IRAQ UPDATE: MORE TROOPS, MORE TROOPS, DEJA VU, DEJA VU

Sunday, March 11, 2007

MORE TROOPS, MORE TROOPS, DEJA VU, DEJA VU

By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer. Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page A01

ANCHORENA PARK, Uruguay, March 10 — President Bush approved 8,200 more U.S. troops for Iraq and Afghanistan on top of reinforcements already ordered to those two countries, the White House said Saturday, a move that comes amid a fiery debate in Washington over the Iraq war.

The president agreed to send 4,700 troops to Iraq in addition to the 21,500 he ordered to go in January, mainly to provide support for those combat forces and to handle more anticipated Iraqi prisoners. He also decided to send a 3,500-member brigade to Afghanistan to accelerate training of local forces, doubling his previous troop increase to fight a resurgent Taliban.

Although officials had foreshadowed the additional forces for Iraq in recent days, the latest troop increase in Afghanistan had not been known and will bring U.S. forces there to an all-time high. The deployments underscore the challenges facing the United States in both countries and further stretch an already strained military. In Iraq particularly, the moves could fuel suspicions that a troop increase initially described as a temporary “surge” may grow larger and last longer than predicted.

No comments:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

View of a Ma"dan ("Marsh Arab") floating village near Nasiriyah, by Nik Wheeler, 1974

View of a Ma"dan ("Marsh Arab") floating village near Nasiriyah, by Nik Wheeler, 1974

A complex ecosystem created by the annual flooding of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, Iraq's marshes have sustained human civilization for more than 5,000 years. Some of the earliest settlements of Mesopotamia—"the land between the rivers"—were built on floating reed islands in these very wetlands. This was one of the first places where human beings developed agriculture, invented writing and worshiped a pantheon of deities. In more recent times, the remoteness of the region, the near-absence of roads, the difficult terrain and the indifference of Baghdad's governing authorities insulated the area from the political and military upheavals that buffeted much of the Arab world. In his 1964 classic, The Marsh Arabs, British travel writer Wilfred Thesiger described a timeless environment of "stars reflected in dark water, the croaking of frogs, canoes coming home at evening, peace and continuity, the stillness of a world that never knew an engine."

BLOG TIDBITS

#1 4/12/07 Iraqi civilians are experiencing "immense suffering" because of a "disastrous" security situation, deepening poverty and a worsening humanitarian crisis, according to a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC also sees no sign that the US-led security "surge" in Baghdad is bringing relief to the capital, while hospitals struggle to cope with mass casualties as malnutrition as well as power and water shortages become more frequent across the country.

"The suffering Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable," Pierre Kraehenbuehl, director of operations for the organisation, said at the group's Geneva headquarters. The report, Civilians without Protection, provides a grim snapshot of the situation in Iraq but will carry special weight thanks to the ICRC's reputation as the scrupulously neutral "silent service" of international humanitarian work.

It maintains a presence in Baghdad despite the bombing of its offices in 2003, and works closely with the Iraqi Red Crescent. The report says that more than 100,000 families have been forced to leave their homes in the past year because of the shootings, bombings, abductions, murders and military operations.

#2 NewsTrack - Top News, Published: Feb. 10, 2007 at 8:00 AM Russia's Putin blasts U.S. foreign policy. MUNICH, (UPI) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the United States at an international conference in Germany for its "very dangerous" approach to global relations. Putin told senior security officials from around the world that their nations were "witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations," the BBC reported Saturday.

"One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way," Putin said at the Munich Conference on Security Policy. "This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law." The BBC reported that Putin said the approach is "nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons."

Putin also denied reports that Russia has passed nuclear technology to Iran, RIA Novosti said. "Technology is coming from Europe, from Asian countries. Russia has nothing to do with this," he said. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070210-082453-8468r/

On Iran, Bush Faces Haunting Echoes of Iraq: NYT 1/28/07

“We’re not looking for a fight with Iran,” R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for policy and the chief negotiator on Iranian issues, said in an interview on Friday evening, just a few hours after Mr. Bush had repeated his warnings to Iran to halt “killing our soldiers” and to stop its drive for nuclear fuel.

....there has been a vigorous behind-the-scenes debate in the administration over whether the more aggressive policy could provoke Iran to strike back. The State Department has tended to counsel caution, while some more hawkish aides in the Pentagon and the White House say the increase in American forces in Iraq could be neutered unless the American military forcefully pushes back against the Iranian aid to the militias.

...Officials familiar with the intelligence prepared for Mr. Bush say American assessments conclude that Iran sees itself at the head of an alliance to drive the United States out of Iraq, and ultimately out of the Middle East. Other briefings have included assessments that Russia and China will never join meaningful economic sanctions against a country that they do business with, so if Mr. Bush wants to apply military and economic pressure, he must do so outside the United Nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html?ei=5094&en=830ff9c66178ef2d&amp;hp=&ex=1169960400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

Seymour Hersch: The Truth Out in The New Yorker November 2006

....If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way....

The White House's concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war," a former senior intelligence official told me. The Pentagon consultant told me that, while there may be pressure from the Israelis, "they won't do anything on their own without our green light." That assurance, he said, "comes from the Cheney shop. It's Cheney himself who is saying, 'We're not going to leave you high and dry, but don't go without us.' " A senior European diplomat agreed: "For Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go into Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other choice."

A nuclear-armed Iran would not only threaten Israel. It could trigger a strategic-arms race throughout the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt - all led by Sunni governments - would be compelled to take steps to defend themselves. The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that - as Clinton said earlier this year - "we cannot take any option off the table." Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing reception when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, "A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die - the mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail."

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/66/23964

A VIEW FROM LONG ISLAND

Embarrassment of riches in Iraq, Newsday.com Editorial CONGRESS MUST PROBE LOOSE CASH February 13, 2007 If anyone ever doubted the need for congressional oversight of spending in Iraq, consider the $12 billion - in cash no less - shipped from the Federal Reserve in New York to Baghdad in the first 13 months of the war and occupation. That's 363 tons of shrink-wrapped cash - 281 million individual bills - stacked on 484 wood pallets and flown to Baghdad in C-130 cargo planes. What happened to all that money? Good question. That's what the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began probing last week. There's no evidence, at this point, that it fell into the hands of insurgents. But corruption and waste seem likely.The cash was delivered to the Coalition Provisional Authority, led at the time by American L. Paul Bremer. He testified it was needed to pay Iraqis and contractors because Iraq's banking system was a dysfunctional shambles. One contractor got a duffel bag stuffed with $2 million in cash, according to a report prepared for committee Democrats. Other cash payments were made from the back of a pickup truck. Cash was stored in unguarded sacks in Iraqi ministry offices. Vaults were sometimes used, but the key to one was kept in an unsecured backpack. Auditors found that $774,300 was stolen from another vault. Record-keeping was spotty at best: $500 million in security funding was disbursed but labeled only "TBD," meaning, to be determined. This wasn't U.S. taxpayers' money. It came from sales of Iraqi oil and seized Iraqi assets. But with the tab in Iraq for U.S. taxpayers nearing $700 billion spent, approved and requested, Congress needs to keep a sharp eye on the money. With a Republican majority, Congress had little stomach for oversight. Credit Democrats for boldly going where the GOP wouldn't. They should recognize the difficulty of operating in a war zone and resist a partisan gotcha-fest. But Congress absolutely needs to follow the money in Iraq

Carl Bernstein On Bush Administration Excesses

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist commented: "In the current administration we have seen from the President [on] down--especially Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld--a willingness to ignore the great constitutional history of the United States -- to suspend, really ... many of the constitutional guarantees that have made us a nation apart..."

"Nixon and his men lied and abused the constitution to horrible effect, but they were stopped," said Bernstein. "The Bush Administration ... was not stopped, and has done far greater damage." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Famed_reporter_Carl_Bernstein_Bush_administration_0125.html

IRAN/ISRAEL.........

The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that two Israeli air squadrons are training for the mission and “if things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz].

Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole.”The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities – at Isfahan and Arak – with conventional bombs. But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II six decades ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Russia-Weapons.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=

Iran Receives Russian Defense Missiles By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: January 24, 2007 TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iranian officials said Wednesday that they have taken delivery of advanced Russian air defense missile systems -- weapons intended, according to one Russian news agency, to defend Tehran's major nuclear facilities. According to Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency, the weapons were expected to be used to protect major government and military installations such the nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran and in eastern Iran.

....Sergei Chemezov, the head of the country's state-run weapons exporter as saying that the Tor-M1 missiles had been delivered before the end of December 2006.

RICE: I DON"T WANT TO... LOOK LIKE... WE JUST SORT OF BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT...

Jan 11, 2007 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday the Bush administration would give Iraq's government some "breathing space" after the president's "tough" words in his Iraq speech. In comments picked up on an open microphone between morning television interviews, Rice indicated she did not want to put too much pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, with whom the Bush administration has become increasingly irritated. "I don't want to descend on the Maliki government and look like we, you know, just sort of beat their brains out," said Rice in comments monitored by Reuters from a television feed. "The president was pretty tough last night and we'll be pretty tough today. Give them a little time to now do something, a little breathing space," she added.

THE OIL COMPANIES WEIGH IN.........

January 7, 2007 "Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days," Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb report in the cover story. According to the paper, the law "would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972." "Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs," the article continues. "After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Intelligence_officials_believe_White_House_chose_0108.html

MASTER OF WAR: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-feith10feb10,1,771787.story?

MASTER OF WAR: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-feith10feb10,1,771787.story?

Doug Feith, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE WHO TILTED THE INTELLIGENCE: In 1999, his firm Feith & Zell formed an alliance with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co., which resulted in the creation of the Fandz International Law Group. According to Fandz’s web site, the law group “has recently established a task force dealing with issues and opportunities relating to the recently ended war with Iraq. … and is assisting regional construction and logistics firms to collaborate with contractors from the United States and other coalition countries in implementing infrastructure and other reconstruction projects in Iraq.

Rumsfeld Doubletalk?

"As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." (....See psychology Johari Communication Window http://www.teleometrics.com/info/resources_johari.html) According to Newsweek, Air Force Secretary Jim Roche went to Rumsfeld early on and said, "Don, you do realize that Iraq could be another Vietnam." Replied Rumsfeld: "Vietnam? You think you have to tell me about Vietnam? Of course it won't be Vietnam. We are going to go in, overthrow Saddam, get out. That's it."