Thursday, September 1, 2022. How bad are things in Iraq and how
badly has Joe Biden bungled it? Judith Miller feels safe returning to
the topic of Iraq. Judith. Miller.
Abbas Al Lawati and Adam Pourahmadi (CNN) write
a so-called analysis that's just more propaganda for Shi'ite cleric and
cult leader Moqtada al-Sadr.. Even those a day late to the party know
by now that Moqtada's cult went wild on Monday and Tuesday. This is
passed off as the power of Moqtada.
The power to cower?
The
western press has always slobbered over Moqtada. We haven't. Back
when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House and the press was trying to
turn Moqtada -- led by Patrick Crapass Cockburn -- into some major
player, we were happy to note that there was a bench warrant for Moqtada
and, out of fear that it would be executed at any moment, Moqtada ran
off to Iran where he 'studied' and also was a clerk at a hotel. He
would dart in and out of the country over the next few years like the
coward that he was. When he finally returned and seemed to be showing
some maturity, we noted that. We also noted in 2010 when he caved to
Iran after claiming himself to be so powerful For those who missed that
in real time, the 2010 election resulted in a stalemate lasting over
eight months when the loser of the election, Nouri al-Maliki (Moqtada's
mortal enemy) refused to step down. Moqtada was going to solve
everything. He'd hold his own polls and whomever his followers voted
for was who he'd throw his weight behind. He carried out the vote but
ignored the results after leaders in Iran had a talk with him. When he
attempted to show something of a spine, we noted that. When he took
part in waves of homophobic attacks on Iraqi citizens, we noted that
too. By 2019, he really was a mess. Young Shi'ites started The October
Revolution and Moqtada waited until that was up and going to hop on
their bandwagon and try to appear powerful.
The
October Revolution was about holding corrupt leaders accountable. They
didn't want Moqtada on their side. Why? He 'owns' Sadr City. And
that would be a good thing if it was ever improved. It was a slum
before the US-led war started in 2003 and it remains one all these years
later. Sadr City is an embarrassment. These are his followers and
they live in a slum. This hasn't just revealed his limits as a leader,
it's also weakened his hold and led to more criticism from those who
have left his cult.
Moqtada
quickly began attacking The October Revolution when he realized he
couldn't lead it. The young Shi'ites didn't care. Nor did their
parents. Realizing the public fiasco taking place, Moqtada quickly went
back to public support for the movement. Then he tried to 'nudge' them
with public dictates such as women should not be allowed to protest
publicly with men. The October Revolution didn't just reject him, they
public mocked him at the next Friday gathering with signs laughing at
him.
The
western press ignored that, maybe they didn't know about it, maybe they
were too vested in their own narrative to tell the truth.
Their narrative allows CNN to lie in their analysis.
Moqtada's cult is not a sign of power for what took place on Monday and Tuesday.
Mustafa al-Kadhimi.
That's
the idiot in charge of Iraq right now. The October Revolution toppled
the previous prime minister -- which is why the US should have been
paying attention but didn't care to.
Mustafa
came to power after the resignation of Adel Abdul Mahdi. He swears
he's there for one term and it will be a brief term, he's just going to
set up early elections and then be gone.
But
he gets good western press -- in part because some of the Arabic
outlets praising him are outlets he wrote for before becoming prime
minister. But while we can point that out here, supposed news outlets
are unable to. They puffed him in one piece after another and never
revealed their past relationship with him.
The
October Revolution was still demanding an end to corruption. For their
bravery, they were targeted by Iraqi security forces. They were
harassed, tracked, wounded and killed. Mustafa would tut-tut over the
murders. He did nothing to stop them. He did nothing to call off the
security forces.
Still
the protests continued and they continued through the pandemic but in
smaller numbers. Mustafa used the distraction the pandemic provided to
news outlets to attack the protesters, to mow down their ongoing
sit-ins, to set fire to their tents.
They were a peaceful protest in Baghdad's public square.
Contrast
that with Moqtada's cult who, in the last weeks, have breached the
Green Zone (a historic moment in and of itself) to invade and occupy
Parliament's empty building and the Palace and outside of the
judiciary.
The October Revolution used the public and communal square which everyone had access to. And Mustafa went after them.
Weeks and weeks of nonsense from Moqtada's cult and nothing.
Which is why Arabic social media was talking about the stand-down order to the security that Mustafa put out.
Monday,
a day after Moqtada announced he was withdrawing from politics, his
cult went wild in the Green Zone. They took part in violence.
And Mustafa's response?
To mourn these poor cult members and to demand answers on how they died.
I'm sorry, how many members of the peaceful October Revolution were killed in public and their killers never brought to justice?
Mustafa serves Moqtada.
If
you're going to analyze what took place and do it honestly, you need to
note what Iraqis have been noting for weeks now -- when the Shi'ite
youth peacefully worked for change, the Iraqis forces mowed them down
and Mustafa did nothing. You need to contrast that -- as Arabic social
media has -- with how he's responded to Moqtada's cult. But if you're
really going to analyze what took place and do it honestly, you go to
someone like Mohammed Tawfeeq who has long covered Iraq for CNN and not
two nobodies like Adam and Abbas who don't cover Iraq. 'Oh, they cover
the Middle East!' They haven't covered Iraq. They lack the knowledge
base and they lack the experience. By contrast, not only is Mohammed
someone with years of experience covering Iraq, he also hails from
Iraq. You've got expertise, experience and a triple Emmy winner in
Mohammed but you ignore assigning this to him? Maybe Adam and Abbas can
be WARNER BROS DISCOVERY's next cuts because they are clearly useless
and not up to the job.
On the media. I'm going to
strongly critique CNN and others -- probably ALJAZEERA in a moment --
but outlets like BREAKING POINTS WITH KRYSTAL AND SAAGAR and DEMOCRACY
NOW! that are picking up the story right now? I'm not expecting much
from them and, honestly, I'm just glad to see some Iraq coverage from
outlets that usually ignore the country and the ongoing war.
But these other outlets that do cover it some? I'm not giving them a pass for presenting garbage to the western news consumer.
Turning to a different aspect, Jeff Schogol (TASK AND PURPOSE) notes:
Roughly 2,500 U.S. service members are currently in Iraq as the country’s
political paralysis has erupted into the most serious outbreak of
violence in years.
[. . . ]
So far, no additional troops have been requested to increase security at
the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, said Army Lt. Col. David Eastburn, a
spokesman for U.S. Central Command.
Air sirens went off at the US Embassy this week. But the US State Dept says the embassy's not going to be evacuated. Kuwait and Bahrain
are calling for their citizens to leave Iraq. For over a month now,
Congress has been sending letters to President Joe Biden telling him
that more attention needs to be given to Iraq and Joe has just ignored
it. October 10th, Iraq held elections. All these months later, still
no president declared, still no prime minister. And Joe's done
nothing. Let's note this:
As David Schenker, a former Assistant Secretary of State for the Near
East under former President Trump wrote a week ago, senior State
Department and National Security Council officials visited Iraq only
twice in the nearly nine months between the national election last
October and the most recent outbreak of violence this week.
Do
you get how bad Joe's doing? I don't think you do. Maybe this will
help though, the admonishment above? Coming from Judith Miller. Yes, that Judith Miller. Joe's doing such a bad job that Judith can return to the topic of Iraq despite her record of pre-war coverage.
On US troops in Iraq (all should be home) we need to note a report from last weekend. Daniel Brown and Azmi Haroun (BUSINESS INSIDER) reported:
In the 76 countries in which the US is currently fighting terrorism, at least three have been incredibly deadly: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And as the US pullout from Afghanistan nears the one year mark, Brown University's Costs of War Project report
details just how deadly they've been. It counts how many people have
been killed by the "United States' post-9/11 wars" in these three
countries, along with others.
The report accounts for deaths in
Afghanistan and Pakistan between October 2001 and October 2018, and in
Iraq between March 2003 and September 2021.
In October 2001, the
US invaded Afghanistan to defeat the al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and 20
years later, on August 30, 2021, the US completed a chaotic withdrawal
of troops from Afghanistan as the Taliban regained full control of the
country.
[. . .]
6,951 US military deaths.
Iraq: 4,550 deaths.
Afghanistan: 2,401 deaths.
Pakistan: 0 deaths.
There were also 21 civilian DOD deaths, including six in Afghanistan and 15 in Iraq, the Cost of War report notes.
7,820 US contractor deaths.
Iraq: 3,793 deaths.
Afghanistan: 3,937 deaths.
Pakistan: 90 deaths.
109,154 national military and police deaths.
Iraq: 41,726 deaths.
Afghanistan: 58,596 deaths.
Pakistan: 8,832 deaths.
1,464 Allied troop deaths.
Iraq: 323 deaths.
Afghanistan: 1,141 deaths.
Pakistan: 0 deaths.
244,124 — 266,427 civilians.
Iraq: 182,272 — 204,575 deaths.
Afghanistan: 38,480 deaths.
Pakistan: 23,372 deaths.
109,396 — 114,471 opposition fighters.
Iraq: 34,806 — 39,881 deaths.
Afghanistan: 42,100 deaths.
Pakistan: 32,490 deaths.
362 journalists and media workers.
Iraq: 245 deaths.
Afghanistan: 54 deaths.
Pakistan: 63 deaths.
566 humanitarian and NGO workers.
Iraq: 62 deaths.
Afghanistan: 409 deaths.
Pakistan: 95 deaths.
479,858 — 507,236 total deaths.
Iraq: 267,792 — 295,170 deaths.
Afghanistan: 147,124 deaths.
Pakistan: 64,942 deaths.
Read the full report here.
Read the original article on Business Insider
It's an undercount, to be sure, but it's the most serious attempt at a real count in over a decade.
Anyone
worried about an overcount on US troops killed in Iraq and citing DoD
figures, should grasp that the US government's count buries troops
killed in Iraq after December 2011 under the heading "Operation Inherent
Resolve" and which covers deaths in "Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel,
Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United
Arab Emirates, the Mediterranean Sea east of 25 [degrees] longitude, the
Persian Gulf and the Red Sea."
That lumping is how
they and the press get to pretend that the war ended at the end of 2011
-- when in fact, there are 74 more deaths after that.
In addition, Brown's Costs of War study notes that there have been 30,177 suicides among veterans of the post-9/11 wars.
Back to the media, I am so sick of the
one-sided nonsense with regards to Iraq. ALJAZEERA wants to 'explain'
what happened. They do so how? By only quoting Moqtada al-Sadr's
followers. I'm sick of it. They quote one who wants you to know he
does what his leader tells him (how pathetic, shame on anyone taking
marching orders from a politician). The fool explains that he occupied
the Parliament --
Stop. A
real journalism outlet then explains that the cult broke into the Green
Zone. That's what they did. You can be glad, you can say it should
belong to the people, you can say whatever you want. But the reality is
that they broke in. Since 2006, the late spring, early summer, the big
fear of Iraqi politicians and US leaders has been that the Green Zone
would be breached. Nouri al-Maliki would use that possible breach that
didn't happen in 2006 to later justify his attacks on the press -- which
included a correspondent for THE NEW YORK TIMES being threatened --
that followed in the fall of 2006. It was a big deal. Barack Obama
never pulled all US troops out of Iraq.
If
you want to whine about today's media not being believed, grasp that it
wasn't just in the lead up to the Iraq War that they lied. They lied
about the 'withdrawal.' Barack did a drawdown, not a withdrawal.
That's why the Pentagon never waivered in calling it a drawdown. Troops
remained in Iraq. Ted Koppel reported on that. He did so on an NBC
program -- they got cancelled -- and on an NPR program -- they got
cancelled. Telling the truth, the lesson is, does not pay off. Doubt
it? MCCLATHY NEWSPAPERS.
"MCCLATCHY TOLD THE TRUTH! THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES! IN THE LEAD UP TO THE IRAQ WAR, THEY TOLD THE TRUTH!"
That's not reality. THE HOUSTON PRESS told the truth once upon a time and angered a Bush. It closed shop in the 90s.
MCLATCHY had many newspapers in 2002 and 2003 and they did not tell the truth.
The only one doing actual journalism was KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS. They told the truth about Iraq.
You
don't understand how corrupt American journalism is unless you start
paying attention and note that, time and again, it is the outlets
programs that tell the truth that close shop.
MCCLATCHY
lied like everyone else. After the start of the war, they would
purchase KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS. They were going under.
Lie about the Iraq War like THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, PBS, NPR and everyone else and you stay in business.
Lie, be wrong, just run with the pack and there is no fall out.
Why aren't people brave in the media? Because too often they've seen reality.
The
ones that hang on play the game and deceive in the process. It's been
that way throughout the lifetime of the American press.
US
troops? Some went to Kuwait, some remained. The Secretary of the
Defense testified to that in an open hearing, in response to the
questions from the late Senator Kay Hagan. She was a smart lady. She
knew the press was going to ignore it. And they did. All but one
reporter. We covered the hearing here, the day of the hearing, and
returned to it for several days after the hearing.
The
press was lying to the American people and claiming a withdrawal.
Instead of correcting the record via the information from the Senate
hearing, the press elected to focus on a cat fight between John McCain
and Leon Panetta. There was none. There were sharp words at the start
of the hearing and that was it. They were both cordial to one another
as the hearing progressed.
But that's what paid 'journalists' -- paid by respectable outlets -- chose to focus on.
In 2012, Barack sent a brigade of special-ops into Iraq.
Tim Arango worked it into a report for THE NEW YORK TIMES -- a report on Syria.
Jill
would not allow it to be in a report on Iraq. She would not allow it
to be a front page report as it should have been. Barack was running
for re-election and repeating the lie that he had withdrawn. Mitt
Romney was an idiot who thought he could look tougher than Barack by
attacking for the 'withdrawal.' Jill Abramson isn't a journalist. When
she was wrongly elevated at THE TIMES, we got the Iraq War coverage
from Judith Miller and others that Jill would try to pretend she didn't
greenlight all the way through. And she wasn't journalist when she was
put in charge of the paper. She refused to allow various stories into
the paper. If it would hurt Barack, she would censor the news.
And
with an election less than three full months away, there was no way she
was going to let the truth about US troops going back into Iraq -- even
with a US military official on record with his comments.
In 2014, Barack publicly sent more US troops into Iraq.
Why?
The
terrorist group ISIS had done more than just attack. It had grabbed
areas in Anbar Province and, further north, Mosul. There was very real
fear in the White House that Baghdad would be the next to fall. They
overestimated ISIS. But that fear, that the Green Zone would be
breached, is what prompted Barack to publicly send US forces back in.
And now Moqtada's cult has breached the Green Zone and the press wants to act like that's normal and not newsworthy?
This
is the same hideous press that couldn't tell the truth regarding the
militias. They said they were disenfranchised and they were.
I
knew that the moment the announcement was made. I don't like the
militias, so we didn't do a lot on it. But we noted it. When the
elections did take place we noted they were disenfranchised. When they
took up that critique, we noted that they were right.
It's not about what I like or don't like. The truth is the truth.
And the press struggles with the public because the press struggles with the truth.
Right
now, because of Monday and Tuesday's violence, some more people are
paying attention to Iraq -- for a moment or two. It doesn't help them
and it doesn't help Iraq, for news outlets to lie.
While many western outlets are failing with regards to covering what's going on in Iraq, Jean Shaoul files a strong report for WSWS which includes:
The violence erupted after al-Sadr announced his “final retirement”
from politics. Hundreds of his supporters in his Sairoon movement took
to the streets and broke through the concrete barriers of the heavily
fortified Green Zone, where Iraq’s federal parliament and government
buildings, as well as the US and other foreign embassies, are located.
Protests
also broke out in Iraq’s southern provinces, where al-Sadr’s supporters
burned tires and blocked roads in the oil-rich province of Basra, and
hundreds demonstrated outside the governorate building in Missan.
The
caretaker government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi imposed a
dusk-to-dawn curfew, while Iran, which has sought to bring Iraq’s Shiite
factions closer together, closed its borders with Iraq, as millions of
Iranians prepared to visit Iraq for an annual pilgrimage to Shia sites.
On
Monday night, al-Sadr said he was going on hunger strike until the
violence and the use of weapons stopped. The next day, in a bid to
disassociate himself from the violence, he apologised and called on his
followers to leave the Green Zone and the camps where they have been
protesting for the last four weeks, prompting many of his supporters to
leave.
Al-Sadr’s retirement threat—the fourth this erratic and
unprincipled politician has made over the last eight years—and the
violence he knew it would unleash are bound up with his determination to
take direct control of Iraq’s sectarian-ethnic political system at the
expense of his Shia rivals in the Coordination Framework.
While
al-Sadr, who comes from a leading Shia clerical family, led the main
Shia resistance to the US occupation, he has no progressive answers to
the enormous social problems confronting the Iraqi people. Posing as a
nationalist opposed to foreign interference in Iraq, he has links to
both Washington and Tehran. He has acted as kingmaker in forging ruling
coalitions and placed his own supporters in key positions in the
cabinet, the state-owned oil company, powerful ministries and local
authorities. They take a cut of government contracts to pass on to his
organisation, which runs a militia and provides jobs and social welfare
for his impoverished supporters in Baghdad’s slums.
Al-Sadr’s
announcement of his “final retirement” followed the resignation of the
83-year-old Grand Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri, a close associate of
al-Sadr’s father and spiritual leader of the Sadrists, who challenged
his right to act as the heir of his father, Mohammed Sadeq al-Sadr,
saying, “You cannot lead by their names. In reality you are not a
Sadrist even if you are from the family of Sadrists.” Haeri called on
his followers to transfer their allegiance to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei and “obey” Iran’s supreme leader as “the most worthy and
competent [individual] to lead the [Muslim] nation.”
Moqtada's
getting desperate. He's losing his hold on the cult. He's stating
he's out of politics and he's never going to be an Ayatollah -- hotel
management is a general studies degree, Moqtada, it's not a religious
honor.
The Atlantic Council's Abbas Kadhim notes:
One day before this arbitrary deadline, Ayatollah Kadhim al-Haeri,
who enjoys a following from many Sadrists, announced his retirement and,
oddly, issued a two-page letter that included a denouncement of Sadr
and his supporters, accusing them of dividing the Iraqi people in the
name of the Sadr family that has enjoyed long-standing respect in Iraq
and beyond. Haeri also recommended that his followers emulate Iran’s
Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei— another gesture that antagonized
Sadrist leaders who have protested increased Iranian influence and
accused their rivals of being Iranian agents.
The Sadrist response to Haeri’s retirement letter was fierce and Sadr
announced his “complete withdrawal” from the public scene, leaving his
rivals to face the angry masses—mostly Sadr’s followers.
We'll wind down with this from Margaret Kimberley's latest column for BLACK AGENDA REPORT:
The Biden administration announcement of so-called student loan debt relief
does little to alleviate the problem it claims to solve. Forgiving
$20,000 for Pell grant holders and $10,000 for all who earn less than
$125,000 is questionable for a variety of reasons. It is a midterm
election bait and switch that pleases gullible democrats, helps only a
minority of borrowers, and is nothing like what candidate Biden proposed
during the 2020 campaign.
Americans owe $1.7 trillion in student loan debt. This crisis did not
occur by happenstance. Universities did not escape the neoliberal
onslaught and are fund raising machines charging astronomical amounts of
money for tuition and room and board. Decades of austerity have slashed
spending for public institutions. Once so inexpensive that they were
practically free, they now offer little respite from crushing debt.
There is no way for working people to secure the higher education
they’re told they need without ruining themselves financially, and in so
doing defeating the purpose of attending college.
Of course college should be free and student loan debt should be
forgiven. The issue is of great importance to Black people, who are
usually unable to pay very little if any tuition and incur debt from the
first day of school. White people are more likely to have assets and
family resources they can tap. They may not incur any student loan debt
at all unless they attend graduate school.
The rationale for this catastrophe is quite simple. The race to the
bottom is an essential part of the corporate drive to keep Americans
desperate. The living wage work that is the holy grail for college
students is less likely to exist. The international capitalist overlords
want the system to be this way, and they have created a system which
keeps everyone, including the educated, in a grip of stagnant wages,
insecure employment, and a diminishing social safety net.
Senator Joe Biden
played a role in creating these terrible conditions. In 2005 he and 17
other democrats joined republicans in voting for the Bankruptcy Act,
which made it all but impossible to discharge student loan debt in
bankruptcy. The Delaware senator was beholden to the consumer credit
industry, like all of that state’s elected officials. They were the
drivers in ensuring that filing for bankruptcy for any reason would
become very difficult and they were always among Biden’s biggest
campaign contributors.
Of course Biden knows what people need and want. During his campaign he said ,
“I propose to forgive all undergraduate tuition-related federal student
debt from two- and four-year public colleges and universities for
debt-holders earning up to $125,000.” At other times he included
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in this debt
forgiveness plan.
It is easy to point out the discrepancy between what he promised and
what he now proposes, but the problem is bigger than the laundry list of
Biden campaign lies. There is great confusion among Black people about
student loan debt relief, what it will really accomplish, and what is
actually needed.
The following sites updated:
