CEASEFIRE TALK & MALIKI DESCRIBES RESPONSE TO SURGE

Associated Press, May 31, 2007, WASHINGTON: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander said Thursday.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he has authorized commanders at all levels to reach out to militants, tribes, religious leaders and others in the country that has been gripped by violence from a range of fronts including insurgents, sectarian rivals and common criminals."

We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a video conference from Baghdad.

"It's just the beginning, so we have a lot of work to do on this," he said. "But we have restructured ourselves to organize to work this issue." Odierno said it augments reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders are under increasing pressure from Washington to do more to achieve reconciliation among factions because, officials argue, no amount of military force can bring peace to the country without political peace.

Al-Maliki announced a national reconciliation proposal nearly a year ago that has made limited progress. It offered some amnesty to members of the Sunni-led insurgency and a change in a law that had removed senior members of deposed President Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from their jobs.

The State Of The Surge AL-MALIKI INTERVIEW WITH CBS NEWS, LARA LOGAN

Al-Maliki said that some of the officer corps have been creating problems and even violating the security of military operations. He stated, "I'm not afraid, but I have to watch the army, because those still loyal to the previous regime may start planning coups. Those people don't believe in democracy, and for that reason we are monitoring the status of the army very closely." Al-Maliki also insisted that his government is not ordered around by the Americans, saying, "The Americans don't order us to do this or not to do that. On the contrary, we're the ones who tell them to do this and don't do that." (Dancewater)

CHRONOLOGY OF IRAN - U.S. RELATIONSHIP

May 28, 2007: The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad hold four hours of talks on Iraq.

May 5, 2007: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki exchange a brief, polite greeting at a conference in Egypt.

May 2006: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad writes President Bush an 18-page letter lambasting his handling of the Sept. 11 attacks.

2001-2002: Officials from both sides communicate before and after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, whom Tehran also opposed.

March 2000: The Clinton administration lifts a ban on U.S. imports of Iranian luxury goods and says it would seek a legal settlement that could free Iranian assets frozen since 1979.

1985-86: A series of secret meetings take place between the United States and Iran, in which the United States sold weapons to Iran and gave the proceeds to Central American rebels. The scandal came to be known as the Iran-contra affair.

April 1980: The United States breaks diplomatic relations with Iran and imposes economic sanctions over the hostage crisis.

November 1979: Iranian militants seize the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and take 52 Americans hostage, eventually holding them for 444 days.

December 1977: President Jimmy Carter visits Iran and in a New Year's Eve toast says, "Iran, under the great leadership of the shah, is an island of stability" in the Middle East. The State Department says this was the last "substantive" high-level meeting between the two nations.

1953: Operations Ajax: Iranians working for the C.I.A. posed as Communists and harassed religious leaders. They staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against the prevailing government.

Fearful of risking his throne, the Shah repeatedly refused to sign C.I.A.-written royal decrees to change the government. The agency arranged for the shah's twin sister, Princess Ashraf Pahlevi, and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, the father of the Desert Storm commander, to act as intermediaries to try to keep him from wilting under pressure. He still fled the country just before the coup succeeded.

And from Wikipedia:

During his reign, the Shah received significant American support, frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American Presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his bold agenda of rapidly Westernizing Iran soon began to infuriate certain segments of the Iranian population, especially the hardline Islamic conservatives.

MEMORIAL DAY 2007: Eyes Wide Open
Details of Upcoming Events


www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJBtXRVN768

CLICK UTUBE ADDRESS TO WATCH TRAILER

AL-SADR ATTENDS PRAYERS IN KUFA & CHALLENGES U.S. CONTINUANCE IN SERMON

May 25, 2007 07:14pm
Article from: Reuters

FIERY anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has attended Friday prayers in the holy Shiite city of Kufa today, his first public appearance since the start of a major US-backed security crackdown in Iraq in February.

A Reuters reporter saw him enter Kufa mosque surrounded by bodyguards and close aides.
The US military has said he went into hiding in Iran in January to escape the crackdown, but aides to the young cleric, who led two uprisings against US forces in 2004, say he never left Kufa.

While there will be much speculation as to why he has chosen to appear in public now after keeping a low profile for so many months, his sudden re-emergence comes at a critical time in Iraqi politics.

Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's weak and divided coalition government is under mounting pressure to reach key political benchmarks by September, when Washington says it will review its military strategy in Iraq and decide how to proceed. Mr al-Maliki owes his office to Sadr's political support. Al-Sadr withdrew his six ministers from Mr al-Maliki's government in April in protest at the Prime Minister's refusal to set a timetable for a US troop withdrawal.

SHIITE CLERIC APPEARS IN IRAQ AFTER STAY IN IRAN


By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JON ELSEN
KUFA, Iraq, May 25 — The powerful Iraqi cleric Moktada al- Sadr surfaced in his home base of Kufa in southern Iraq today, delivering a sermon in a local mosque after what American intelligence officials called a four-month sojourn in Iran.

The cleric, addressing a large crowd amid heavy security, called for American forces to leave Iraq and for the Iraqi government to make sure that the Americans leave as soon as possible. He called for and end to fighting between his own Mahdi Army and Iraqi forces and police, asking his followers to conduct peaceful demonstrations instead.

He also requested reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis....

Recently, Mr. Sadr has been taking a different tack. His supporters have met with Sunni Arab tribal leaders from Anbar Province who have been feuding with the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The meetings were billed as an effort to forge a nationalist movement to overcome sectarian tensions, and the message appeared calculated to appeal to war-weary Iraqis. Some political analysts saw it as an attempt to expand his political bloc, and his return may also be an effort to advance this agenda.

....not even American officials privy to classified intelligence on Mr. Sadr’s return pretend to be certain what he has in mind.

Michael Gordon reported from Washington and Jon Elsen from New York. Iraqi employees of The New York Times reported from Kufa and Najaf.

CHENEY DOING END RUN AROUND POTUS?

Published: Thursday May 24, 2007, The Washington Note

A report published today reveals a growing game of tug-of-war between President Bush and his No. 2 regarding the US approach towards Iran.

Vice President Dick Cheney believes the US should not be pursuing a diplomatic path with Iran, and a senior aide to the vice president has been meeting with national security think tanks and consultants in Washington to "help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran," Steve Clemons reported Thursday on his blog, The Washington Note.

Cheney is the person in the Bush administration who most desires a "hot conflict" with Iran and believes the administrations pursuit of diplomacy, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, is a mistake, Clemons reports. The Cheney aide, who has met with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute along with other groups, "has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an 'end run strategy' around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument," according to Clemons.

Cheney's team wants to work with Israel, nudging the country at some key moment to mount a small-scale attack on the suspected site of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which could lead to an Iranian counter attack on US forces stationed in the Persian Gulf, Clemons reports.

The vice president has in recent weeks been ramping up his rhetoric against Iran. Earlier this month, he spoke aboard a US aircraft carrier just 150 miles of Iran's coast to warn the country against continuing to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

Click title above to read the entire report.

NINE US WARSHIPS ENTER GULF IN SHOW OF FORCE

WARSHIPS ENTER STRAIGHT OF HORMUZ

23 May 2007
ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS -

Nine US warships carrying 17,000 personnel entered the Gulf on Wednesday in a show of force off Iran’s coast that navy officials said was the largest daytime assembly of ships since the 2003 Iraq war.

US Navy officials said Iran had not been notified of plans to sail the ships, which include two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran’s coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.

Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, who is leading the group, said the ships would conduct exercises as part of a long-planned effort to reassure regional allies of US commitment to Gulf security.

“What is special about this is that you have two strike groups. Everybody will see us because it is in daylight.” Most US ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.

Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.

The group of ships, carrying about 140 aircraft scheduled to participate in the exercises that will take place over the next few weeks, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT.

....The manoeuvre comes less than two weeks after US Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said Washington would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and “dominating the region”.

On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened “severe” retaliation if the United States attacked his country, which is locked in a standoff with the United States over its nuclear programme. He also urged Gulf countries to “get rid of” foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only. US and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused the Islamic Republic of fomenting violence by backing Shi’ite militia there. Iran has denied the accusations.

On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness “some of the most powerful ships in the world”, whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might.

Editor's Note: this "expeditionary strike force" involves 2,200 Marines including nine U.S. ships carrying 17,000 personnel, the aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz, as well as the helicopter assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard.

AMERICAN PALACE ON THE TIGRIS?

The new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will be the world's largest and most expensive foreign mission, though it may not be large enough or secure enough to cope with the chaos in Iraq. . . .

The $592 million embassy occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing.

The embassy is one of the few major projects the administration has undertaken in Iraq that is on schedule and within budget. Still, not all has gone according to plan. The 21-building complex on the Tigris River was envisioned three years ago partly as a headquarters for the democratic expansion in the Middle East that President Bush identified as the organizing principle for foreign policy in his second term.

The complex quickly could become a white elephant if the U.S. scales back its presence and ambitions in Iraq. Although the U.S. probably will have forces in Iraq for years to come, it is not clear how much of the traditional work of diplomacy can proceed amid the violence and what the future holds for Iraq's government.

"What you have is a situation in which they are building an embassy without really thinking about what its functions are," said Edward Peck, a former top U.S. diplomat in Iraq.

OTOH: From developer's description: Following successful completion of the preliminary concept plans and the full embassy master plan, Berger was commissioned to prepare the design-build “bridging documents” (based on 35% design) for construction of the self-contained embassy compound. Berger Devine Yaeger, Inc. (BDY) was the architect for this work. The construction (currently underway) is being executed in four concurrent packages. This self-contained compound will include the embassy itself, residences for the ambassador and staff, PX, commissary, cinema, retail and shopping, restaurants, schools, fire station and supporting facilities such as power generation, water purification system, telecommunications, and waste water treatment facilities. In total, the 104 acre compound will include over twenty buildings including one classified secure structure and housing for over 380 families.

TomDispatch.com remarked: Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem "Ozymandias," inspired by the arrival in London in 1816 of an enormous statue of the Pharaoh Ramesses II, comes to mind:

"I met a traveler from an antique land Who said:

"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert.

Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal, these words appear:‘

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

'Nothing beside remains.

Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away."

FROM BOTH SIDES: OIL EXCERPTED BY SLOGGER

Gail Russell Chaddock focuses on the debate on Capitol Hill, noting that the draft law is “emerging as a flashpoint” in DC as well as in Baghdad. While the Bush administration has been leaning hard on the Iraqis to pass the law, Chaddock gives rare face time to US critics of the legislation as written, who voice misgivings about the law’s appearance to give undue advantage to foreign oil concerns over the interests of the Iraqis. While LaFranchi focuses more on the perilous Iraqi debate over distributing oil revenues, Chaddock quotes Iraqis who object to the draft over the issue of its approach to foreign contracts. Hasan Jum'a Awwad, head of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, urged that Democrats "not link withdrawal with the oil law, especially since the USA claimed that it came to Iraq as a liberator and not in order to control Iraq's resources," in an open letter last week, she writes. Chaddock quotes other Iraqis, including an MP and a former oil minister, who are opposed to the law on the basis of its regulation of foreign firms. Because the law is ambiguously written, not all analysts share the view that the law favors foreign firms. But then again, if the law is ambiguously written, shouldn’t that raise a red flag too?

From Iraq, Howard LaFranchi writes about those on the receiving end of US pressure, Iraqi MPs and experts who argue that the process cannot be rushed to fit Washington’s timetable. There are no major bombshells or revelations, but LaFranchi does an excellent job in tying together the debate, which ranges between difficult and intractable, in a digestible way. Two important takeaways: First, even those parties most closely aligned with the US in Iraq are pushing for a longer delay in order to get the vote worked out. Second, as US pressure mounts, “The draft law could probably pass if put to a vote now, some analysts say, but its gaps and vague wording on key issues like contract-signing authority could mean big problems later and discourage essential foreign investment,” LaFranchi writes.

WP Opinion: What Bremer Got Wrong in Iraq: A Challenge to our Foreign Policy

By Nir Rosen
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; 12:00 AM Read critical reviews of Nir Rosen's book

I arrived in Iraq before L. Paul Bremer arrived in May 2003 and stayed on long after his ignominious and furtive departure in June 2004 -- long enough to see the tragic consequences of his policies in Iraq. So I was disappointed by the indignant lack of repentance on full display in his Outlook article on Sunday.

In it, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority argues that he "was absolutely right to strip away the apparatus of a particularly odious tyranny," including the Baath Party and the Iraqi army. He complains about "critics who've never spent time in Iraq" and "don't understand its complexities." But Bremer himself never understood Iraq, knew no Arabic, had no experience in the Middle East and made no effort to educate himself -- as his statements clearly show.

Time and again, he refers to "the formerly ruling Sunnis," "rank-and-file Sunnis," "the old Sunni regime," "responsible Sunnis." This obsession with sects informed the U.S. approach to Iraq from day one of the occupation, but it was not how Iraqis saw themselves -- at least, not until very recently. Iraqis were not primarily Sunnis or Shiites; they were Iraqis first, and their sectarian identities did not become politicized until the Americans occupied their country, treating Sunnis as the bad guys and Shiites as the good guys. There were no blocs of "Sunni Iraqis" or "Shiite Iraqis" before the war, just like there was no "Sunni Triangle" or "Shiite South" until the Americans imposed ethnic and sectarian identities onto Iraq's regions.

Despite Bremer's assertions, Saddam Hussein's regime was not a Sunni regime; it was a dictatorship with many complex alliances in Iraqi society, including some with Shiites. If anything, the old tyranny was a Tikriti regime, led by relatives and clansmen from Hussein's hometown. Hussein punished Sunnis who became too prominent and suppressed Sunni Arab officers from Mosul and Baghdad in favor of more pliable officers from rural and tribal backgrounds. Local Sunni movements that were not pro-Hussein were repressed just as harshly as the Shiites.

Bremer was not alone in his blindness here. Just two weeks ago, I interviewed John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, about the crisis of Iraqi refugees, who now number more than 2 million. He displayed the same dismal approach to Iraq as Bremer. Bolton claimed that most of the refugees were Sunnis, fleeing because "they fear that Shiites are going to exact retribution for four or five decades of Baath rule."

Many Iraqis saw the Americans as new colonists, intent on dividing and conquering Iraq. That was precisely Bremer's approach. When he succumbed slightly to Iraqi demands for democracy and created Interim Governing Council, its members were selected by sectarian and ethnic quotas. Even the Communist Party member of the council was chosen not because he was secular but because he was a Shiite.

In Bremer's mind, the way to occupy Iraq was not to view it as a nation but as a group of minorities. So he pitted the minority that was not benefiting from the system against the minority that was, and then expected them both to be grateful to him. Bremer ruled Iraq as if it were already undergoing a civil war, helping the Shiites by punishing the Sunnis. He did not see his job as managing the country; he saw it as managing a civil war. So I accuse him of causing one.

SURGE LEADS TO INCREASED DETAINEES AND BREEDING GROUND FOR EXTREMISTS

This is the other side of the surge: as thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops flood Baghdad's neighborhoods, the jails are also filling up. According to figures from the Ministry of Human Rights, the number of Iraqis detained nationwide from the end of January until the end of March—a period that includes the first six weeks of the new Baghdad security plan—jumped by approximately 7,000 to 37,641. U.S. forces swept up 2,000 prisoners a month in March and April, almost twice the average from the second half of last year. Iraqi arrest numbers are roughly equivalent. Some of these detainees are falling into a kind of legal limbo, held for weeks without a hearing.

....The long-term question is whether mass arrests are actually counterproductive. According to former detainees, community leaders and even Iraqi officials, many prison facilities have become breeding grounds for extremists. New prisoners are quickly won over by, or bullied into joining, militants in the jails. "The biggest school for Al Qaeda is prison," contends Zaidan al-Jabri, an influential sheik from Anbar province who's lived in Jordan since 2005 to escape the instability back home. "All these banned books are allowed in. Speeches and lectures by Al Qaeda terrorists are let in." Omar Jubouri, the head of the human-rights organization in the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Islamic Party, is even more explicit. "These detainees will come out in the form of car bombs and suicide bombs," he says.

THE REALITIES OF WAR UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL

US News Profiles Heroic U.S. Soldier Killed by Sniper in March, COURTESY OF SLOGGER

...the things that I have seen in my life that have changed me drastically," Army Staff Sgt. Darrell Griffin Jr. told US News and World Report's Alex Kingsbury on March 3, 2007.

Eighteen days later, a sniper in Sadr City killed the 36-year-old squad leader of Charger Company's 3rd platoon, 2-3 Stryker Brigade.

In his original story about the Stryker Brigade, Kingsbury used just one quote from his interview with Griffin. But this week, he has published a heartbreaking and detailed profile of the man using that original interview, along with e-mails, photos, and other materials and interviews provided by Griffin's family. What emerges is a complex portrait of a thoughtful and sensitive man, one confident in his sense of duty, but not without concern for the effect the war has had on ordinary Iraqis.

Kingsbury writes of one March 5 raid he accompanied Charger Company on while embedded, reporting that the platoon entered the home of a family whose only crime was having names similar to those of wanted insurgents.

Griffin recounted the revelation he experienced during the raid later in his journal:

I noticed the mother attempting to breast feed her little baby and yet the baby continued to cry. (the interpreter) who is a certified and well educated doctor of internal medicine educated in Iraq, told me that the mother, because she was very frightened by our presence, was not able to breast feed her baby because the glands in the breast close up due to sympathetic responses to fear and stressful situations. I then tried to reassure the mother by allowing her to leave the room and attain some privacy so that she could relax and feed her child. I felt something that had been brooding under the attained callousness of my heart for some time.

My heart finally broke for the Iraqi people. I wanted to just sit down and cry while saying I'm so, so sorry for what we had done. I had the acute sense that we had failed these people. It was at this time, and after an entire year of being deployed and well into the next deployment that I realized something. We burst into homes, frighten the hell out of families, and destroy their homes looking for an elusive enemy. We do this out of fear of the unseen and attempt to compensate for our inability to capture insurgents by swatting mosquitoes with a sledge-hammer in glass houses.

TINA SUSSMAN OF LA TIMES: OIL AGREEMENT IN JEOPARDY:

BAGHDAD — It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq's civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington's clock.

Opposition ranges from vehement to measured, but two things are clear: The May deadline that the White House had been banking on is in doubt. And even if the law is passed, it fails to resolve key issues, including how to divide Iraq's oil revenue among its Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions, and how much foreign investment to allow. Those questions would be put off for future debates. The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq's constitution.

Republican leaders in Washington have warned administration officials that if the Iraqi government fails to meet those benchmarks by the end of the summer, remaining congressional support for Bush's Iraq policies could crumble. Their impatience was underscored Wednesday by Vice President Dick Cheney during a visit here."I did make it clear that we believe it's very important to move on the issues before us in a timely fashion, and that any undue delay would be difficult to explain," Cheney told reporters.But Iraqi lawmakers show little sign of bending to accommodate Bush on an issue as crucial as oil.

"We have two clocks — the Baghdad clock and the Washington clock — and this is a perfect example," said Mahmoud Othman, a lawmaker from the semiautonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq. "This has always been the case. Washington has been pushing the Iraqis to do things to fit their agenda."

A LETTER WORTH READING

Text of Gen. Petraeus's letter of May 11, 2007:

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen serving in Multi-National Force-Iraq:

Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. Al Qaeda’s indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial proportion of the Iraqi population against it.

In view of this, I was concerned by the results of a recently released survey conducted last fall in Iraq that revealed an apparent unwillingness on the part of some US personnel to report illegal actions taken by fellow members of their units. The study also indicated that a small percentage of those surveyed may have mistreated noncombatants. This survey should spur reflection on our conduct in combat.

I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq. I also know first hand the bonds between members of the ” brotherhood of the close fight. ” Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us—or our comrades in arrns—to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk;” however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings. Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human. If you feel such stress, do not hesitate to talk to your chain of command, your chaplain, or a medical expert.

We should use the survey results to renew our commitment to the values and standards that make us who we are and to spur re-examinat ion of these issues. Leaders, in part icular, need to discuss these issues with their troopers—and, as always, they need to set the right example and strive to ensure proper conduct. We should never underestimate the importance of good leadership and the difference it can make.

Thanks for what you continue to do. It is an honor to serve with each of you.

David H. Petraeus,

AVOIDING A SPIRITUAL DEATH

Forty years ago last month, on April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. rose to the pulpit of New York’s Riverside Church to deliver his first public anti-war speech regarding Vietnam. As anticipated, critics railed against him roundly at the time, not only those from the mainstream media, but also from allies such as the NAACP. Now, however, history has vindicated the truths that Dr. King so bravely spoke that day, and his testimony is widely seen as a prophetic masterpiece.

....Before describing how the United States betrayed the Vietnamese, first by supporting “ the French in their abortive effort to re-colonize Vietnam, ” then by propping up the “ vicious” dictator Diem, and finally by nearly wiping the country off the map through its extensive bombing and use of napalm, Dr. King said: “ They must see Americans as strange liberators. ”

In Iraq, parallels abound. The United States supported Saddam Hussein as he massacred his own people during the 1980 s, obliterated the country during the first Gulf War, imposed deadly sanctions for nearly 13 years, and finally invaded and occupied it in 2003. In place of napalm, the U. S. military now uses a more effective chemical to burn Iraqis — white phosphorous. And in our noble effort to bring democracy, we’ve also littered the country with cluster bombs and thousands of tons of poisonous depleted uranium.

Strange liberators, indeed.

Speaking of the soldiers, Dr. King said: “ We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor. ”

One can only imagine the cognitive dissonance of our soldiers today, knowing that every reason that they originally were given to kill and be killed has been thoroughly debunked. Moreover, the U. S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority’s effort to privatize nearly everything in Iraq, and our current advocacy for Iraq’s new oil law — which if passed by the Iraqi Parliament will be highly advantageous to American oil companies — can leave little doubt whose side we’re currently on.

Speaking on the bogeyman of his time, Dr. King declared: “ War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. ” The greatest defense against communism, he argued, “ is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops. ” The same undoubtedly can be said for terrorism, which cannot be defeated by violence. Even the U. S. intelligence community has concluded that our wars have only worsened the threat of another attack and fanned the flames of extremism.

Excerpt from the speech: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html

Delivered 4 April 1967 at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

AMERICAN TROOP SAFETY IN IRAQ

....More than 60 joint security stations, staffed by American and Iraqi forces, and U.S. combat outposts are now operating in Baghdad, leading to an increase in the discovery of weapons caches, a U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, said Monday.

"There's two threats to the combat outpost . . . a huge truck bomb, and indirect fire," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who handles day-to-day military operations in Iraq, said in an interview at his Baghdad headquarters last week. In response, he said, U.S. troops are building more walls to shield themselves from mortars and rockets, while trying to track down insurgents firing on them.

To counter truck bombs, military engineers are gauging the structural soundness of the outposts and making sure they are well removed from traffic, Odierno said. Antitank weapons such as the bazooka-like AT-4 are also now required for soldiers on guard.

"They are now armoring these trucks, so whereas before we could shoot them and kill them, now we have to use some antitank capability against them and we're going to do that," Odierno said.

For U.S. troops living at the small camps, the constant need for vigilance -- coupled with hardship conditions and the prospect of 15-month tours -- has in some cases taken a toll on morale. While some soldiers see advantages in living alongside Iraqi security forces inside the neighborhoods they patrol, others voice resentment over a mission they believe is ill-defined.

TODAY'S NEWS: THE BIG LEAK & OTHER IRAQ ISSUES

By Ben WhitfordPosted Saturday, May 12, 2007, at 6:39 AM ET

The New York Times leads with news that vast quantities of oil have gone missing in Iraq over the past four years, presumably siphoned off by smugglers or corrupt government officials. The Wall Street Journal heads its world-wide newsbox, and the LA Times off-leads, with news that amid fresh violence in Baghdad, the senior US commander for northern Iraq is calling for more troops....

According to a draft US government report obtained by the New York Times, up to 300,000 barrels of oil a day have gone missing in Iraq over the past four years, at an estimated cost of up to $15m a day. It's not yet known whether the shortfall is due to theft or overstated oil production; there are concerns that the missing oil may be helping to fund insurgents. Some observers see parallels to the UN oil-for-food scandal, in which up to half a million barrels of oil a day were smuggled out of the country.

The senior US commander for northern Iraq said that rising troop numbers in Baghdad were causing insurgents to focus on undermanned areas outside the capital, and called for reinforcements. The LA Times fronts the news, speculating that Defense Secretary Robert Gates, believed to be skeptical about the surge strategy, has instructed officers to speak their mind about conditions on the ground. The Post runs the story inside, focusing on bombings in Baghdad that damaged bridges and killed 25 people yesterday. The New York Times notes that Iraqi lawmakers are drafting legislation that would set out a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops.

UN High Commissioner Says Refugee Crisis in Iraq surpasses Darfur

NOAH MERRILL TALKS ABOUT THE IRAQ REFUGEE CRISIS

Cheney Warns Iran; Five Warplanes as Backdrop?

Vice President Dick Cheney fired a new warning shot across the bow of the nation of Iran Friday, saying the United States would prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons.
Speaking aboard an aircraft carrier some four years after President Bush declared victory in "major" Iraq combat operations, Cheney declared, "we want to complete the mission, get it done right and return with honor."

REBUTTAL BY RICHARD PERLE: HOW THE CIA FAILED AMERICA

How the CIA Failed America
May 11, 2007; Page A19

George Tenet sets the stage in his memoir by recalling a conversation he claims to have had with me on Sept. 12, 2001: "As I walked beneath the awning that leads to the West Wing[, I] saw Richard Perle exiting the building just as I was about to enter. . . . Perle turned to me and said, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility.' I looked back at Perle and thought: Who has [he] been meeting with in the White House so early in the morning on today of all days?"

But I was in Europe on Sept. 12, 2001, unable to get a return flight to Washington, and I did not tell Tenet that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, not then, not ever. That should have been the end of the story: a faulty recollection, perhaps attributing to me something he may have heard elsewhere, an honest mistake.

So I was surprised when, having been made aware of his error, Tenet reasserted his claim, saying: "So I may have been off on the day, but I'm not off on what he said and what he believed."

On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Tenet argued that his version "seems to be corroborated" by a comment I made to columnist Robert D. Novak on Sept. 17 and a letter to President Bush that I signed, with 40 others, on Sept. 20. But my 10-word comment to Novak made no claim that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Neither did the letter to the president, which said that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Tenet insists on equating two statements that are not at all the same: that Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11 -- which I never said -- and that removing Saddam Hussein before he could share chemical, biological or nuclear weapons with terrorists had become an urgent matter, which I did say. He continues to assert falsely that the president's decision to remove Hussein was encouraged by lies about Iraq's responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Understandably anxious to counter the myth that we went into Iraq on the basis of his agency's faulty intelligence, Tenet seeks to substitute another myth: that the decision to remove Saddam Hussein resulted from the nefarious influence of the vice president and a cabal of neoconservative intellectuals. To advance that idea, a theme of his book, he has attributed to me, and to others, statements that were never made.

Careful readers will see at once that what Tenet calls "corroboration" is nothing of the sort. But Tenet is not a careful reader -- a serious deficiency in a CIA director and a catastrophe for an intelligence organization. Indeed, sloppy analysis and imprecision with evidence got Tenet and the rest of us stuck in a credibility gap that continues to damage our foreign policy.

For years the American intelligence establishment has failed to show meticulous regard for the facts that are essential to its mission. The CIA's assessment that Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons was only the most recent damaging example. The president, the vice president, Congress and others relied on intelligence produced by Tenet's CIA -- and repeated CIA findings that never should have been presented as fact.

Rahm Emanuel: We're Takin' the Summer Off, Goin' Fishin'?

By ANNE FLAHERTY AP
WASHINGTON (May 11) -- Worried Congress ' support for Iraq is deteriorating rapidly, Baghdad dispatched senior officials to Capitol Hill this week to warn members one-on-one that pulling out U.S. troops would have disastrous consequences. The lobbying push targeted Republicans and Democrats alike, but focused primarily on those considered influential on the war debate. On Thursday, hours before the House voted to limit funds for the war, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh met with more than 30 House Republicans and more than a half-dozen senators, including Sens. Harry Reid , D-Nev., John Warner, R-Va., and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

"He understands that American patience is waning," said Sen. Norm Coleman, after eating lunch with Saleh, Iraqi Ambassador Samir Shakir al-Sumaidaie and Sen. Saxby Chambliss. But the lobbying by the Iraqis isn't the only pressure-point being applied in Washington. Clinton said Friday she considered it "promising" that several Republican House members went to the White House and told President Bush they believe the continuing war is adversely affecting the party.

She said the GOP lawmakers told Bush pointblank that "he has to change course in Iraq." But she also said she didn't think that Bush was ready to reverse course. "I think we're going to go back and forth on this for a while longer," Clinton said in an interview Friday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program with Joe Scarborough. "It is clear that whatever the mission used to be, it is either accomplished or over," she said. "If there are remaining American interests, then let's spell them out."

Baghdad's ability to sell members like Coleman, R-Minn., and Chambliss, R-Ga., on the war effort is critical if the Iraqi government wants U.S. troops to stay. Coleman in recent months has become deeply skeptical of the president's decision to send additional troops to Iraq and says patience on the war in general is limited. Coleman, Chambliss and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who met separately with Saleh, will be up for re-election next year -- facing voters who have grown tired of a war in its fifth year and that has killed more than 3,380 troops.

While Republicans have been reluctant to intervene, many say President Bush has until September to tell if the troop buildup in Iraq is working before they demand another approach. With the clock ticking, Saleh -- a Kurdish politician highly regarded by U.S. officials and who speaks impeccable English -- said he came to Capitol Hill to convey the "imperative of success" in Iraq. "Iraq is a central battleground in this historic conflict" against terrorism , he said in a brief interview after meeting with Reid, the Senate majority leader.

His trip came on the heels of a visit by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki , along with three other senior advisers, according to the Iraqi embassy. The New York Times first reported al-Rubaie's visit on Tuesday. The timing of these meetings is no mistake. This month, Congress is expected to send Bush legislation that funds the war in Iraq but requires the Baghdad government meet certain political and security reforms. In question is what consequences the Iraqis should face if they fail.

Democrats want U.S. troops to leave, Republicans say they don't want to force redeployments, but some say they would be open to withholding more than $5 billion in foreign aid. The House voted 221-205 Thursday for a stronger measure that would fund the war only through July, giving Congress the option of cutting off money after that. The bill is unlikely to survive in the Senate, although it indicates the war's unpopularity among members and their frustration with the lack of progress in the Iraqi parliament.

The most recent irritant among U.S. lawmakers was a report that Iraqi officials would break for two months this summer. "Our armed forces are up to 150,000 troops; we're over $600 billion appropriated for this, lost 3,300 lives, 25,000 wounded fellow citizens. ... And the Iraqi answer? We're taking a summer off. Goin' fishing," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

Saleh said he expects the vacation to be shortened by at least a month, although nothing had been decided. He added that Iraqis value being independent and do "not take kindly of (U.S. officials) telling us when to recess."

Democrats seemed to consider these meetings with Iraqi officials as beneficial -- if only to convey their frustration to Iraqi officials in person. Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said the senator told Saleh that "U.S. patience, blood and treasure were not unlimited and that the Congress would be taking a more decisive role in the coming weeks and months." "Salih understood the point, and said he would deliver the message to the Iraqi cabinet," Manley added.

America's Angriest General

Web-exclusive commentary
By Michael HirshNewsweek
Updated: 1:31 p.m. ET May 10, 2007

If there's one rule that's sacrosanct in American political culture, going all the way back to George Washington, it's that civilians have clear control of the military. Yes, a few generals have bumped up against that line before. George McClellan ignored and mocked Abe Lincoln early in the Civil War, then ran against him for president in 1864. Douglas MacArthur brazenly disobeyed Harry Truman in Korea before getting fired, like McClellan before him. Until now, these have been the exceptions. But the Iraq War has so profoundly transformed the political landscape—and so angered a whole generation of generals who object to the way the conflict was planned and executed by civilians—that the line between military and civilian roles is being muddied as never before. The question is whether this is a good thing—or something very worrying.No, we're not about to experience a real-life version of "Seven Days in May," the 1964 John Frankenheimer thriller about a military coup in Washington. Still, it was a little startling to hear a high-profile general as fresh from the front lines of Iraq as John Batiste—only two years ago, he was seen as one of the Army's rising stars—effectively branding his commander in chief, George W. Bush, a liar this week. Batiste appears in a new TV ad produced by VoteVets.org as part of an effort to persuade wavering House and Senate Republicans to approve a deadline for pulling out of Iraq. The ad begins with a video clip of the president at a news conference. "I have always said that I will listen to the commanders on the ground," Bush says.

Cut to Batiste, staring evenly at the camera. "Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps." The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.

The son of a soldier who's married to the daughter of another soldier, Batiste was a highly regarded major general who did what few generals would ever do in 2005: he rejected an offer of the premier command in the U.S. military at the time: V Corps, which was based in Germany and headed to Iraq. "It was gut-wrenching," he told me in an interview. "I loved soldiering." Fed up with Donald Rumsfeld's botched stewardship of the Iraq War, Batiste retired and almost immediately became a vocal critic, something he felt he couldn't do while still in uniform. He admits that his participation in the ad is breaking new ground. "I don't think there is a precedent for it," he says. "I wish there were more [generals speaking out against continuing the war]. Where are the other guys?" Since he first came out with his opposition to former Defense secretary Rumsfeld last spring, calling for his resignation, "I've had nothing but absolute support" from his colleagues inside the military, Batiste says. "No one has objected."

(more, click article title........)

OIL WORKERS' TRADE UNION TO STRIKE THIS THURSDAY

Iraq's largest oil workers' trade union will strike this Thursday, in protest at the controversial oil law currently being considered by the Iraqi parliament. The move threatens to stop all exports from the oil-rich country.

The oil law proposes giving multinational companies the primary role in developing Iraq's huge untapped oilfields, under contracts lasting up to 30 years. Oil production in Iraq, like in most of the Middle East, has been in the public sector since the 1970s.The Union, representing 26,000 oil workers, has held three previous strikes since 2003, each time stopping exports, for up to two days at a time. The announcement of the strike has spurred negotiations with the Ministry of Oil, which are ongoing.

Imad Abdul-Hussain, Federation Deputy Chair of the IFOU said: "The central government must be in total ownership and complete control of production and the export of oil". He warned against the controversial Production Sharing Agreements favoured by foreign companies, saying other forms of co-operation with foreign companies would be acceptable but not at the level of control and profiteering indicated in the current Oil Law.

Local Perspective on Secular Conflict in Iraq: I'm Sick of This

Perspective of Iraqi on the secular fighting in Iraq (U tube)

IRAQ'S OIL PRODUCTION FALLS SHORT OF GOALS

from the May 7, 2007 edition, Peter Grier, Christian Science Monitor

Despite years of rebuilding, petroleum production continues to fall short of targets, due to insurgency vandalism, poor field management, and corruption.

WASHINGTON - Here's a bit of good news about Iraq and oil: The Al Basrah Oil Terminal finally can work at full speed. This giant H-shaped tanker loading platform, located in the Persian Gulf off Iraq's southeastern coast, is one of the country's most important pieces of economic infrastructure. Thanks to US-funded reconstruction, all four of its berths now are in operation for the first time in many years.

Now the bad news: There's not much else good about Iraqi oil to report. Despite years of rebuilding, petroleum production continues to fall short of targets, due to insurgency vandalism, poor field management, and corruption. Proposed Iraqi legislation on oil revenue distribution – a measure deemed crucial by the White House – remains the subject of bitter sectarian debate.

STRESS ON U.S. TROOPS ADDS TO HURDLES IN IRAQ

By Benedict Carey, THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: May 6, 2007

The detailed mental health survey of troops in Iraq released by the Pentagon on Friday highlights a growing worry for the United States as it struggles to bring order to Baghdad: the high level of combat stress suffered during lengthy and repeated tours.

The fourth in a continuing series, the report suggested that extended tours and multiple deployments, among other policy decisions, could escalate anger and increase the likelihood that soldiers or marines lash out at civilians, or defy military ethics.

That is no small concern since the United States’ counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes the importance of winning the trust and support of the local population.

The report was provided in November to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the senior American commander in Iraq.

Pentagon officials have not explained why the public release of the report was delayed, a move that kept the data out of the public debate as the Bush administration developed its plan to build up troops in Iraq and extend combat tours. Rear Adm. Richard R. Jeffries, a medical officer, told reporters on Friday that the timing was decided by civilian Pentagon officials.

The survey of 1,320 soldiers and 447 marines was conducted in August and September of 2006.

The military’s report, which drew on that survey as well as interviews with commanders and focus groups, found that longer deployments increased the risk of psychological problems; that the levels of mental problems was highest — some 30 percent — among troops involved in close combat; that more than a third of troops endorsed torture in certain situations; and that most would not turn in fellow service members for mistreating a civilian.

“These are thoughts people are going to have when under this kind of stress, and soldiers will tell you that: you don’t know what’s it’s like until you’ve been there,” said Dr. Andy Morgan, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale University who has worked extensively with regular and Special Operations troops. “The question is whether you act on them.”

The Pentagon’s analysis also identified sources of anger besides lengthy and repeated deployments that could lead to ethics violations, which would not be apparent from the outside: eight-day rest breaks that involved four days of transit; long lines to get into recreation facilities, especially for those who perform missions outside the relative safety of base camps; and inconsistent dress-code rules.

Most of all, there were uncertainties about deployment: 40 percent of soldiers rated uncertain redeployment dates as a top concern.

The military has evaluated the emotional state of soldiers in the past, from the cases of shaking and partial paralysis known as shell shock after World War I, to the numb exhaustion identified as combat fatigue in World War II. The flashbacks and irritability reported in the years after the Vietnam War came to define another diagnosis: post-traumatic stress disorder.

(more, click blog title above.)

TRAINERS SAY IRAQI FORCES WOULD COLLAPSE WITHOUT U.S. SUPPORT, NEED YEARS TO BUILD ARMY

Qassem Zein/AFP/Getty
NAJAF, IRAQ: Iraqi police academy graduates demonstrate their skills during a graduation ceremony in the southern city of Najaf, 03 May 2007.

By Tina Susman, Times Staff Writer
May 3, 2007

BESMAYA RANGE, IRAQ — Teams of Iraqi soldiers huddled outside the doors of two small homes across a narrow road from each other. Their AK-47s were ready, and so were they.They kicked in the doors of each house, burst in, and began searching the rooms for insurgents, aiming their weapons as they moved crab-like through the maze-like structures."Stop! Stop! Stop!" someone hollered in English from a catwalk above them.

It was U.S. Army 1st Lt. Andrew Fuller, trying to break the soldiers of a potentially lethal habit. Simultaneous, side-by-side searches such as these often can end up with soldiers pointing their guns at each other."You always want to have your clearing operations going in the same direction," Fuller explained through a translator as the Iraqi teams regrouped in the dusty alley to try another approach.

For almost three years, training the Iraqi army has been among the top priorities for the U.S. military. And for nearly that long, U.S. officials have considered it among their chief frustrations.Now, with President Bush under steady pressure to begin pulling U.S. troops from Iraq, the administration once again is emphasizing the need to train Iraqi forces to take over the country's security.

But despite some signs of progress, both Iraqis and their American advisors at this training range are blunt about how much work remains: If a U.S. pullout comes anytime soon, most say, the Iraqi army will collapse."Honestly put, I think Iraq would be challenged to remain a unified country," said Marine Lt. Col. William Redman, the senior advisor at the range.

IRAQIS FACE HURDLES TO SETTLEMENT IN AMERICA

Patriot Act unfairly turns victims into `supporters' of terrorist actions
IRAQIS FACE HURDLES TO SETTLEMENT IN AMERICA
By Anna Husarska
Article Launched: 04/26/2007 01:36:33 AM PDT

The civil war in Iraq has stranded 2 million Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries - and Washington says that up to 7,000 of them may be resettled in the United States this year. But which ones?

During a recent trip to the Middle East, I talked with many refugees who seemed to deserve resettlement in the United States, but may never get it. Even though they have been brutalized by the factional fighting in Iraq, the U.S. government might label them "supporters of terrorism."

Here is how it happens. After the United Nations or another non-governmental agency determines that a person has a "well-founded fear of persecution" in his or her country of origin, the refugee is interviewed by officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The screening includes detailed questions to make sure all of the anti-terrorism provisions of the USA Patriot Act and the Real ID Act are met.

This is understandable - but there is a flaw in the laws.

The definition of who provides "material support" to terrorists is unreasonably broad. There have been several legislative attempts to fix it, but the provisions still stand, largely unchanged, preventing resettlement of Iraqis like these three I met in February and March. (Read whole article by clicking above for details.)

....Over the past year, I traveled to half a dozen countries in Africa and Asia and saw bona fide refugees barred from entering the U.S. because of obstacles that seem similarly absurd. But the U.S. government bears special responsibility for the war in Iraq, so the mindless application of "material support" provisions to Iraqi victims of terrorism would be particularly deplorable.

The 7,000 Iraqi refugees to be resettled this year in the United States have yet to arrive. So there is still time to pass legislation, or reform the Immigration and Nationality Act, to apply definitions that don't turn victims of terrorism into supposed terrorists themselves.

MEDICAL CARE IN IRAQ DETERIORATING EVEN FURTHER

The International Committee of the Red Cross recently issued an alarming assessment of the medical conditions in Iraq. It described the situation as a crisis, with sick and injured Iraqis waiting for treatment in understaffed health care facilities. Others are too afraid to seek help because many doctors and hospitals have become targets of the insurgents....

also....

Dr Omar al-Khattab fled Iraq just over a year ago after receiving death threats. At that time, he was working at Balad General Hospital, 50km north of Baghdad. "I had to leave my home, my work and my salary so now I'm living here jobless and am just barely surviving," he said during an interview inside an almost bare apartment in the Al-Qudsiya suburb of Damascus.

"In my hospital alone, of five surgeons only one remains. We were three orthopaedics but now there are none, and only 25 per cent of the resident doctors remain." According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health and UN statistics, Khattab is one of 18,000 Iraqi doctors and health care professionals who have fled the war-torn country since the US-led invasion began in March 2003. In 2003, there were 34,000 registered health care workers in Iraq. Al-Khattab said: "I know at least 10 other Iraqi doctors just here in Al-Qudsiya who have left because of death threats or the overall security situation."

A general practitioner who was a resident in the surgical department at his hospital, al-Khattab is now living off his meagre savings and unable to return to his country. He fills his days by offering his services to other Iraqi refugees who cannot afford health care in Syria. It is also how he maintains his expertise while assisting some of what he estimates to be 50,000 Iraqis in his neighbourhood.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/syria/000585.php

GLOBAL INCIDENT MAP--UPDATED AND IRAQ WAR COALITION FATALITIES MAP

Global Incident (updated constantly) Map


The Iraq War Coalition (not always updated) Fatalities

sample