others may as well.

    But "We're looking for ground forces."


    And this is not about ending a war, this is about prolonging it, about getting others to fight it.


    In other words, Barack won a Nobel Peace Prize for lying.


    The Iraq War is not ending and that was made clear in the US House of Representatives today.  Reuters reports that 288 members voted against a bill which "would have forced President Barack Obama to pull all U.S. troops from Iraq and Syria as soon as one month from now, but nearly one-third of the chamber voted for the measure."  Only 139 members voted for it.




    The two incidents above were key in the hearing.  The plan is to note more of the hearing in the next snapshot.

    This go round, we'll note the root cause, as discussed in the hearing and one other thing.


    Ranking Member Adam Smith:  . . .  we are still relying on the Baghdad government.  It is our hope that there will be an Iraqi government that is sufficiently inclusive so that Sunnis will be willing to fight for it.  I just don't see that happening.  Starting with [Nouri] al-Maliki, they set up a very sectarian, separatist government that did everything to shove the Sunnis into the arms of ISIS.  Now I've not met [Haider] al-Abadi , uh, but I've heard that he has a desire to change that.  The trouble is the people below him have no desire to change that and he does not have the power simply to make them -- the Minister of Defense, the Minister of the Interior, the various Shia militias, Iran change their minds. So as we continue to try to do that, I fear that strategy won't work.  Now I know why we do it: Because what's the alternative?  How do we offer the Sunnis a reasonable place to be if they don't have some support from Baghdad? But I think we need to start thinking about it.



    I don't get this belief that Haider's got some desire to change anything.

    He's done nothing since being installed as prime minister.

    And why would he?

    He's not only part of Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party (a terrorist organization that attacked the US -- just FYI, since the White House is all about fighting terrorists -- or at least about fighting people they don't like that they label 'terrorist'), he's also part of Nouri's State of Law.

    Dawa alone?

    Fine, it's a political party in Iraq.

    But State of Law was the organization Nouri created to avoid running on Dawa's platform and to try to take control of the Shi'ite political map.


    When you're a member of both, you're a little too close to Nouri to ever make a real break from the sectarian ways that brought Iraq to brink of collapse.


    Along with the root cause of the problems in Iraq today, we'll note Ramadi from the hearing.  Ramadi fell to the Islamic State last April.  The administration attempted to down play it.  Secretary of Defense Ash Carter was slammed by Haider al-Abadi, among others, for noting the failure of the Iraqi military.

    US Vice President Joe Biden jumped into the fray to try to kiss Haider's boo boos and soothe his hurt feelings.

    But Carter was speaking plainly and owed no apology for that.


    In his prepared remarks at today's hearing, Carter raised the issue of Ramadi:
    What we saw in Ramadi last month was deeply disappointing -- and illustrated the importance of a capable and motivated Iraqi ground force. In the days that followed, all of us on the President’s national security team, at his direction, took another hard look at our campaign across all the lines of effort. At DoD, I convened my team before, during, and after my trip to the Asia-Pacific to examine our execution of DoD's lines of effort, and to prepare options for the President if his approval was required for any enhancements we identified. In our meetings at both the Pentagon and the White House, we determined that while we have the right strategic framework, execution of the campaign can and should be strengthened…especially on the ground. We determined that our training efforts could be enhanced and thus are now focusing on increasing participation in and throughput of our training efforts, working closely with the Iraqi government and stressing the focus on drawing in Sunni forces, which are underrepresented in the Iraqi Security Forces. We also determined that our equipping of the Iraqi Security Forces had proceeded too slowly. This process was earlier sometimes delayed by bureaucracy in Baghdad, but occasionally also in Washington. That is why we are now expediting delivery of essential equipment and materiel, like anti-tank capabilities and counter-IED equipment, to the Iraqi security forces -- including Kurdish and Sunni tribal forces. We also determined that we could enable Iraqi Security Forces with more tailored advice and assistance, including with critical outreach to local Sunni communities. That is why on advice from Chairman Dempsey and General Austin, and at my recommendation, last week President Obama authorized the deployment of 450 personnel to Iraq’s Taqqadum military base in Anbar Province to establish an additional site where we could advise and assist the Iraqi security forces. Situated between Ramadi and Fallujah, Taqqadum is a key location for engaging Sunni tribes, and Prime Minister Abadi, Iraqi military officials, and Sunni leaders have all committed to using Taqqadum to reinvigorate and expedite the recruitment of Sunni fighters.


    The poorly planned and executed 'liberation' of Tikrit was suppose to give the Iraqi forces a boost -- a tiny win was supposed to improve morale.

    But Tikrit didn't end up looking or feeling like a win and took far too many weeks to uplift spirits.

    To be followed by the fall of Ramadi was a cruel blow for morale.


    And Ramadi is not fading.  AFP reports:

     Islamic State took over the city of Ramadi because an Iraqi commander unnecessarily ordered his forces to withdraw, a senior officer in the US-led anti-jihadi coalition has said.
    “Ramadi was lost because the Iraqi commander in Ramadi elected to withdraw. In other words, if he had elected to stay, he would still be there today,” the British army’s Brigadier Christopher Ghika told journalists in Baghdad on Wednesday.

    “Ramadi was not a Daesh victory – Daesh did not win Ramadi, Daesh did not fight and defeat the Iraqi army in Ramadi,” Ghika said, using an Arabic acronym for the jihadi group that overran large parts of Iraq last year.





    Meanwhile, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 195 violent deaths across Iraq today.


    This as Press TV reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi arrived in Tehran today:

     During his short visit to Iran, the Iraqi premier is scheduled to sit down with Iranian officials, including President Hassan Rouhani, to exchange views on different issues, including anti-terrorism campaign.
    The Iraqi premier will also discuss mutual relations with Iranian officials during his stay in Tehran.
    Iran’s Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Danaifar said Monday that Abadi’s visit to Iran comes at the invitation of Iranian First Vice President Es’haq Jahangiri.
    This is Abasi’s second visit to Iran since he took office in September 2014.


    He can go to Iran because he's motivated the Parliament to vote this week.


    No, not on a national guard -- that's what the White House has been pushing for -- pushing for it for about a year now.

    But the Parliament did vote on the very important and pressing issue of a new national anthem.

    So don't say Haider's accomplished nothing.

    In the US this week, the Senate voted on an amendment to arm the Kurds directly (the effort for this was led by Senators Barbra Boxer and Joni Ernst).  The measure failed in a close vote.

    This vote was noted in today's State Dept press briefing moderated by John Kirby.

    QUESTION: On Iraq, on the consequences of the Senate refusal to directly arm Peshmerga, have you got any concern from the KRG side on that, especially when Secretary Kerry sent a letter to the Senate and discouraging them to go forward and change the amendment that made in the House?
    MR KIRBY: So let me just talk more broadly. We do continue to arm and equip the Peshmerga, and we do it in coordination and through the Iraqi Government in Baghdad. So any suggestion that they’re not getting arms and equipment and things they need is just simply not true. It’s being done through the government in Baghdad, who has been very responsive in making sure that they aren’t stopping or hindering the flow of that equipment. And it’s been quite a bit: coalition-wide, over 95 airlift missions, 8 million pounds of donated ammunition and equipment, and more keeps coming. So I’m not going to speak specifically to action on the Hill, but I can tell you that the Pesh continue to get what they need and we continue to look at ways to get them more.
    QUESTION: But have you got any concern from the KRG side to the State Department? (Inaudible.)
    MR KIRBY: Have I heard of any concerns from the KRG side to the State Department?
    QUESTION: Yeah.
    MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of anything. I think they’ve made their – I think they – in the past, they’ve regularly made their concerns known, and they’ve stated that.
    QUESTION: But on this issue --
    MR KIRBY: But they continue to get, we believe – and I can – can show that they’re continuing to get arms and equipment and materiel and that will continue to flow.
    QUESTION: But the Senate amendment would have given you the authority to give them directly heavy weapons, like tanks and maybe rocket launchers and perhaps helicopters and so on. Will that – is that issue now put to rest? You don’t --
    MR KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about pending legislation here or the status of it. It is – it’s our policy, of Secretary Kerry, the policy that we’re executing, to work through the Baghdad government to provide this materiel and assistance, and it is getting to them. I mean, the policy, as being executed, is working.
    QUESTION: Now, on the issue of troops on the ground, seeing that – from last week, seeing that U.S. troops now in Iraq are at the brigade level, maybe 4,000 people, how is that not mission creep? How is that not going up incrementally?
    MR KIRBY: Well, mission creep is when the mission changes --
    QUESTION: Okay.
    MR KIRBY: -- and the mission expands and grows. The mission is not changing. The mission, with respect to advise and assist, is exactly the same as it’s been since when we started it months ago.
    QUESTION: So you could --
    MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
    QUESTION: You could conceivably have a division in there and the mission will not change?
    MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to – I don’t think it’s kind of very useful to get into hypothetical estimates of what – of how many more troops there’s going to be. This isn’t about numbers of troops; it’s about what they’re doing. And the “what” hasn’t changed at all. Part and parcel of this strategy is assisting the Iraqi Security Forces, improving their competence and battlefield capability, and that’s what this extra – additional, I should say, additional 450 troops are going to do there in Anbar province.


    Actually, Kirby's redefining "mission creep" and I don't think he gets to set the terms for everyone anymore than he gets to rewrite the dictionary on behalf of the American people.

    Yet still he tries to do so.


    QUESTION: Okay. And then secondly, on Iraq, is Iraq today a quagmire? Is it a stalemate in which no side can win and the U.S. is just sinking its resources?
    MR KIRBY: Are these your words that you want to apply to Iraq or are you reading from somebody else’s commentary?
    QUESTION: I mean, do you have a response?
    MR KIRBY: I think what we’re dealing with in Iraq is a very dangerous, lethal group, and it’s not just from their perspective, Iraq. It’s Iraq and Syria. And this is a fight that the Iraqis need to lead. It’s their fight. This is their strategy we’re helping them execute. And I would add that though it’s going to be a long slog and though it continues to be dangerous, and though this group continues to be quite lethal and determined, there has been progress made across almost all the lines of effort.

    So nobody said this is going to be easy. We’ve long said three to five years, and I think we still hold to that.






















    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)