IRAQ UPDATE

WE HAVE MOVED

2007-07-21T15:46:00.001-05:00

NEW ADDRESS: front page

IRAQ VETS BEAR WITNESS WIDESPREAD ABUSES IN IRAQ

2007-07-12T10:46:00.000-05:00

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness, by Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian, appears in the 30 July issue of The Nation

This Nation investigation marks the first time so many on-the-record, named eyewitnesses from within the US military have been assembled in one place to openly corroborate these assertions....

Veterans said the culture of this counterinsurgency war, in which most Iraqi civilians were assumed to be hostile, made it difficult for soldiers to sympathize with their victims--at least until they returned home and had a chance to reflect.

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi," said Spc. Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado. Specialist Englehart served with the Third Brigade, First Infantry Division, in Baquba, about thirty-five miles northeast of Baghdad, for a year beginning in February 2004. "You know, so what?... The soldiers honestly thought we were trying to help the people and they were mad because it was almost like a betrayal. Like here we are trying to help you, here I am, you know, thousands of miles away from home and my family, and I have to be here for a year and work every day on these missions. Well, we're trying to help you and you just turn around and try to kill us." He said it was only "when they get home, in dealing with veteran issues and meeting other veterans, it seems like the guilt really takes place, takes root, then."

The Iraq War is a vast and complicated enterprise. In this investigation of alleged military misconduct, The Nation focused on a few key elements of the occupation, asking veterans to explain in detail their experiences operating patrols and supply convoys, setting up checkpoints, conducting raids and arresting suspects. From these collected snapshots a common theme emerged. Fighting in densely populated urban areas has led to the indiscriminate use of force and the deaths at the hands of occupation troops of thousands of innocents.

These attitudes reflect the limited contact occupation troops said they had with Iraqis. They rarely saw their enemy. They lived bottled up in heavily fortified compounds that often came under mortar attack. They only ventured outside their compounds ready for combat. The mounting frustration of fighting an elusive enemy and the devastating effect of roadside bombs, with their steady toll of American dead and wounded, led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis.

Veterans described reckless firing once they left their compounds. Some shot holes into cans of gasoline being sold along the roadside and then tossed grenades into the pools of gas to set them ablaze. Others opened fire on children. These shootings often enraged Iraqi witnesses.
In June 2003 Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejía's unit was pressed by a furious crowd in Ramadi. Sergeant Mejía, 31, a National Guardsman from Miami, served for six months beginning in April 2003 with the 1-124 Infantry Battalion, Fifty-Third Infantry Brigade. His squad opened fire on an Iraqi youth holding a grenade, riddling his body with bullets. Sergeant Mejía checked his clip afterward and calculated that he had personally fired eleven rounds into the young man.
"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population that was supporting them," Sergeant Mejía said.

We heard a few reports, in one case corroborated by photographs, that some soldiers had so lost their moral compass that they'd mocked or desecrated Iraqi corpses (and one example shared was)....witnessed by the dead man's brothers and cousins.

In the sections that follow, snipers, medics, military police, artillerymen, officers and others recount their experiences serving in places as diverse as Mosul in the north, Samarra in the Sunni Triangle, Nasiriya in the south and Baghdad in the center, during 2003, 2004 and 2005. Their stories capture the impact of their units on Iraqi civilians.

Nineteen interviews were conducted in person, while the rest were done over the phone; all were tape-recorded and transcribed; all but five interviewees (most of those currently on active duty) were independently contacted by fact checkers to confirm basic facts about their service in Iraq. Of those interviewed, fourteen served in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, twenty from 2004 to 2005 and two from 2005 to 2006. Of the eleven veterans whose tours lasted less than one year, nine served in 2003, while the others served in 2004 and 2005.

The ranks of the veterans we interviewed ranged from private to captain, though only a handful were officers. The veterans served throughout Iraq, but mostly in the country's most volatile areas, such as Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul, Falluja and Samarra.

During the course of the interview process, five veterans turned over photographs from Iraq, some of them graphic, to corroborate their claims.

CIA DESCRIBES IRAQ INSTABILITY AS IRREVERSIBLE

2007-07-12T09:42:00.000-05:00

July 12, 2007
By Bob Woodward, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush appeared before the Iraq Study Group Panel in 2006. Bush was joined in the interview by Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and Hadley, but they did not speak. "We thought with that whole group there, we were going to get briefings, we were going to get discussions," said Perry. "Instead the president held forth on his views on how important the war was, and how it was tough."

In his meeting with members of the study group, Hayden described a situation in which the Iraqi government either would not or could not control the violence consuming the country and questioned whether it made sense to strengthen its security forces. He depicted the United States as facing mainly bad choices in the future.

"Our leaving Iraq would make the situation worse," Hayden said. "Our staying in Iraq may not make it better. Our current approach without modification will not make it better."

According to the written record and others in the room, Hayden at one point likened the situation in Iraq to a marathon. He said there comes a point in each race when the runner knows he can complete the challenge. But Hayden said he could see no such point in Iraq's future. "The levers of power are not connected to anything," he said, adding: "We have placed all of our energies in creating the center, and the center cannot accomplish anything."

Numerous U.S. generals already had told the study group that success in Iraq could not come without national reconciliation between the Sunnis and Shiites. Hayden agreed, saying: "The Iraqi identity is muted. The Sunni or Shia identity is foremost." But he clearly saw no end to sectarian killings. "Given the level of uncontrolled violence," Hayden said, "the most we can do is to contain its excesses and preserve the possibility of reconciliation in the future."

He compared the Iraq situation to the prolonged warfare in the Balkans. "In Bosnia, the parties fought themselves to exhaustion," Hayden said, suggesting that the same scenario could play out in Iraq. "They might just have to fight this out to exhaustion."

Hayden catalogued what he saw as the main sources of violence in this order: the insurgency, sectarian strife, criminality, general anarchy and, lastly, al-Qaeda. Though Hayden had listed al-Qaeda as the fifth most pressing threat in Iraq, Bush regularly lists al-Qaeda first.

Members of the study group said Hayden's stark assessment of the Iraqi government dovetailed with what they had heard in September during their visit to Iraq. There, they met with a senior CIA official who held an equally unenthusiastic view. "Maliki was nobody's pick," the CIA official had said, according to written notes from that meeting. "His name came up late. He has no real power base in the country or in parliament. We need not expect much from him."

Given the constant threats and persistent violence, the official had said, it was remarkable that Iraqi government employees showed up for work.

"We continue to be amazed that the Iraqis accept such high levels of violence," he told the study group. "Maliki thinks two car bombs a day, 100 dead a day, is okay. It's sustainable and his government is survivable."

....Hayden's frustration with Maliki provides a context to the administration's continuing efforts to pressure the Iraqi leader into finding a political settlement between Sunni and Shiite factions in Iraq. During one week last month, three senior administration officials visited Baghdad to try to speed up the political process.

In her testimony Nov. 13, Rice recounted her discussions with Maliki in which she bluntly told him the importance of making progress on national unity and reconciliation. Rice said she had told the prime minister, "Pretty soon, you'll all be swinging from lampposts if you don't hang together."

Nov. 13, 2006: A Day of Testimony at the White House Officials who met with the Iraq Study Group on that day in the White House Roosevelt Room.

IRAQ STUDY GROUP AT A GLANCETHE ORIGIN: In March 2006, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) asked the U.S. Institute of Peace to coordinate the group, and Congress appropriated funds for its administration.

On washingtonpost.com On the web

NEW YORK TIMES RECOMMENDS A ROAD HOME FROM IRAQ

2007-07-08T06:48:00.000-05:00

VALJEAN'S SONG FROM LES MISERABLES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFbsZu7ZN7A

click above to hear Colm Wilkinson sing

God on high

Hear my prayer

In my need

You have always been there

He is young

He's afraid

Let him rest

Heaven blessed

Bring him home

He's like the son I might have known

If God had granted me a son.

The summers die

One by one

How soon they fly

On and on

And I am old

And will be gone

Bring him peace

Bring him joy

He is young

He is only a boy

You can take

You can give

Let him be

Let him live

If I die, let me die

Let him live

Bring him home

HEAR MICHAEL BALL SING "EMPTY CHAIRS AND EMPTY TABLES"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJnjcX8skXk

THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL: It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige. This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops. And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening. It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.
But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq’s conflict far beyond Iraq’s borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries. Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

Pray for peace.

150 DIE IN IRAQ SUICIDE BOMBING ATTACKS

2007-07-07T14:27:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: The number has now risen to 150...

By YAHYA BARZANJI, Associated Press Writer
TUZ KHORMATO, Iraq (AP) - A string of suicide bombings killed at least 73 people and wounded dozens in Shiite villages north of Baghdad, including a large truck bombing Saturday that ripped through an outdoor market and buried victims in rubble, officials said. The quick succession of blasts within hours of each other suggested that Sunni militants are regrouping to launch their deadliest form of attack - suicide explosions, often against Shiites - in regions further away from Baghdad, beyond the edges of a three-week old U.S. offensive on the capital's northern flank.

The U.S. military on Saturday also reported that six American service members were killed in fighting in Baghdad and western Anbar province over two days, reflecting the increased U.S. death toll that has come with the new offensives.

Saturday's blast, at around 8:30 a.m., destroyed several mud homes in the village of Armili, and victims had to be transported in farmers' pickup trucks to the nearest health facility, in Tuz Khormato, 27 miles to the north, said Capt. Soran Ali of the Tuz Khormato police. Police said one man fled the truck before it detonated with another man still inside. Saleh Ali, a medic at Tuz Khormato hospital, said 25 dead and 100 wounded were brought to the facility. Residents of the village said more victims remained trapped under destroyed houses and shops, and doctors said many of the wounded were in critical condition, meaning the toll could rise. ``Some are still under the rubble with no one to help them. There are no ambulances to evacuate the victims,'' said Haitham Hadad, a resident who evacuated his wounded cousin in his car to Tuz Khormato hospital. Dozens of weeping relatives of victims crowded the hospital, searching for loved ones.
``I saw destruction everywhere, dozens of cars destroyed, about 15 shops and many houses, even some more than 700 meters (yards) away,'' said Haitham Yalman, whose daughter and sister were wounded.

The village, 100 miles north of Baghdad is mainly made up of Shiite Turkomen, an ethnic minority that is spread across north-central Iraq, though most of its members are Sunni Muslim.

The night before, a suicide bomber detonated a boobytrapped car at around 9:30 pm outside a cafe near a market stocking Iranian goods in the Shiite Kurdish village of Ahmad Marif, killing 26 and wounding 33, said an official at the joint security coordination committee of Diyala province, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The village - 85 miles northeast of Baghdad in a remote corner of Diyala province - is home to about 30 Kurdish families who had been expelled under Saddam Hussein's rule and returned after his fall. Many Kurds in the area are Shiite Muslims.

A half hour after that blast, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives belt in a funeral tent in another Shiite Kurdish village, Zargosh, west of Ahmad Marif. The blast killed 22 people and wounded 17 others, said the head of Diyala provincial council, Ibrahim Bajilan, and a police official in the provincial capital of Baqouba, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

The new back-to-back bombings could mean the militants have moved a step away from the capital, but still are able to unleash attacks in a region where Iraqi and American security forces are far lighter. ``Because of the recent American military operations, terrorists found a good hideout in Salahuddin province, especially in the outskirts areas in which there isn't enough number of military forces there,'' said Ahmed al-Jubouri, an aide of the province's governor.
Armili, the village hit Saturday morning, is on the edge of Salahuddin province, near the border with Diyala.

The U.S. military on Saturday announced the deaths of six U.S. service members in combat, most in the Baghdad area. Two soldiers died Friday when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol in east Baghdad, the military said. A U.S. soldier and an Iraqi interpreter were killed Friday when an explosively formed penetrator exploded near their patrol in southeastern Baghdad. Explosively formed penetrators are high-tech bombs that the U.S. believes are provided by Iran, a charge denied by Tehran.
On Thursday, two Marines were killed in western Anbar province and a soldier died in Baghdad, the latest military statement said. Another soldier died Friday of a non-battle-related cause and his death is under investigation, the military said without giving further details. The deaths bring to 3,599 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

While violence has continued elsewhere, attacks on civilians - particularly car bombings - appear to have eased somewhat in Baghdad in recent weeks, and residents in some districts have felt safe enough to keep shops open later. By midafternoon Saturday, there had been no police reports of civilian deaths in the city.

In the far south of Iraq, British troops came under heavy attack by militants in Basra, killing one soldier and wounding three, the British military said Saturday. The troops were hit by bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms during an arrest operation in the city before dawn, the military said in a statement. Coalition aircraft destroyed roadside bombs as the British soldiers were extracted from the city, it said.

Britain has withdrawn hundreds of troops from Iraq, leaving a force of around 5,500 based mainly on the fringes of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad. British bases come under frequent mortar attacks from Shiite militias. The U.S. currently has about 155,000 troops in Iraq.

THE NUMBERS SURGE IN IRAQ

2007-07-07T04:55:00.000-05:00

by Tom Engelhardt
Iraq by the Numbers: Surging Past the Gates of Hell

Sometimes, numbers can strip human beings of just about everything that makes us what we are. Numbers can silence pain, erase love, obliterate emotion, and blur individuality. But sometimes numbers can also tell a necessary story in ways nothing else can.

-Since (January)...., 28,500 new American troops have surged into that country, mostly in and around Baghdad
-Number of American troops in Iraq, June 2007: Approximately 156,000.
-Number of American troops in Iraq, May 1, 2003, Approximately 130,000.
-Number of Sunni insurgents in Iraq, May 2007: At least 100,000, according to Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar on his most recent visit to the country.
-American military dead in the surge months, February 1–June 26, 2007: 481.
-American military dead, February–June 2006: 292.
-Number of contractors killed in the first three months of 2007: At least 146.
-Number of armed "private contractors" now in Iraq: at least 20,000–30,000, according to the Washington Post. (Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestseller Blackwater, puts the figure for all private contractors in Iraq at 126,000.)
-Number of attacks on U.S. troops and allied Iraqi forces, April 2007: 4,900.
-Percentage of U.S. deaths from roadside bombs (IEDs): 70.9% in May 2007; 35% in February 2007 as the surge was beginning.
-Percentage of registered U.S. supply convoys (guarded by private contractors) attacked: 14.7% in 2007 (through May 10); 9.1% in 2006; 5.4% in 2005.
-Percentage of Baghdad not controlled by U.S. (and Iraqi) security forces more than four months into the surge: 60%, according to the U.S. military.
-Number of attacks on the Green Zone, the fortified heart of Baghdad where the new $600 million American embassy is rising and the Iraqi government largely resides: More than 80 between March and the beginning of June, 2007, according to a UN report. (These attacks, by mortar or rocket, from "pacified" Red-Zone Baghdad, are on the rise and now occur nearly daily.)
-Size of U.S. embassy staff in Baghdad: More than 1,000 Americans and 4,000 third-country nationals.
-U.S. air strikes in Iraq during the surge months: Air Force planes are dropping bombs at more than twice the rate of a year ago, according to the Associated Press. "Close support missions" are up 30–40%. And this surge of air power seems, from recent news reports, still to be on the rise. In the early stages of the recent surge operation against the city of Baquba in Diyala province, for instance, Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times reported that "American forces.... fired more than 20 satellite-guided rockets into western Baquba," while Apache helicopters attacked "enemy fighters." ABC News recently reported that the Air Force has brought B-1 bombers in for missions on the outskirts of Baghdad.
-Number of years Gen. Petraeus, commander of the surge operation, predicts that the U.S. will have to be engaged in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq to have hopes of achieving success: 9–10 years. ("In fact, typically, I think historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or 10 years.")
-Number of Iraqi police, trained by Americans, who were not on duty as of January 2007, just before the surge plan was put into operation: Approximately 32,000 out of a force of 188,000
-Amount of "reconstruction" money invested in the CIA's key asset in the new Iraq, the Iraqi National Intelligence Service: $3 billion, according to Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar.
-Number of Iraqi "Kit Carson scouts" being trained in the just-captured western part of Baquba: More than 100.
-Number of Iraqis who have fled their country since 2003: Estimated to be between 2 million and 2.2 million, or nearly one in ten Iraqis. According to independent reporter Dahr Jamail, at least 50,000 more refugees are fleeing the country every month.
-Number of Iraqi refugees who have been accepted by the United States: Fewer than 500, according to Bob Woodruff of ABC News; 701, according to Agence France Presse. (Under international and congressional pressure, the Bush administration has finally agreed to admit another 7,000 Iraqis by year's end.)
-Number of Iraqis who are now internal refugees in Iraq, largely due to sectarian violence since 2003: At least 1.9 million, according to the UN. (A recent Red Crescent Society report, based on a survey taken in Iraq, indicates that internal refugees have quadrupled since January 2007, and are up eight-fold since June 2006.)
-Percentage of refugees, internal and external, under 12: 55%, according to the President of the Red Crescent Society.
-Percentage of Baghdadi children, 3 to 10, exposed to a major traumatic event in the last two years: 47%, according to a World Health Organization survey of 600 children. 14% of them showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In another study of 1,090 adolescents in Mosul, that figure reached 30%.
-Number of Iraqi doctors who have fled the country since 2003: An estimated 12,000 of the country's 34,000 registered doctors since 2003, according to the Iraqi Medical Association. The Association reports that another 2,000 doctors have been slain in those years.
-Number of Iraqi refugees created since UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon declared a "humanitarian crisis" for Iraq in January 2007: An estimated 250,000.
-Percentage of Iraqis now living on less than $1 a day, according to the UN: 54%.
-Iraq's per-capita annual income: $3,600 in 1980; $860 in 2001 (after a decade of UN sanctions); $530 at the end of 2003, according to Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar, who estimates that the number may now have fallen below $400. Unemployment in Iraq is at around 60%.
-Percentage of Iraqis who do not have regular access to clean water: 70%, according to the World Health Organization. (80% "lack effective sanitation.")
-Rate of chronic child malnutrition: 21%, according to the World Health Organization. (Rates of child malnutrition had already nearly doubled by 2004, only 20 months after the U.S. invasion.) -According to UNICEF, "about one in 10 children under five in Iraq are underweight."
-Number of Iraqis held in American prisons in their own country: 17,000 by March 2007, almost 20,000 by May 2007 and surging.
-Number of Iraqis detained in Baquba alone in one week in June in Operation Phantom Thunder: more than 700.
-Average number of Iraqis who died violently each day in 2006: 100 – and this is undoubtedly an underestimate, since not all deaths are reported.
-Number of Iraqis who have died violently (based on the above average) since Ban Ki-Moon declared a "humanitarian crisis" for Iraq in January 2007: 15,000 – again certainly an undercount.
-Number of Iraqis who died during the week of June 17–23, 2007, according to the careful daily tally from media reports offered at the website Antiwar.com: 763 or an average of 109 media-reported deaths a day. (June 17: 74; June 18: 149; June 19: 169; June 20: 116; June 21: 58; June 22: 122; June 23: 75.)
-Percentage of seriously wounded who don't survive in emergency rooms and intensive-care units, due to lack of drugs, equipment, and staff: Nearly 70%, according to the World Health Organization.
-Number of university professors who have been killed since the invasion of 2003: More than 200, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education.
-The value of an Iraqi life: A maximum of $2,500 in "consolation" or "solatia" payments made by the American military to Iraqi civilians who died "as a result of U.S. and coalition forces' actions during combat," according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. These payments imply no legal responsibility for the killings. For rare "extraordinary cases" (and let's not even imagine what these might be), payments of up to $10,000 were approved last year, with the authorization of a division commander.
-The value of an Iraqi car, destroyed by American forces: $2,500 would not be unusual, and conceivably the full value of the car, according to the same GAO report. A former Army judge advocate, who served in Iraq, has commented: "[T]he full market value may be paid for a Toyota run over by a tank in the course of a non-combat related accident, but only $2,500 may be paid for the death of a child shot in the crossfire."

June 28, 2007
Tom Engelhardt [send him mail] is editor of TomDispatch.com, a project of the Nation Institute. He is the author of several books, including The Last Days of Publishing: A Novel, The End of Victory Culture, and most recently, Mission Unaccomplished (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews. His new blog is The Notion.

PLANNING IN POWER POINT: SUCCESS IN IRAQ

2007-07-05T10:51:00.001-05:00

(CLICK PICTURE FOR CLEARER IMAGE) from
Arms & Influence by Thomas Ricks

PowerPoint Corrupts the Point Absolutely
Posted by John Holbo (excerpt)
[Army Lt. General David] McKiernan had another, smaller but nagging issue: He couldn’t get Franks to issue clear orders that stated explicitly what he wanted done, how he wanted to do it, and why. Rather, Franks passed along PowerPoint briefing slides that he had shown to Rumsfeld: "It’s quite frustrating the way this works, but the way we do things nowadays is combatant commanders brief their products in PowerPoint up in Washington to OSD and Secretary of Defense…In lieu of an order, or a frag [fragmentary order], or plan, you get a bunch of PowerPoint slides…[T]hat is frustrating, because nobody wants to plan against PowerPoint slides."

That reliance on slides rather than formal written orders seemed to some military professionals to capture the essence of Rumsfeld’s amateurish approach to war planning. "Here may be the clearest manifestation of OSD’s contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the military profession and of the assumption among forward thinkers that technology—above all information technology—has rendered obsolete the conventions traditionally governing the preparation and conduct of war," commented retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a former commander of an armored cavalry regiment. "To imagine that PowerPoint slides can substitute for such means is really the height of recklessness." It was like telling an automobile mechanic to use a manufacturer’s glossy sales brochure to figure out how to repair an engine.

RUSSIAN WARNS OF NEW ICBM SHIELD

2007-07-05T10:26:00.000-05:00

Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov warned on Wednesday that Moscow will have no choice but to install new missile systems in Western Russia if the United States proceeds with plans to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) shield in Central Europe.

Specifically, he said, the return of nuclear-armed missiles to Kaliningrad -- a sliver of Russian territory wedged between Poland and Lithuania -- would be all but inevitable. Talk of missiles, nuclear and otherwise, has become all the rage in Moscow since the United States publicly said it wants a hedge -- as imperfect as U.S. nuclear missile defense technology might be -- against the possibility of a future Iranian ICBM program. Various Russia politicians have promised various Russian responses, but most -- even those in supposedly lofty positions, such as the prime and foreign ministers -- have no influence over state policy. That power rests solely in the hands of President Vladimir Putin, who spent most of his soon-to-be-expired two terms in office consolidating power.

But now there is a second person Russia-watchers should take seriously: Ivanov. Since a November 2005 Cabinet reshuffle, Putin has been field training Ivanov and Dmitry Medvedev, the other first deputy prime minister, as his potential successors. Recently, however, Putin's feelings toward Medvedev have turned sour, and Ivanov has emerged as the clear front-runner. Unlike Medvedev, an economist, Ivanov shares Putin's background in intelligence and served as defense minister before his most recent promotion. As Putin evaluated his two possible replacements, the change in the West's view of Russia figured into this decision. A West more congenial toward Russia might have found itself dealing with Medvedev's natural gas policies; however, a more aggressive West will have to deal with Ivanov's military strategy. Barring missteps or stray bullets, Ivanov is the only serious candidate in the March 2008 Russian presidential election, in which only one vote matters: that of Putin. All that remains for Ivanov to do now -- to put it bluntly -- is not screw up. That seems like a rather short order, but bear in mind that a year ago that was all Medvedev needed to do as well.

About Stratfor

Stratfor is the world’s leading private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

A REALITY NOTE FROM PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

2007-07-05T10:00:00.000-05:00

Iraqi Christians endure a hellish life
BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
http://www.creators.com/
On April 1 -- Palm Sunday -- after bullets were fired into the Church of the Holy Spirit in Mosul, Iraq, during Mass, the pastor, Father Ragheed Ganni, a Chaldean Catholic, e-mailed friends at The Asia Times:

``We empathize with Christ, who entered Jerusalem in full knowledge that the consequence of His love for mankind was the cross. Thus, while bullets smashed our church windows, we offered our suffering as a sign of love for Christ.'' `Our cross to the very end'

The attacks continued. Ganni wrote again: ``Each day we wait for the decisive attack, but we will not stop celebrating Mass; we will do it underground, where we are safer. I am encouraged in this decision by the strength of my parishioners. This is war, real war, but we hope to carry our cross to the very end with the help of Divine Grace.''

As the bombings in Mosul and Baghdad rose during April and May, and priests were kidnapped, Ganni grew weary. In his last e-mail, May 28, he wrote, ``We are on the verge of collapse.''

A day before, Pentecost Sunday, a bomb exploded in his church, and Ganni seemed dispirited: ``In a sectarian and confessional Iraq, will there be any space for Christians? We have no support, no group who fights for our cause; we are abandoned in the midst of the disaster. Iraq has already been divided. It will never be the same. What is the future of our church?''
Though tempted by despair, Ganni did not give up hope. ``I may be wrong, but I am certain about one thing -- one single fact that is always true: that the Holy Spirit will enlighten people so that they will work for the good of humanity, in this world so full of evil.''

Following Mass on Trinity Sunday, a week after Pentecost, Ganni and three sub-deacons were seized, taken away and murdered. Their killers placed vehicles loaded with explosives around the bodies so no one would dare approach them. The story of ''The Last Mass of Father Ragheed, a Martyr of the Chaldean Church,'' is related by Sandro Magister of www.Chiesa.
Ganni had completed his studies in Rome in 2003, Magister writes, and returned full of hope. ''That is where I belong, that is my place,'' he said of Iraq. ``Saddam has fallen, we have elected a government, we have voted for a constitution.''

Since 2003, a tragedy has befallen the Iraqi Christians. In 2000, Chaldeans, Syro-Catholics, Syro-Orthodox, Assyrians from the East, Catholic and Orthodox Armenians and Greek-Melkites together numbered 1.5 million. Today, perhaps 500,000 remain. Hundreds of thousands have found sanctuary in Syria and Jordan, tens of thousands in Egypt and Lebanon. Among the refugees are many of Iraq's professionals -- doctors and teachers who could have helped build a better future for all in Iraq.

Centuries-old monasteries
The region around Mosul and Nineveh, writes Magister, is the ``cradle of Christianity in Iraq. There are churches and monasteries that go back to the earliest centuries. . . . Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is used in the liturgies.'' As the war has dragged on, life has become hellish for the remaining Christians. Yet they have never resorted to bombings or assassinations.

Ganni is neither the first nor last of the Iraqi martyrs. After Pope Benedict gave his speech in Regensburg, Germany, touching on Islam, Father Paulos Iskander was kidnapped and beheaded in retaliation by the ''Lions of Islam.'' Father Joseph Petros was murdered. A Catholic nun told the Vatican news agency: ``The imams preach in the mosques that it is not a crime to kill Christians. It is a hunting of men.'' In May, St. George's Assyrian Church in the Dora neighborhood, a Christian enclave of Baghdad, was burned down, destroying what had survived a firebombing in 2004. The Assyrian International News Agency (AINA) reports it was the 27th church destroyed by Muslim gangs since the liberation of Iraq.

Misbegotten war
Now the ancient practice of the jizya -- the ''head tax'' that Muslims have traditionally imposed on Christians, Jews and religious minorities -- is being reinstituted. According to AINA, ``Al Qaeda is demanding that Christians pay 250,000 dinars (around $200) for the right to remain in their own homes, a sum equivalent to an average month's salary in Iraq.''

All this, and the news of Ganni's murder, moved Benedict XVI to raise the issue with President Bush. For when Bush left the Vatican, he told reporters: ``He (the pope) is worrisome about the Christians inside Iraq being mistreated by the Muslim majority. . . . He was concerned that the society that was evolving would not tolerate the Christian religion.''

For the martyrdom of Christianity in its birth cradle, blame must fall heavily upon the men who conceived this misbegotten war.
©2007 Creators Syndicate

LIBBYGATE

2007-07-04T03:32:00.000-05:00

"NO SLAM DUNK"

The President's Lawyers protect Rove

"This was a coverup."

When asked about the fact that Libby was not convicted of any underlying crime, Wilson replied, "Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a mobster."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball concluded the segment by pointing out that "the president had to act ... or else this guy would have gone to prison."

"This war is immensely hated by most Americans," Matthews continued. "They don't trust the way it was sold to us. And now it will look like one more seal has been closed on us. ... Scooter Libby knows so much ... All this information now goes with Scooter Libby into freedom and one less chance to get the information. You have to make your own conclusions. ...

There's not a journalist in Washington that wouldn't like to have Scooter Libby today under sodium pentathol and find out exactly what happened."

ARE WE WARMONGERING AGAIN?

2007-07-02T14:56:00.000-05:00

The context here matters a great deal. We're in an extremely tense and dangerous predicament with regard to Iran. Influential political factions in the U.S. -- including high officials in the White House -- have begun expressly calling for a bombing campaign against Iran. Accusations of the type Gordon passed on this morning have the potential, for painfully obvious reasons, to be highly inflammatory in shaping public opinion and enabling the warmongering elements of the administration and its base to "justify" such an attack. Indeed, if the Supreme Leader of Iran is planning and directing fatal attacks on U.S. troops --as Gordon's article alleges -- how many people would object to a military attack against Iran?

Under those circumstances, how can the NYT possibly justify an article of this magnitude, published without an iota of skepticism, doubt, or qualification? This behavior is particularly mystifying in light of the NYT's prior concession of journalistic wrongdoing, in which it castigated itself for uncritically turning over its front page to dubious pro-war claims prior to the invasion of Iraq, including in several articles by Gordon:

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.Claiming that the highest levels of the Iranian Government are planning fatal attacks on U.S. troops is the equivalent of pre-war claims that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and actively working with Al Qaeda. What credibility could the NYT possibly have in claiming to regret so mindlessly passing on the latter when, now, they allow and encourage Gordon to pass along the former with equally slavish mindlessness? "Journalism" of this sort is a true menace, and though it probably shouldn't be, it is still just staggering to watch it spew forth day after day.

UPDATE: It is worth noting here -- though Gordon, of course, does not -- that the now-departed Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, created a revealing controversy several months ago when he "said [] there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials." At the time, AP noted that Pace's "remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

General Who Uncovered Abu Graib Becomes Casualty

2007-07-02T10:56:00.000-05:00

By Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker: (excerpt)

“Here . . . comes . . . that famous General Taguba—of the Taguba report!” Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld’s deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, “I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting.”

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. “Could you tell us what happened?” Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, “Is it abuse or torture?” At that point, Taguba recalled, “I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, ‘That’s not abuse. That’s torture.’ There was quiet.”

Rumsfeld was particularly concerned about how the classified report had become public. “General,” he asked, “who do you think leaked the report?” Taguba responded that perhaps a senior military leader who knew about the investigation had done so. “It was just my speculation,” he recalled. “Rumsfeld didn’t say anything.” (I did not meet Taguba until mid-2006 and obtained his report elsewhere.) Rumsfeld also complained about not being given the information he needed. “Here I am,” Taguba recalled Rumsfeld saying, “just a Secretary of Defense, and we have not seen a copy of your report. I have not seen the photographs, and I have to testify to Congress tomorrow and talk about this.” As Rumsfeld spoke, Taguba said, “He’s looking at me. It was a statement.”

SUNNI PARTY CRITICIZES U.S. CASUALTIES IN BAQUBA

2007-07-01T20:18:00.000-05:00

(PHOTO, COURTESY STEVEN MOYER)

BAGHDAD, July 1 (Xinhua) -- A major Sunni political party on Sunday criticized the ongoing U.S.-Iraqi military operation in the province of Diyala northeast of Baghdad for heavy civilian casualties caused by it.The Iraqi Islamic Party, headed by Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, accused the U.S. troops and the Iraqi government of conducting "collective punishment" against residents of the city of Baquba, the capital of Diyala province.The party said in a statement that the U.S. forces and aircraft bombed several neighborhoods in western Baquba, causing more than 350 people dead, whose bodies are still under the debris. Calling for a halt to the "massacre," the party highlighted the necessity to "distinguish between gunmen and innocent civilians."

STRATEGIC RESET FOR FAILED STATE?

2007-07-01T20:13:00.000-05:00

"The current Iraq strategy is exactly what Al Qaeda wants—the United States distracted and pinned down by Iraq’s internal conflicts and trapped in a quagmire that has become the perfect rallying cry and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda," according to a new report released Monday by the Center for American Progress.

The report's authors, Brian Katulis, Lawrence J. Korb, and Peter Juul, warn that, "The fundamental premise of Bush’s surge strategy—that Iraq’s leaders will make key decisions to advance their country’s political transition and national reconciliation—is at best misguided and clearly unworkable. Neither U.S. troops in and around Baghdad nor diplomats in the Green Zone can force Iraqi leaders to hold their country together."

The most radical suggestion of the report concerns a recommendation that the US cease arming and training Iraqi security forces--at least until Maliki's government has reached consensus on outstanding political matters.

The Iraqi security forces have been plagued by the infiltration of militia groups, and implicated in sectarian violence, leading the report to conclude:

Spending billions to arm Iraq’s security forces without political consensus among Iraq’s leaders carries significant risks—the largest of which is arming faction-ridden national Iraqi units before a unified national government exists that these armed forces will loyally support. Training and equipping Iraqi security forces risks making Iraq’s civil war even bloodier and more vicious than it already is today. It also increases the dangers that these weapons will one day be turned against the United States and its allies in the region.

Rather than relying solely on the central government, the US initiative should "build on the efforts of the Bush administration to put more emphasis on provincial and local leadership."

Also see: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4914&l=1 INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP REPORT which describes mismanagement of Basra militarily and says that Iraq is a failed state:

....What progress has occurred cannot conceal the most glaring failing of all: the inability to establish a legitimate and functioning provincial apparatus capable of redistributing resources, imposing respect for the rule of law and ensuring a peaceful transition at the local level. Basra’s political arena remains in the hands of actors engaged in bloody competition for resources, undermining what is left of governorate institutions and coercively enforcing their rule. The local population has no choice but to seek protection from one of the dominant camps. Periods of stability do not reflect greater governing authority so much as they do a momentary – and fragile – balance of interests or of terror between rival militias. Inevitably, conflicts re-emerge and even apparently minor incidents can set off a cycle of retaliatory violence. A political process designed to pacify competition and ensure the non-violent allocation of goods and power has become a source of intense and often brutal struggle.

Basra is a case study of Iraq’s multiple and multiplying forms of violence. These often have little to do with sectarianism or anti-occupation resistance. Instead, they involve the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighbourhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors. Should other causes of strife – sectarian violence and the fight against coalition forces – recede, the concern must still be that Basra's fate will be replicated throughout the country on a larger, more chaotic and more dangerous scale. The lessons are clear. Iraq’s violence is multifaceted, and sectarianism is only one of its sources. It follows that the country’s division along supposedly inherent and homogenous confessional and ethnic lines is not an answer. It follows, too, that rebuilding the state, tackling militias and imposing the rule of law cannot be done without confronting the parties that currently dominate the political process and forging a new and far more inclusive political compact.

Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. But before and beyond that, Iraq has become a failed state – a country whose institutions and, with them, any semblance of national cohesion, have been obliterated. That is what has made the violence – all the violence: sectarian, anti-coalition, political, criminal and otherwise – both possible and, for many, necessary. Resolving the confrontation between Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds is one priority. But rebuilding a functioning and legitimate state is another – no less urgent, no less important and no less daunting.

ZEYAD KASIM'S MAP OF BAGHDAD

2007-06-30T08:53:00.000-05:00

The following is a translation of (an)...email making the rounds among residents of Baghdad and on Iraqi Web forums. The sarcastic email, which was written in Iraqi slang, attempts to classify the districts of Baghdad based on their level of danger. According to the author, the safest neighborhoods are the ones where the odds of staying alive are 50%:

The situation in different areas of Baghdad in regard to takfiri gangs of the new age: Al-Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and their spiritual leaders – the forces of liberation falls into four different categories: safe, relatively safe, dangerous, and relatively dangerous. They are classified as follows:

A safe area: where the probability of you staying alive is 50%. -

A relatively safe: where the probability of you staying alive is 40%.-

A relatively dangerous area: where the probability of you staying alive is 30%.-

A dangerous area: where the probability of you staying alive is 20 to 10%.

Here we go:- The Bayya’ garage, the periphery of Bayya’: No one can ever reach them because the Mahdi Army is randomly abducting people and killing them for what they say is in retaliation for the husseiniya bombing a week ago. -

Shu’la: No one can reach it. - Thawra (Sadr City): No one can reach it.- Sha’ab: No one can reach it.- Amil: No one can reach it. - Jami’a and Khadhraa’: No one can reach them because Al-Qaeda fled Amiriya and Yarmouk and took refuge there. - Mishahda north of Baghdad: No one can reach it because of the presence of gangs that collectively burn people alive. -

Jadiriya is relatively safe. - Karrada is relatively safe. - Mansour is relatively safe. - Harthiya is safe (because of the presence of Kurdish militias). - Yarmouk is relatively safe. - Amiriya is dangerous. - Adhamiya is relatively dangerous (in some parts of it) but there are constant clashes.- Kadhimiya is safe. - Grai’at is relatively dangerous. - Utaifiya is safe. - Haifa Street is relatively dangerous. - The highway that connects Amiriya with the Baghdad gate is relatively dangerous. - Ghazaliya is relatively dangerous because of clashes.- Iskan is safe. - Alawi is relatively dangerous. - The Suq Al-Arabi area is relatively safe. -

Dora is not under the authority of the Republic of Iraq. It is currently an Islamic emirate complete with its own Islamic departments and ministers. Islamic CDs have been distributed to residents to explain the laws of the emirate. -

Saidiya is dangerous.- Camp is relatively safe. - Baladiyyat is safe. - Jisr Diyala is dangerous. - Arasat is safe.- Masbah is safe. - Baghdad Al-Jedida is relatively safe. - Jezirat Baghdad is dangerous. - Abu Ghraib is relatively dangerous. - Mashtal is relatively safe. - Qadisiya is safe. - Hurriya is dangerous. - Dola’i is dangerous. - Adil is dangerous. - Zayouna is safe. - Washash is relatively dangerous. - Bab Al-Sharji is relatively dangerous. - Sa’doun Street is relatively dangerous. - Waziriya is relatively safe. - The Mohammed Al-Qassim highway is relatively safe. - Bab Al-Mu’adham is dangerous. - Fadhl is dangerous. - The Baghdad International Airport highway is relatively safe. - Hutteen or Qudhat is relatively safe.- Ma’moun is relatively safe. - The Dora intersection is dangerous. - Abu Nuwas Street is safe. -

The Baghdad-Ba’quba road is bloody dangerous. - The Green Zone is safe, and sometimes it is dangerous.

I apologize if I left out any areas of our beloved Baghdad but I’m writing and racing with electricity at the same time.

As to Iraqi governorates:- The north of Iraq is safe, except the Ninewa governorate, which is dangerous. - The northern center governorates are relatively dangerous. - The southern center governorates are relatively dangerous. - The governorates of the south are safe, except for Diwaniya and Basrah, which are relatively dangerous. - The west is relatively safe, except for the western highway , which is dangerous sometimes. - The governorates of the east are all dangerous.

U.S. SOLDIERS DYING MORE WHILE COMMAND AND CONTROL IS CHALLENGED BY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

2007-06-30T07:49:00.000-05:00

Richard Oppel Jr., NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS ON KILLING OF FIVE GI'S in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora by a huge, buried bomb. Seven were also wounded. The attack brings to 330 the number of U.S. military deaths over the past three months, including 100 so far in June, making it the deadliest period yet for the American military in Iraq.

Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil Jr., commander of the 1st Cavalry Division and in charge of Baghdad, said the coordinated attack, which included the bomb, small-arms fire and RPGs, was "very violent" and showed a level of coordination and sophistication the military hasn't often seen. These kinds of attacks are taking their toll: in the first six months of 2007, 574 service members have died, a 62 percent increase over the same period last year. Fil said the insurgents were some of the worst he's ever seen.

BAGHDAD, June 30 (KUNA) -- The Iraqi Government condemned on Saturday a US military operation in the Baghdad suburban region of Al-Sadr where up to 26 gunmen were killed. The government said in a statement that it "emphatically rejects any military operation by the Multi-National Forces in any Iraqi governorate or city without prior approval of the command of the Iraqi Military Forces or coordination with the command." It also urged the Iraqi regulars to abide by orders, made by the higher national authorities, and warned against launching attacks against civilians.The statement added that the government would seek clarification from the Multi-National Forces about the operation that was carried out in the suburban region at dawn today.Witnesses told KUNA that several civilians were killed and wounded during the operation.

A number of mosques announced that cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has postponed next week's march to Samarra. This occurred during Friday prayers, facing shouts and, occasionally, tears as worshippers reacted to the news that the July 5 march was being called off. al-Naseri, one of the leaders, told his followers at the al-Kufa mosque, “If the government is no longer able to protect citizens it has to step aside.”

We have just had allegations of a severe military attack on June 22 attack in Diyala Province, al-Khalis.........(see previous post)

Military Charges Soldiers With Murder
By HAMID AHMED, AP
Posted: 2007-06-30 05:54:22

BAGHDAD (June 30) - Two U.S. soldiers were charged with the premeditated murder of three Iraqis, while 26 people died in American raids in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, the U.S. military said Saturday. The soldiers are accused of killing three Iraqis in separate incidents, then planting weapons on the victims' remains, the military said in a statement.

Fellow soldiers reported the alleged crimes, which took place between April and this month in the vicinity of Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad, it said.The U.S. military on Saturday identified the soldiers as Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley from Chandler, N.C., and Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval from Laredo, Texas.Hensley is charged with three counts each of premeditated murder, obstructing justice and "wrongfully placing weapons with the remains of deceased Iraqis," the military said. He was placed in military confinement in Kuwait on Thursday.

Sandoval faces one count each of premeditated murder and placing a weapon with the remains of a dead Iraqi, a statement said. He was taken into custody Tuesday while at home in Texas, and was transferred to military confinement in Kuwait three days later, it said. Both were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501 Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

In Sadr City, the military said those killed were "terrorists" who attacked U.S. troops before dawn Saturday with small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs. But Iraqi police and hospital officials said all the dead were civilians killed in their homes. "Everyone who got shot was shooting at U.S. troops at the time," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman. "It was an intense firefight."

The Iraqi officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of security concerns, put the death toll at eight, with 20 wounded. Seventeen suspected militants also were detained in the operation, which consisted of two separate raids, the U.S. military said in a statement. American troops entered the Shiite enclave in search of militants suspected of helping Iranian terror networks fund operations in Iraq, the statement said. There were no U.S. casualties, it said.

But witnesses said U.S. forces rolled into their neighborhood before dawn and opened fire without warning."At about 4 a.m., a big American convoy with tanks came and began to open fire on houses - bombing them," said Basheer Ahmed, who lives in Sadr City's Habibiya district. "What did we do? We didn't even retaliate - there was no resistance."The raids centered on the Habibiya and Orfali districts of Sadr City, police said.

Sadr City is the Iraqi capital's largest Shiite neighborhood _ home to some 2.5 million people. It is also the base of operations for the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, a spokesman for al-Sadr condemned Saturday's raids."We reject these repeated assaults against civilians. The allegation that Mahdi Army members were the only ones targeted is baseless and wrong," said Sheik Salah al-Obaidi. "The bombing hurt only innocent civilians."The U.S. military statement said soldiers riding in armored vehicles "used proper escalation of force rules to engage four civilian vehicles." "You start with warnings and work your way up to firing on a vehicle," Garver said. "Every structure and vehicle that the troops on the ground engaged were being used for hostile intent," he said....

But according to Iraqi officials, the dead included three members of one family - a father, mother and son. Several women and children, along with two policemen, were among the wounded, they said.One of the policemen, Montadhar Kareem, said he was on night duty in the Habibiya area when the raids began."At about dawn, American troops came with tanks and began bombing houses in the area," he said."The bombing became more intense, and I was injured by shrapnel in both my legs and in my left shoulder," Kareem said from a gurney at Al Sadr General Hospital.Houses, a bakery and some other shops were damaged by fire from U.S. tanks during the operation, Iraqi officials said.

Later Saturday in northwest Baghdad's Shula neighborhood, dozens of men gathered to donate blood for the Sadr City victims."The Americans are not letting people live in peace, and there are lots of victims," said one of the donors, Murtada Abdul-Hassan.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan: An Afghan rights group has claimed that US soldiers have killed four civilian members of the same family during a raid in Nangarhar in Afghanistan. It says the soldiers also arrested 15 civilians during the pre-dawn raid which took place in Khogiani district which lies in the foothills of the provincial capital Jalalabad. Among those killed in the raid were an 85-year-old man, Mohammada Jan, two of his sons and a grandson.

REFUGEES OVERWHELM SYRIA

2007-06-28T21:45:00.000-05:00

When the Iraqis first came, Syrians were happy to help them but now that is no longer the case," said Ammar Qurabi of the National Organization for Human Rights (NOHR) which has monitored the effects of Iraqi refugees on Syria. "Now most people hate the refugees and are angry because food and houses are expensive and there is no work because Iraqis take the easy jobs."

WHY THE IRAQ WAR WON'T ENGULF THE MIDEAST

2007-06-28T09:28:00.000-05:00

By Steven A. Cook, Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney
June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON:Long before the Bush administration began selling "the surge" in Iraq as a way to avert a general war in the Middle East, observers both inside and outside the government were growing concerned about the potential for armed conflict among the regional powers.

Underlying this anxiety was a scenario in which Iraq's sectarian and ethnic violence spills over into neighboring countries, producing conflicts between the major Arab states and Iran as well as Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government. These wars then destabilize the entire region well beyond the current conflict zone, involving heavyweights like Egypt.

This is scary stuff indeed, but with the exception of the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds, the scenario is far from an accurate reflection of the way Middle Eastern leaders view the situation in Iraq and calculate their interests there.

It is abundantly clear that major outside powers like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey are heavily involved in Iraq. These countries have so much at stake in the future of Iraq that it is natural they would seek to influence political developments in the country.

Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq.

The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than projecting power and thus have little capability for sending troops to Iraq.

Second, there is cause for concern about the so-called blowback scenario in which jihadis returning from Iraq destabilize their home countries, plunging the region into conflict.Middle Eastern leaders are preparing for this possibility. Unlike in the 1990s, when Arab fighters in the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union returned to Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and became a source of instability, Arab security services are being vigilant about who is coming in and going from their countries.

In the last month, the Saudi government has arrested approximately 200 people suspected of ties with militants. Riyadh is also building a 700 kilometer wall along part of its frontier with Iraq in order to keep militants out of the kingdom.

Finally, there is no precedent for Arab leaders to commit forces to conflicts in which they are not directly involved. The Iraqis and the Saudis did send small contingents to fight the Israelis in 1948 and 1967, but they were either ineffective or never made it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Arab countries other than Syria, which had a compelling interest in establishing its hegemony over Lebanon, never committed forces either to protect the Lebanese from the Israelis from other Lebanese. The civil war in Lebanon was regarded as someone else's fight.Indeed, this is the way many leaders view the current situation in Iraq. To Cairo, Amman and Riyadh, the situation in Iraq is worrisome, but in the end it is an Iraqi and American fight.

As far as Iranian mullahs are concerned, they have long preferred to press their interests through proxies as opposed to direct engagement. At a time when Tehran has access and influence over powerful Shiite militias, a massive cross-border incursion is both unlikely and unnecessary. So Iraqis will remain locked in a sectarian and ethnic struggle that outside powers may abet, but will remain within the borders of Iraq.

The Middle East is a region both prone and accustomed to civil wars. But given its experience with ambiguous conflicts, the region has also developed an intuitive ability to contain its civil strife and prevent local conflicts from enveloping the entire Middle East.

Iraq's civil war is the latest tragedy of this hapless region, but still a tragedy whose consequences are likely to be less severe than both supporters and opponents of Bush's war profess.

Steven A. Cook and Ray Takeyh are fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations. Suzanne Maloney is a senior fellow at Saban Center, Brookings Institution.

FAILING IN FALLUJAH

2007-06-28T08:14:00.000-05:00

PICTURE IS OF FALLUJAH SITES NEAR HOSPITAL

Curfew-Bound Fallujah On The Boil Again
Inter Press Service By Ali al-Fadhily*
FALLUJAH, Jun 27 (IPS) - Strict curfew and tight security measures have brought difficult living conditions and heightened tempers to residents of this besieged city. The siege in this city located 60km west of Baghdad has entered its second month. There is little sign of any international attention to the plight of the city. Fallujah, which is largely sympathetic to the Iraqi resistance, was assaulted twice by the U.S. military in 2004.

The second attack in November destroyed roughly three-quarters of the city of 350,000 residents. Now, Fallujah faces assault of another kind by way of a strict curfew where people are closed in from all sides. Many people who had earlier supported the Iraqi police that works with the U.S. military, now oppose it. "We gave full support to the police force despite opposition from others to forming this force," a community leader in the city who asked to be referred to as Ahmed told IPS. "Others told us this force would only serve the occupation forces, but we accused them of being against stability and order. Unfortunately, they appeared to be absolutely right."

Cars have not been permitted to move on the streets of Fallujah for nearly a month now. A ban was also enforced on bicycles, but residents were later granted permission to use them. "Thank God and President Bush for this great favour," said Ala'a, a 34-year-old schoolteacher. "We are the only city in the liberated world with the blessing now of having bicycles moving freely in the streets." On May 21 U.S. and Iraqi forces imposed a security crackdown on the city following continuing attacks.

Local non-governmental organisations such as the Iraqi Aid Association (IAA) have told reporters that the U.S. military is not allowing them access to the city. "We have supplies but it is impossible to reach the families. They are afraid to leave their homes to look for food, and children are getting sick with diarrhoea caused by the dirty water they are drinking," IAA spokesman Fatah Ahmed told reporters. "We have information that pregnant women are delivering their babies at home as the curfew is preventing them from reaching hospital."
Medical services are inaccessible to most because the hospital is located on the other side of the Euphrates River from the rest of the city. Extra security checkpoints have severely hampered movement within the city, and most businesses have closed. A year ago the local police cut mobile phone services.

The curfew is also restricting residents' ability to go out and find much needed supplies in the markets. Residents told IPS that there is on average only two hours electricity in 24 hours. Residents say they are up against killing prices. "Now they are killing us with a new weapon," a young man with a mask covering his face told IPS. "A jar of gas costs 20 dollars and a kilo of tomatoes costs 1.50 dollar, and people cannot go to work."

"U.S. snipers on rooftops are enjoying themselves watching us walk around to find a bite of food for our families," 55-year-old Hajji Mahmood told IPS. "They laugh at us and call us names. They should know Fallujah is still the same city that kicked them away three years ago." Life seems completely paralysed with little sign of movement under a blazing sun, with temperatures up to 45 degrees (centigrade). "We are sweating to death because some of us went to those damned elections," said a 40-year-old lawyer, speaking with IPS on condition of anonymity, referring to the Jan. 30, 2005 elections.

"The wise men told us not to, but we believed those crooks of the Islamic Party who promised to make things better," he said. Many people in the city accuse the Islamic Party supportive of the U.S. of leading the 'security plan' in al-Anbar province where Fallujah is located. A local political analyst offered his views to IPS via the Internet, on condition of anonymity. "I find it rather strange that to control a city under the flag of providing citizens with peace and prosperity, you deprive them of all signs of life," he said. "Arab, Muslim and all international community leaders should be ashamed of themselves for not even talking about this crime.

"Nonetheless, U.S. leaders are just buying more time towards more failure that they hope will magically turn into success. I am hopeless of any peace in Iraq as long as the democrats sold their fight cheap to the Bush administration." Lt-Col Azize Abdel-Kader, a Defence Ministry official who coordinates security operations in al-Anbar said the curfew -- which runs from 6 pm until 8 am -- was necessary to maintain security. "It is a temporary curfew and we hope it can soon end," he told reporters in Baghdad last week. "We are looking into ways to let aid agencies enter Fallujah but it is too dangerous for the time being."

(*Ali, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

VILLAGE DISPUTES STORY OF DEADLY ATTACK BY U.S. FORCES

2007-06-27T10:20:00.000-05:00

Village disputes story of deadly attack

The US military said the dead were al-Qaeda gunmen
A group of villagers in Iraq is bitterly disputing the US account of a deadly air attack on 22 June, in the latest example of the confusion surrounding the reporting of combat incidents there. The BBC's Jim Muir investigates:

On 22 June the US military announced that its attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen who had been trying to infiltrate the village of al-Khalis, north of Baquba, where operation "Arrowhead Ripper" had been under way for the previous three days. The item was duly carried by international news agencies and received widespread coverage, including on the BBC News website.

But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled. The incident highlights the problems the news media face in verifying such combat incidents in remote areas

They say that of 16 guards, 11 were killed and five others injured - two of them seriously - when US helicopters fired rockets at them and then strafed them with heavy machinegun fire. Minutes before the attack, they had been co-operating with an Iraqi police unit raiding a suspected insurgent hideout, the villagers said.

They added that the guards, lightly armed with the AK47 assault rifles that are a feature of practically every home in Iraq, were essentially a local neighbourhood watch paid by the village to monitor the dangerous insurgent-ridden area to the immediate south-west at Arab Shawkeh and Hibhib, where the al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed a year ago.

Here is the (U.S.) version of the incident issued by the US-led Multinational Forces on 22 June:

"Coalition Forces attack helicopters engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen southwest of Khalis, Friday.
"Iraqi police were conducting security operations in and around the village when Coalition attack helicopters from the 25th Combat Aviation Brigade and ground forces from 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, observed more than 15 armed men attempting to circumvent the IPs and infiltrate the village.
"The attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen and destroyed the vehicle they were using."

This is the story as told to the BBC by several local villagers:

At around 2am on Friday morning, the village guards were at their usual base in an unfinished building on the edge of the Hayy al-Junoud quarter about 2km (1.2 miles) south-west of al-Khalis village centre. They were surprised when a convoy of Iraqi police suddenly turned up, headed by the commander of the Khalis emergency squad, Col Hussein Kadhim.

The police told them they were about to raid a suspect house in nearby al-Akrad Street and asked for the village mukhtar (headman) to accompany them. The Mukhtar of Hayy al-Junoud, Jassem Khalil, and his brothers Abbas and Ali, went with the police. Some of the other guards, about half altogether, also offered to go along. The raid turned out to be a false alarm - there was nothing suspicious at the house in question.

But as the police and guards began to return, the police received an urgent radio message from the Joint Operations Centre saying that US helicopters were about to raid the area.

The police disappeared immediately. But before the guards could even get to their own car, they were hit by a rocket strike by American helicopters which suddenly appeared overhead. So too were the remainder of the guards, still at their base in the unfinished building nearby.

The rocket attacks were followed by a prolonged period of strafing by heavy machinegun fire from the helicopters. "It was like a battlefront, but with the fire going only in one direction," said a local witness. "There was no return fire".

When frightened villagers ventured out at first light, they found 11 of the village guards dead, some of their bodies cut into small pieces by the munitions used against them. Those who survived with injuries were Bashir (an off-duty policeman), Alwan Hussein, Abu Ra'id, Salam, and Saif Khalil, the son of Abbas Khalil who died.

The families of those who died are seeking a meeting with the head of the al-Khalis town council. They are incensed that the village guards should be described as "al-Qaeda gunmen". All but two of those killed were Shia and they have been buried at Najaf. The other two who were from the local minority Sunni community.

CHENEY: THE DARK SIDE AND THE CONSTITUTION

2007-06-24T12:37:00.000-05:00

.Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review.

When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.

Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions."

"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part.

The Post story over the next few days continues to describe Cheney undermining precious environmental protections, killing Salmon in Oregon; using his powers repeatedly to undermine even President Bush's policies (capital gains reductions vs. eliminating dividends taxes) and protecting his turf and secrecy by successfully removing himself from many levels of legally mandated oversight.

APOCALYPSE NOW: RELIGIOUS FERVOR OVER THE END TIMES

2007-06-23T19:15:00.000-05:00

Everyday Apocalypse in Iraq
E-mail this Juan Cole, Informed Comment, Jun 20, 2007.

(excerpt)

...shrines are revered in Iran, as well as by the Shiites in Iraq, and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is a millenarian especially devoted to the cult of the Twelfth Imam. Sentiments of the Iranian public are also being stirred by these attacks (not to mention Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Shiites in Pakistan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, who increasingly blame the US for the desecrations). Religious politics is politics, and the US is being wrongfooted in a major way here.

The signs of the coming of the Twelfth Imam in Shiite tradition are as follows:

'The Sign consists of the following traits: the people will neglect prayer, squander the divinity which is conferred on them, legalize untruths, practice usury, accept bribes, construct huge edifices, sell religion to win this lower world, employ idiots, consult with women, break family ties, obey passion and consider insignificant the letting of blood. Magnanimity will be considered as weakness and injustice as glory, princesses will be debauched and ministers will be oppressors, intellectuals will be traitors and the reader of the Koran vicious. False witness will be brought openly and immorality proclaimed in loud voices.

A word of promise will be slander, sin and exaggeration. The sacred Books will be ornate, the mosques disguised, the minarets extended. Criminals will be praised, the lines of combat narrowed, hearts in disaccord and pacts broken. Women, greedy for the riches of this lower world, will involve themselves in the business of their husbands; the vicious voices of the man will be loud and will be listened to. The most ignoble of the people will become leaders, the debauched will be believed for fear of the Evil they will cause, the liar will be considered as truthful and the traitor as trustworthy. They will resort to singers and musical instruments...and women will horse ride, they will resemble men and the men will resemble women.

The people will prefer the activities of this lower-world to those of the Higher-World and will cover with lambskin the hearts of wolves."Muqtada al-Sadr has alleged that the entire point of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was to keep this decadent situation in place and to forestall the coming of the Mahdi by planting military bases around Iraq and the Persian Gulf. He says that the US Pentagon has an enormous file on the Mahdi. In orther words, the US and militant Sunni Arabs are felt by many Iraqi Shiites to be playing the role of Dajjal or "Anti-Christ", a figure whose purpose is to forestall the coming of the Imam Mahdi.

Shiite tradition holds that the Mahdi will come together with the Return of Christ, and that the returned Christ will kill the Dajjal. (Ironically, some of the US troops fighting the Shiite millenarians may be evangelicals who also believe that the Return of Christ is near; Iraq is a wonderland for apocalytpicism).

From another story: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53964

In a videotaped meeting with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli in Tehran, Ahmadinejad discussed candidly a strange, paranormal experience he had while addressing the United Nations in New York last September.

He recounts how he found himself bathed in light throughout the speech. But this wasn't the light directed at the podium by the U.N. and television cameras. It was, he said, a light from heaven.

According to a transcript of his comments, obtained and translated by Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin,

"On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura," he says. "I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!"

KURDS AND TURKS: WILL THEY OR WON'T THEY

2007-06-17T13:41:00.000-05:00

Sunday, June 17, 2007
JUAN COLE'S BLOG: INFORMED CONSENT

Kurds and Turks: Will they or Won't They?

....the atmosphere in Ankara (Turkey's capital) is of extreme anger about the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government giving safe haven to guerrillas of the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK). I mean livid.

It should be remembered that leftist PKK guerrillas are thought to be responsible for the deaths of 35,000 persons in Turkey since 1984. In other words, PKK has done 10 times more damage to Turkey than al-Qaeda has done to the United States. And, that is not even taking into account that Turkey is a fourth the size of the US, so you could say 40 times more. In the piece just linked, F. Stephen Larrabee estimates that "Since January 2006, PKK cross-border raids from safe havens in northern Iraq have led to roughly 600 deaths, many of them members of the Turkish security forces."

In other words, the Kurdistan Regional Government is playing the Taliban to the PKK's al-Qaeda, from the point of view of the Turkish government. It is harboring 5,000 PKK fighters. Turkey has a strong and impressive military tradition and does not take casualties in its security forces lightly.

The alleged recent border incursion by several hundred Turkish troops 2 miles into Iraq in hot pursuit of PKK fighters probably did occur....Such incursions are also opportunities for intelligence gathering.

The order for the border incursion probably did not come from that high up. The Turkish commanders at the border have enough authority, I was told, to do a little hot pursuit like that without prior clearance if they feel it is important for military reasons.

I brought up with several observers my nightmare, that the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq will certainly annex Kirkuk later this year, and that there may be as a result clashes between the Kurds and the Turkmen minority. Iraqi Turkmen, some 800,000 strong, have been adopted by the Turks of Turkey as sort of little brothers. I can't imagine the Turkish public standing for a massacre of Turkmen, and hundreds of thousands of people in the street could force Buyukanit to act decisively.

My colleagues universally agreed that the potential was there for an escalation of the crisis under such conditions. No one said I was exaggerating the risks. One former official who is an expatriate said that before he arrived in Ankara last week, he did not know just how angry people there were over this issue. He is now convinced that the situation is serious.

Partlow points out that if Turkey did take on the Iraqi Kurds over the haven they have given the PKK, the US would likely be forced to support Turkey, a NATO ally acting against a terrorist threat.

....I think the situation in the north has entered a phase of continual crisis in which things could spiral out of control at any moment. I continue to be just amazed that no one in authority in Iraq is taking any steps to try to avert such a crisis. I earlier suggested a partion of Kirkuk province before the referendum as a way of defusing the tensions. But it seems like that the referendum will be held in the whole province and that the whole of it will go to Kurdistan. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has said that this development would be a cause for war in and of itself. The train wreck continues to unfold.

BLAIR KNEW POST-WAR PREPARATIONS WERE INADEQUATE

2007-06-17T13:31:00.000-05:00

Nicholas Watt, political editorSunday June 17, 2007

The Observer
Tony Blair agreed to commit British troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction of the country.

In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised his concerns with the White House. He also agreed to commit troops to the conflict even though President George Bush had personally said Britain could help 'some other way'.

....Sir David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to Washington, says: 'It's hard to know exactly what happened over the post-war planning. I can only say that I remember the PM raising this many months before the war began. He was very exercised about it.'

Manning reveals that Blair was so concerned that he sent him to Washington in March 2002, a full year before the invasion. Manning recalls: 'The difficulties the Prime Minister had in mind were particularly, how difficult was this operation going to be? If they did decide to intervene, what would it be like on the ground? How would you do it? What would the reaction be if you did it, what would happen on the morning after? 'All these issues needed to be thrashed out. It wasn't to say that they weren't thinking about them, but I didn't see the evidence at that stage that these things had been thoroughly rehearsed and thoroughly thought through.'

On his return to London, Manning wrote a highly-critical secret memo to Blair. 'I think there is a real risk that the [Bush] administration underestimates the difficulties,' it said. 'They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.'

FAILURE AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS: JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

2007-06-17T13:12:00.000-05:00

Responsibility for the disaster of Iraq lies not only with the President of the United States, but also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president needs expert and candid military counsel. Not yes-men in uniform....

Excerpted from article in Boston Globe by Andrew J. Bacevich June 17, 2007

History will render this judgment of Pace, who succeeded General Richard B Myers as chairman in September 2005: As U. S. forces became mired ever more deeply in an unwinnable war, Pace remained a passive bystander, a witness to a catastrophe that he was slow to comprehend and did little to forestall. If the position of JCS chair had simply remained vacant for the past two years, it is difficult to see how the American military would be in worse shape today.

Softening history's verdict will be this fact: Long before Pace arrived on the scene the JCS had established a well-deserved reputation as one of the most ineffective institutions in Washington. Dissatisfaction with the Joint Chiefs dates virtually from the moment in 1947 when Congress passed the legislation creating it. Trying to fix the JCS soon became a cottage industry. The widespread unhappiness with Pace's performance, culminating in his de facto firing, affirms that these various reforms have failed.

Expectations that a permanent mechanism for providing military advice could improve the quality of civilian decision-making inspired the creation of the Joint Chiefs in the first place. After all, this had seemingly been the case during World War II, when Franklin Roosevelt had created a precursor of the modern JCS whose members had collaborated effectively with FDR in successfully directing a massive global war.

..., instead of military professionals offering disinterested advice to help policymakers render sound decisions, the history of this civilian-military relationship is one of conniving, double-dealing, and mutual manipulation. As generals increasingly played politics, they forfeited their identity as nonpartisan servants of the state. Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy, each for different reasons, came to see the members of the Joint Chiefs as uniformed political adversaries.

Although himself a five-star general, Eisenhower railed in private throughout his presidency about members of the Joint Chiefs conspiring to undermine his policies whenever they happened to collide with cherished interests of the military services. His Farewell Address, warning that the "military-industrial complex" could well "endanger our liberties or democratic processes," amounted to a tacit admission that as commander-in-chief he had lost control of his generals.

....In his now-classic 1997 book, "Dereliction of Duty," Colonel H. R. McMaster, an active-duty army officer who has served in Iraq with considerable distinction, described how a civil-military relationship based on mutual dishonesty and suspicion reached its pre-Iraq low-point during the US intervention in Vietnam. In his blistering indictment, McMaster charged the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the early 1960s -- the "five silent men," he called them -- with complicity in the lies and deceptions that produced the debacle of that war.

During Operation Desert Storm, (Colin Powell) ...convinced President George H. W. Bush to end the ground war after just 100 hours; he insisted that U. S. forces after the Cold War retain the capability to fight two large-scale conventional wars simultaneously; he questioned the wisdom of humanitarian intervention in the Balkans and elsewhere; and he torpedoed President Bill Clinton's efforts to permit gays to serve openly in the military.

The ultimate testimony to Powell's influence lies in the "Powell Doctrine" -- the general himself defining the criteria for when and how the United States would fight its wars. By 1993, with the Clinton administration stumbling as it left the gate, the JCS chairman had established himself as perhaps the dominant figure in Washington, a situation that persisted until Powell's second two-year term expired that fall and he retired.

Having learned from Powell's tenure that a talented, high-powered JCS chairman can produce big-time political headaches, the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have opted for officers who could be counted on not to make waves. They have done so by selecting anti-Powells to serve as JCS chairmen -- officers who, whatever their other admirable qualities, have possessed few of the attributes that made Powell so formidable. Since 1993, the position of JCS chairman has been filled by a succession of colorless, compliant generals -- honorable and good soldiers to the man, but none demonstrating anything approaching Powell's smarts, flair, and shrewdness. Mediocrity can be a cruel word, but as a description of those who have succeeded Colin Powell as the nation's top military officer, it is apt.

When Donald Rumsfeld served as defense secretary, silent assent became an absolute requirement, as army chief of staff Eric Shinseki learned, to his chagrin. When Shinseki testified, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that occupying the country might require many more troops than were available, Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz went out of their way to humiliate and discredit the general for having the temerity to venture an independent opinion. The message to the senior officer corps was clear: those interested in getting ahead were expected to toe the party line.

Pace exemplifies this breed. Only once during his time as chairman has Pace asserted himself -- and that, somewhat bizarrely, was to express his view that homosexuality is immoral. Apart from that uncharacteristic outburst, he has loyally accommodated himself to whatever the boss has wanted, even to calamitous policies that have done immeasurable harm not only to the country but to the armed services to which he has devoted his life.

Perhaps symbolic of that willingness to accommodate, even as Iraq continued to unravel, Pace found time to write a pre-sentencing letter on behalf of convicted perjurer Lewis "Scooter" Libby, assuring the trial judge that Libby is a selfless team player. Pace's involvement in an issue so tinged with partisan overtones was at the very least unseemly, and raises troubling questions about his priorities, if not about the hierarchy of his loyalties.

Let there be no mistake: primary responsibility for the failure of US policy in Iraq lies with civilian policymakers, beginning with the president. As Mr. Bush rightly insists, at the end of the day he remains "the decider." Yet senior military advisers like Pace cannot fully absolve themselves of responsibility for the disasters that have occurred on their watch. To charge Pace with something akin to "dereliction of duty" may go too far. He has, after all, served precisely as his civilian masters wished him to serve. And yet for precisely that reason, his dismissal is richly deserved.

The armed forces deserve top-notch professional leadership. Civilian policymakers need expert military counsel, offered clearly and candidly. Yet to charge one small group of senior officers with fulfilling both functions makes it unlikely that either will be adequately performed. The dismal saga of the Joint Chiefs has demonstrated this in spades. At the highest levels a line should exist between the senior officers who advise on matters of national security policy and those expected to implement policy decisions. One way to draw that line might be to select advisers from the ranks of retired generals and admirals, independent-minded "wise men" no longer involved in running their services.

Secretary Gates has described Pace's successor as an officer of "vision, strategic insight, and integrity." No doubt similar words were spoken when Pace himself was appointed chairman, perhaps with equal sincerity.

Yet whatever personal attributes Admiral Mullen may possess -- even if he ends up being more like a Powell than another Pace -- the real problem lies with the institution over which he will preside. Six decades of trying to fix the Joint Chiefs of Staff have produced little positive effect. Further tinkering will only waste more money and, alas, more lives.

The JCS lies beyond salvaging. Before you build a new house, you tear the old one down. For the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it's wrecking-ball time. A chairman possessing vision, strategic insight, and integrity ought to be the first to acknowledge that.

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, is editor of "The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II," published this month by Columbia University Press.

IRAQ ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARTISTIC CULTURE ENDANGERED BY TARGETED ASSASSINATIONS

2007-06-16T17:21:00.000-05:00

By Afif Sarhan in Baghdad and Firas Al-Atraqchi in Damascus

Iraq's archaeological and artistic culture is in danger of being wiped out due to a lack of protection and targeted assassinations, a group of archaeologists and artists have told Al Jazeera.

According to figures from the ministry of culture, 18 archaeologists and researchers have been killed since late 2005. Fuad Rassi, an Iraqi archaeologist and professor of antiquities at Baghdad University, said: "We are unable to protect important historical sites and the remaining books and parchments documenting Iraq's culture have been stolen from local libraries." Rassi also said the intimidation and murder of archaeologists since the 2003 US-led invasion has impeded the country's research into, and preservation of, millennary culture. He said: "There aren't archaeologists remaining in Iraq because most of them have been killed and the others have fled from the violence. Our situation is getting critical in Iraq. Archaeologists and artists are being targeted by militias and insurgents."

In May 2003, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1483 which stressed "the need for respect for the archaeological, historical, cultural, and religious heritage of Iraq, and for the continued protection of archaeological, historical, cultural, and religious sites, museums, libraries, and monuments".

But Lamia Al-Gailani-Werr, an Iraqi archaeologist and member of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and former adviser to the Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council, says the looting and destruction of Iraq's sites has continued despite international awareness. "The destruction of Iraq's heritage is leaving a bitter legacy for future generations," she told Al Jazeera previously.

Meanwhile, Baghdad authorities are facing growing challenges as they pursue artifacts smugglers or provide protection to endangered sites. Iraq's ministry of culture says its employees are unable to continue their research or visit existing sites and excavations due to security risks. Mariam Muhammad, a senior official at the ministry, said: "We are seeing the history of Iraq being lost and because of violence we cannot move to afford protection. Professionals in the area are being killed on [a] daily basis and our employees are afraid to leave their homes."

Haythem Abdel-Lattef, 56, an archaeologist who was working at the Babylon heritage sites south of Baghdad in 2006, chose to leave Iraq seven months ago after one of his sons was kidnapped. He said: "I received telephone calls which threatened me, saying that if I didn't flee Iraq within one week, they were going to kill my sons and wife. I packed and after two days I arrived in Jordan where I'm facing difficult financial conditions as I had to leave everything behind in Baghdad." After arriving in Jordan, he said he received word that two of his colleagues who had been excavating new sites near Babylon were killed.

The culture ministry's Muhammad said that in addition to the threat to Iraq's archaeological resources, many of Iraq's leading authors, artists and singers have been persecuted and killed - victims of the country's sectarian violence. In February 2007, the Iraqi Artist's Association said 75 singers had been killed between March 2003 and December 2006. The association also said 80 per cent of the country's singers had fled the country.

But those that braved the bullets and continued to perform have often paid the price. In November, Youssef Jabry, 20, was beheaded for singing Western songs at parties and wedding receptions while popular comedian Walid Hassan, who often mocked post-invasion politics, was shot to death as he drove through Baghdad. In December, Muttashar Al-Soudani, Iraqi soap opera icon, was gunned down by unknown assailants as he collected his pension in Baghdad.
In January, Wissam Abdallah, 25, an up-and-coming actor, was killed by unknown fighters.

Abdallah's mother, Salua Abdel-Kader, 48, told Al Jazeera her son was killed because he was "seen as a sinner" by Islamic factions which have gained power in post-war Iraq. He said: "I lost my son who was an actor because he was performing at the theatre and for this reason considered a betrayer of Islam." His murder and the pursuit of other actors and singers have sowed fear among the performing arts community in and around Baghdad.

Abdel-Kader said: "Our lives have been inside the walls of our houses. The maximum entertainment that you can find today is going to your neighbour for a [cup of] tea and nowadays, even this diversion sometimes isn't possible because of the spread sectarian violence. "We cannot visit museums, theatres or libraries because art in Iraq today has been considered a sin by extremists."

Since May 2007, three Baghdad artists were killed, including Khalil al-Zahawi, renowned Islamic calligrapher. A senior member of the Calligraphy and Arabesque Art Department at the Nineveh Institute of Fine Arts told Al Jazeera that he believed conditions in Iraq have made it a graveyard for artists and innovation. Speaking on the condition of anonymity because he has been threatened with death, he said Islamic extremism has forced many of his colleagues to either flee Iraq or go undercover. "Only Islamic art is permissible because the new Islamic groups like al-Qaeda feel there is no importance to us. Those of us who paint portraits, for example, are seen as sinners," he said in a small unfurnished apartment in Damascus. "Those that cannot leave Iraq because of financial constraints find themselves going hungry - hungry and fearful that the next bullet or sword is destined for them."

One such Iraqi artist was condemned to death by Islamist groups for belonging to "a Zionist organisation". Maher Harbi, a Christian artist in northern Iraq, managed to survive two successive assassination attempts before fleeing to Syria. He had been a member of an association of Shia, Sunni, Christian and secular artists who met once every week to discuss holding ateliers and exhibits. But Mohammed Alban, a photographer for al-Sharqiya satellite channel, wasn't so lucky. His assassination led to the dissolution of the Mosul chapter of the artists'association in late 2006.

Muhammad Khalid Lattif, actor and member of the Iraqi Artists Association who survived an assassination attempt, said: "Even if we work, how can we put in practice or expose our projects to Iraqis? There aren't places [to exhibit] because everywhere is under security and as soon as we reach to wherever the place is, we are going to be killed.

"We will cry all together for this sad reality threatening our culture."

IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN AFGHANISTAN

2007-06-15T13:11:00.000-05:00

By Alastair Leithead BBC News, Herat, western Afghanistan

There is more power in Herat than the locals need. The pylons get smaller and smaller as they disappear in a long, straight line, across the wide-open, windswept desert, through the heat haze and over the horizon to Iran.

In the electricity sub-station just outside of Herat, western Afghanistan, there's the loud hum of power - Iranian power.
More electricity reaches Herat than the city can use, but the industrial park just across the road from the Nato military base is putting it to good use.

Small plastic bottles of fizzy orange juice shuffle along the conveyor belt to be labelled and packed - the building is noticeably Iranian in design and the markings on the machinery show exactly which country helped these Afghan businessmen.

The camels grazing outside cautiously cross the fast, straight, asphalt road - one of the best roads in Afghanistan stretching the 120km to the border. Soon a railway line will link Afghanistan to Europe, or so boasts the Iranian government. "We are one of the major donors in Afghanistan," said Mohammad Bahrami, Iranian ambassador to Kabul.

The frontier runs for hundreds of kilometres and here, near the border post, both sides eye each other suspiciously from old mud forts and new wooden observation posts.

The intelligence reports that we get from our agents in Iran say some weapons come into Afghanistan....and US bases are springing up along the border. Given the fragile international relations between the US and Iran, there is a much bigger political reason to fight for influence in Afghanistan.

Afghan opium is smuggled between the gaps between observation towers to fuel Iran's four million addicts, and there's increasing concern about what is now travelling in the opposite direction. "The intelligence reports that we get from our agents in Iran say some weapons come into Afghanistan," said Rahmatullah Safi, the border commander for western Afghanistan. "The weapons which the enemies use these days such as Kalashnikov, rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns, hand grenades, explosives - they are not coming from the sky, these definitely are coming from across the border.

"In Iraq the insurgency developed and they got more and more sophisticated. I believe we are seeing the same thing in Afghanistan, but fortunately they are still quite a long way behind Iraq." Intelligence sources say Iranian agencies, but not necessarily the government, are talking to the Taleban and that weapons are on the move. ....But the Iranian ambassador dismisses the allegations of supplying weapons: "Strongly denied. Strongly denied and we are ready to make that clear," he says.

Beautiful, ancient Herat with its huge citadel towering over the old city and its famous mud brick minarets has a multi-layered history of foreign powers using Afghanistan to expand their empires - to achieve their own global ambitions. Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan came here. The British fought Persia here in the 1850s when the Great Game with Russia was at its height.

....Everyone, of course, is at it - even British, European and American forces are here to protect themselves from terrorism at home - it's another bigger battle being fought in Afghanistan.
And when diplomatic games are played in other lands, it's the people who suffer - it's their lives which are caught up in someone else's war.

SAMARRA SHIITE MOSQUE HIT AGAIN

2007-06-13T18:10:00.000-05:00

Mosque prior to attacks

"Advance warnings indicated that a second bombing against the al-Askariya mosque in Samarra was in the works, charged a representative of revered Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani during Friday prayers.
"The authorities in charge had enough tips that the enemies of the people would blow up the tomb of the two Imams in order to hurl the people into sectarian strife," Sheikh Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalaie said at the Imam al-Hussein Shrine in Karbala."

Iraqis are bracing for an explosion of sectarian violence following Wednesday morning's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, and information has begun to surface of attacks being mounted against Sunni mosques throughout the day.

The reporting is spotty, but current accounts indicate that at least one--but possibly three--Sunni mosques south of Baghdad were bombed, one in western Baghdad was set on fire, and one north of Baghdad was targeted with mortars.

Reuters reports that local police said gunmen blew up Iskandariya's Grand Mosque, completely destroying the building.

VOI, however, reports that three mosques were bombed--Grand Iskandariyah Mosque, Hiteen Mosque and Abdullah Mosque.

TIM RUSSERT'S INTERVIEW WITH COLIN POWELL

2007-06-11T10:13:00.000-05:00

AS EXCERPTED BY SLOGGER

GEN. POWELL: (Iraq) is an extremely difficult situation. I have characterized it as a civil war even though the administration does not call it that. And the reason I call it a civil war is I think that allows you to see clearly what we’re facing. We’re facing groups that are now fighting each other: Sunnis vs. Shias, Shias vs. Shias, Sunni vs. al-Qaeda. And it is a civil war.

The current strategy to deal with it, called a surge—the military surge, our part of the surge under General Petraeus—the only thing it can do is put a heavier lid on this boiling pot of civil war stew. That’s only one part of the overall surge. The other two parts of the surge, building up Iraqi forces, military and police forces, so that they can take over responsibility for security and getting the Iraqi political leadership to understate—undertake reconciliation efforts and to do something to turn out the fire.

....But if, at the end of the day, when this civil war resolves itself, as every civil war eventually does resolve itself, one way or the other, and we see a government emerge that does represent the interests of its people, then maybe that’s the best success we can hope for, even though it might not be a government that looks exactly like, you know, a government we have—would have designed back here in Washington, D.C., or we would have designed in Philadelphia based on Jeffersonian principles. And so it’s a tough road ahead, but increasingly the burden has to rest on the Iraqis and not on the American troops.

....If we knew today—or knew then what we know today, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, I would’ve had nothing to take to the United Nations. The national intelligence estimate, which was the basis of my presentation and, by the way, was the basis of the intimation that was given to the Congress that caused them to vote a resolution of support four months before my UN presentation, we rested our case on the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to us and could be given to terrorists, making it another kind of threat to us.

I think without that weapons of mass destruction case, the justification would not have been there, even though Hussein was a terrible person, human rights abuses abounded, he was cheating on the UN food, Oil for Food program. But I think it is doubtful that without the weapons of mass destruction case, the president and Congress and the United Nations and those who joined us in the conflict—the British, the Italians, the Spanish, the Australians—would’ve found a persuasive enough case to support a decision to go to war.
*****
I never used terms such as cakewalk, and I never had any illusions about this being simply a stroll into Baghdad and then everything was going to be wonderful. But let’s go back to around 10 April of 2003. Saddam Hussein’s statue fell on the 9th, and from the 10th of April, for a month or two, everybody in the United States thought this was a terrific outcome. And it looked like it was going to work, just as the administration has said it was going to work.

We were liberators for a moment, and then we simply did not handle the aftermath. We didn’t realize we were in an insurgency when we were in an insurgency, and we watched as the ministries that we were counting on, the government ministries we were counting on to help us take over, were being burned and looted. And we didn’t respond. And we didn’t have enough troops in the ground. That’s my judgment, not the judgment of military commanders at the time, but it’s certainly my judgment, and we didn’t have enough troops on the ground.

Because once the government fell, the whole structure of government collapsed. Once the government in Baghdad came down, everything came down. And it was our responsibility then, under international law as the occupying authority as well as the liberators, to be responsible for restoring order, and we didn’t have enough troops there to restore that order nor did we have the political understanding of our obligation to restore that order.
*****
I was part of an administration that, over a period of years, had created a body of evidence and intelligence that said this is a dangerous regime. And I had no love for Saddam Hussein, as you can appreciate. For 12 years I’d been listening to, “Well, why didn’t you take him out back in 1991?” So I had no truck with this regime, and we had a steady stream of intelligence reports that suggested he was a danger.

And he became more of a danger after 9/11 when the possibility emerges that some of these terrible weapons he was working on—and let there be no doubt that he was continuing to work on these. He was continuing to hope that he could escape the boundaries of the UN sanctions and get back to making these kinds of weapons. And if you believe otherwise, I think that would be a naive belief. And so, throughout that time, we had this consistent body of evidence.

And when the president called me in and said, “I want you to go to the United Nations and make the presentation,” I didn’t blink in the slightest because I had been using that intelligence all along in my presentations and had every reason to believe it.

The problem we had in the next five days was that a product was being worked on in the White House and the NSC which was unusable. It was more a legal brief than it was an analysis.

I would’ve preferred no war because I couldn’t see clearly the unintended consequences. But we tried to avoid that war with the UN sanctions and putting increasing diplomatic and international pressure on Saddam Hussein. But when I took it to the president and said, “This is a war we ought to see if we can avoid,” I also said and made it clear to him, “If, at the end of the day, it is a war that we cannot avoid, I’ll be with you all the way.” That’s, that’s part of being part of a team. And therefore I couldn’t have any other outcome, and I had no reservations about supporting the president in war.

And I think things could’ve turned out differently after the middle of April if we had responded in a different way.

SADR, SISTANI MEET IN NAJAF, DISCUSS SECURITY MATTERS

2007-06-11T03:05:00.000-05:00

(COURTESY OF SLOGGER) Najaf, Jun 10, (VOI)- Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr visited, on Sunday night, top Shiite cleric ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in his office in Najaf and both discussed the latest security and political developments in Iraq, a source from Sistani's office said.

"Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr visited, today at 9:30 pm, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and both leaders discussed the political and security situation in the country," the source told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI). The source gave no further details. Sadr's visit to Sistani today is the first since the young Shiite cleric Sadr resurfaced two weeks ago.

Earlier on Sunday, the Shiite cleric Sadr called in a statement upon Turkey to solve all problems with Iraq peacefully. "Though Iraqi cities and territories are seen by many as lacking sovereignty because of the occupation, this should not be taken as a pretext to attack and shell cities and villages inside Iraq," Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said in a statement received by the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI).

Reminded of the Turkish stand on the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sadr said "one day, we were pleased to hear that Turkey rejected the attack and occupation of Iraq. We were even more pleased when Turkey demanded a timetable for the pullout of the occupation from Iraq." Sadr described Turkey's stand on not backing up attacks on Iraq as a move to support the Iraqi people and not the former regime.

The Shiite cleric, who rejected the shellings, called on the Turkish nation to stop sedition between the two Muslim nations. "The Kurdish people are an indivisible part of the Iraqi population and it is our duty to defend them. Turks are also our friends whose sovereignty, security and territories should be respected," Sadr said in the statement.

Sadr expressed readiness to settle problems peacefully, among all sides, for the good of both nations. On Saturday, local residents said Turkish artillery had shelled the border villages of Dishish and Bidohi inside the Iraqi territories.

Accordingly, Iraq's foreign ministry summoned the Turkish envoy to Baghdad and gave him a letter protesting the shelling.

Washington Post Page Two: A Longer Stay....

2007-06-10T11:12:00.000-05:00

Nothing new on Page One.......except to estimate that it would take us a year to leave: just to get us and our stuff out. That is what happens when you occupy a country, build new huge bases, plus a palatial, tough, can stand on its own, Embassy.

Sounds like a "come from behind strategy" to me, but do the Iraqi's want us there? Recently the parliament passed a bill telling us to leave by the end of this year. Maybe, since it will take a year, it would be a good idea to get started

And, finally, can we AFFORD it?

TO LEARN THE FINANCIAL COST OF THE WAR AT THIS MOMENT, CLICK HERE It is over 433 billion last time I looked and we're borrowing money to pay for it. And, of course, the military guys are now confessing that their leadership was "out to lunch" for three years, 2004-6. Now that is encouraging. But at least it is the truth.

So, here is page two of the post article:

This is hardly the first time officials have considered troop reductions. The original U.S. war plan called for the Army to have only 30,000 troops in Iraq by fall 2003; later, top commanders planned for a drawdown in the summer of 2004. Neither option came to pass, as the military found itself engaged in a tougher and longer war in Iraq than it or the Bush administration had expected.

But officials here insist that they are now assessing the situation more soberly. For example, when Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of the 25th Infantry Division, briefed reporters last month, he expressed worries about the performance of Iraqi forces and called the Iraqi government in Diyala province "nonfunctional." He also said candidly that he did not have enough soldiers in Diyala. As one officer here put it, his comments were of the sort that generals in Iraq once discussed in private but avoided stating publicly.

"I think there's a greater appreciation for complexity," said Lt. Col. Brad Brown, a crisis manager for the 1st Cavalry Division, which is overseeing operations in Baghdad.

Officials now dismiss the 2004-06 years -- when Gen. George W. Casey Jr. was in command -- as a fruitless "rush to transition," as one senior defense official here put it. "The idea was, 'As they stand up, we'll stand down,' " he said. That phrase has been all but banished from the Green Zone, as has the notion of measuring U.S. progress in Iraq by the number of Iraqi troops trained or by changes in U.S. casualty counts.

"We had previously 'transitioned' ourselves into irrelevance, and the whole thing was going to hell in a handbasket," a senior official commented in an e-mail.

Top military officials even say that Iraq's elections in December 2005 only deepened sectarian divides and contributed to the outbreak of a low-grade civil war in Baghdad last year. "We wanted an election in the worst way, and we got one in the worst way," one U.S. general here said.

Another major difference is that U.S. officials, both political and military, say they are more willing to take chances than before. The clearest gamble was the decision in January to move U.S. troops off big, isolated bases and into 60 small, relatively vulnerable outposts across Baghdad. However, the risk-taking also includes reaching out to people once declared enemies of the United States, such as Sadr, the Shiite cleric. "Some people say he might be ready to negotiate behind the scenes," Odierno said in an interview.

In addition, commanders will be forced to lean heavily in coming months on Iraqi security forces, whose performance has been mixed at best. The U.S. strategy in Baghdad of "clear, hold and build" calls for clearing neighborhoods of enemy forces, then holding them with a sustained military presence while reconstruction efforts get underway. Yet by itself, the United States does not have enough troops to "hold," so that mission must be executed by Iraqis.

"My nightmare -- the thing that keeps me up at night -- is a failure of Iraqi security forces, somehow, catastrophically, mixed with a major Samarra-mosque-type catastrophe," Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, said last week, referring to the February 2006 bombing of a mosque in Samarra that sparked renewed civil strife.

Even as they focus on the realities in Iraq, officials here are also keeping an eye on Washington politics. Despite the talk in the U.S. capital that Petraeus has only until September to stabilize the situation in Iraq, some officers here are quietly suggesting that they really may have until Jan. 20, 2009 -- when President Bush leaves office -- to put the smaller, revised force in place. They doubt that Bush will pull the plug on the war or that Congress will ultimately force his hand.

Such timing matters because, despite some tactical success in making some Baghdad neighborhoods safer, officials here believe the real test of the U.S. troop increase will be its ability to create space over time for political accommodation among rival Iraqi factions. Officers agree that hasn't happened yet -- at least not significantly enough to make a difference in Washington.

Christian Science Monitor Suggests Shiite State in Iraq

2007-06-08T16:29:00.000-05:00

A two-part Monitor series on the rise of Shiite Muslims in the Middle East reveals a subtle tactic among the sect's radical leaders: Don't confront Sunni rivals but rather find common cause. If they succeed, it may reshape the region, especially in Iraq, where this intra-Muslim conflict now plays out in daily bombings.

The new Shiite message was recently delivered by Iraq's powerful cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who emerged from months of hiding - perhaps in Iran - to avoid the American military surge. In late May, he told followers in a mosque sermon: "I want to say now that the blood of Sunnis is forbidden to everyone."

Then on Tuesday, the fiery young Mr. Sadr demonstrated his heavy political influence in Iraq's parliament. His bloc of legislators joined up with Sunni lawmakers to pass a resolution that requires the government to seek parliamentary permission before asking the United Nations to extend the mandate of US-led forces in Iraq. That mandate ends Dec. 31. Up to now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his moderate Shiites in government have simply sought UN approval on their own.

Sadr's message came as his allies in Shiite Iran began talks with the United States to seek a solution for Iraq's war. Together, Iran and the Iraqi cleric are soft-pedalling any notion of Shiites seeking a strong regional role. They say they seek Muslim unity, driven by mutual resistance to Israel and to outsiders such as the US. A similar message can be heard from Iran's proxy group in Lebanon, Hizbullah.

But is their goal really to achieve Shiite dominance in the Middle East, anchored by creation of the first Arab Shiite state in Iraq? (Iran is not Arab.) Or do they simply want to prevent the kind of Sunni dominance that has marked the region for centuries? (Sunni supremacy was particularly cruel in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.)

If indeed Iran and Sadr now truly want mutual respect with Sunnis, then the path toward peace in Iraq may become easier. But if the current Iraq war is really about securing Shiite dominance, starting with control of Baghdad, then the Americans face difficult decisions ahead on troop levels or, perhaps, withdrawal.

That is why it is crucial for the Maliki government to quickly accommodate many of the political demands of Iraq's Sunni minority, such as sharing the nation's oil wealth.

Iran's intentions remain unclear. It steams ahead with nuclear enrichment that can lead to atomic blackmail in the region, but it also sends emissaries to the Sunni-dominated states like Saudi Arabia to appease any fears of Iran's rising influence.

One sign of Iran's motives may lie in the recent revival of its Center for Rapprochement of Islamic Schools of Thought. The purpose of this Shiite outpost in Tehran is to persuade Sunnis worldwide that any theological differences between the two sects are small compared with the larger goal of Muslim unity.

With their historical sense of victimization, such a missionary message is difficult for Shiites. But if old resentments can be forgotten and old offenses forgiven - which Islam teaches - then a Sunni-Shiite accommodation may emerge.

So far, the ongoing violence in Iraq doesn't point to such sectarian peace soon.

SCHORR SPEAKS UP ON BASES IN IRAQ

2007-06-08T09:13:00.000-05:00

New White House plan: Keep US troops in Iraq permanently.

Permanent bases will damage America's image in the Middle East.

Washington - President Bush used to be fond of saying that American troops would stay in Iraq as long as needed and not a day longer. He isn't saying that anymore.

The new word from the White House is that American troops would be stationed in Iraq permanently on the "Korean model." The analogy is a little strained. The United States has helped to mend the rift between North and South Korea since 1953. But South Korea has had no internal insurgency to worry about.

The plan for permanent bases in Iraq must have been long in the making. The president ignored a recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission that he state that America seeks no permanent bases in Iraq. At one point last year, the Senate and House passed an amendment to the military-spending bill banning the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq. The bill went to conference and then the ban on bases, adopted by both chambers, mysteriously disappeared.

The building of four bases along with a gigantic new American embassy in the Green Zone on the Tigris River has been moving along rapidly. The bases will have runways two miles long to accommodate the largest American planes. The Balad base north of Baghdad covers 14 square miles. Another base is planned for the area that was ancient Babylon.

The new embassy, which will be the largest American mission in the world, will be complete with swimming pool and commissary. Retired General Anthony Zinni has said that permanent bases are "a stupid idea." He said that they will damage America's image in the whole region.

These huge installations must be intended for more than Iraqi stabilization. Former President Jimmy Carter said in a speech in February of last year that "the reason we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region." And few are missing the point that bases in Iraq will keep American might on Iran's doorstep.

• Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.

A NEW GOVERNMENT COALESCING IN IRAQ?

2007-06-07T09:40:00.000-05:00

....Az-Zaman devoted its front page to the news regarding the formation of a new political front, led by Iyad 'Allawi, aiming to challenge, and possibly replace, the current Maliki government. Az-Zaman (international edition) said that al-Maliki complained that the new front represents a “conspiracy,” woven in “a foreign capital” and intent on executing a “coup” against the current government and the “political process” in Iraq.

Furthermore, the newspaper quoted Sami al-'Askari, a Maliki advisor, as saying that the Prime Minister discussed the matter of the 'Allawi front with Talabani and Barazani during a recent visit to Kurdistan.

Pro-government al-Mada also discussed the prime minister’s statements. The paper quoted Maliki as warning the “conspirators” that “the era of coups d’état has passed with the (departure of) the previous regime” and that “there is no place for conspiracies.”

In parallel to these fiery political statements, Maliki and other high-level members of the ruling establishment have been insinuating that their political opponents are involved in illicit activities, and are threatening to “reveal” incriminating information about them.

Pan-Arab al-Sharq al-Awsat reported today on al-Maliki announcing that “domestic and regional parties” are involved in the sabotage of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. Al-Maliki also warned that the government “may find itself compelled” to name the parties in such activities.
Also, in a speech given to Iraqi generals and reported by al-Mada and Az-Zaman, Maliki made links between the plots that are allegedly woven against him and “terrorism” in Iraq, and called on the army to prevent the conspirators from undermining the political process. “These people (the ‘accused’ in Maliki’s statements remain unidentified, but easily identifiable) have crossed the stage of conspiracies to the stage of disrupting security and supporting terrorism,” the Prime Minister said, according to al-Mada.

Back to the 'Allawi front, contrary to al-Mada's report yesterday predicting the downfall of the nascent alliance, Az-Zaman published a story today indicating that 'Allawi’s “front” is alive and well, and expanding.

The newspaper said that it was informed by sources in Cairo that Tariq al-Hashimi (the Iraqi vice-President and leader of the Islamic Party, one of the main constituents of 'Allawi’s coalition) informed the Egyptian president that “numerous political parties in Iraq are ready to announce a broad, moderate front aiming to salvage the situation in Iraq.”

Another spokesman of the Islamic Party told Az-Zaman that the new coalition is intended to “oppose sectarianism.” Futhermore, the paper added that talks are being held with the Shi'a Fadhila party and the Sadrist Current to join the anti-Maliki front. A leader in the Islamic Party told the newspaper that “the Sadrist Current is the closest movement to the ideas we adopt.”

In addition to 'Allawi’s parliamentary list, and several Sunni parties, the new anti-Maliki coalition is rumored to include Kurdish parties that are opposed federalism and to the mainstream Kurdish leadership, as well as several smaller parties and independent deputies. The “front” may also include a Kurdish politician -– Arshad Zibari -– who was a minister in Saddam’s administration. Az-Zaman added that Zibari, who enjoys a measure of popular support in Nineveh, had organized pro-Saddam Kurdish militias and fought many battles against the forces of Barazani and Talabani during Saddam’s rule.

It is also worthy to mention that Az-Zaman’s coverage of the anti-Maliki coalition was restricted to the London-based international edition of the publication and did not figure in the Iraq edition. As a general rule, news items that are deemed “polemical” or critical of powerful parties and politicians often get left out from the Baghdad print.

FOLLOW THE MONEY (OIL): TWELVE BENCHMARKS

2007-06-06T09:01:00.000-05:00

1. January 2003: The Wall Street Journal reported that representatives from Exxon Mobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, were meeting with Vice President Cheney's staff to plan the post- war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

2. March 2003: Iraqi Oil Ministry was one of the few structures the invading forces protected from looters in the first days of the war.

3. April 2003: During the initial assault on Baghdad, soldiers set up forward bases named Camp Shell and Camp Exxon.

4. May 22, 2003: President Bush signed Executive Order 13303 providing full legal immunity to all U.S. oil companies doing business in Iraq in order to facilitate the country's "orderly reconstruction."

5. November 2003: McKee (ConocoPhillips executive who is overseeing Iraqi oil industry) quietly ordered a new plan for Iraq's oil. The drafting would be overseen by a "senior adviser," Amy Jaffe, who ....now works for James Baker, the former Secretary of State, whose law firm serves as counsel to both ExxonMobil and the defense minister of Saudi Arabia. The plan, written by State Department contractor BearingPoint, was guided, says Jaffe, by a handful of oil-industry consultants and executives.

6. March 2004: Iraq's interim constitution, the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) passed in March 2004 by Iraq's Governing Council, sets forth that Coalition Provisional Authority laws, regulations, and orders are to remain in force after the transfer of sovereignty unless a duly enacted piece of legislation rescinds or amends them.

7. August 30, 2005: Bush says U.S. troops would continue fighting in Iraq in order to protect the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

8. February 2006-June 2006: USAID contracts with Bearing Point to draft Iraq’s oil law to provide "legal and regulatory advice in drafting the framework of petroleum and other energy-related legislation, including foreign investment".

9. March 15, 2006: Gen. John Abizaid, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said the United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil.

10. July 2006: U.S. Government and oil companies get a copy of the draft oil law. In September 2006 the Internation Monetary Fund and World Bank receive their copy.

11. February 2007: "Draft Hydrocarbon Law" was submitted first to the Iraqi Cabinet and then to the Iraqi Parliament (Council of Representatives) by the Cabinet.

12. April -May 2007: Defense Secretary Robert Gates and U.S. Vice President Cheney each travel separately to Baghdad to push political benchmarks and specifically the oil law.

From a Study of U.S. Influence on Iraqi Oil, by Erik Leaver, Carol and Ed Newman, Fellow Institute for Policy Studies June 4, 2007. Click above title to read full article and complete bibliography of sources.

Breaking News: Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End of Occupation This Year

2007-06-05T17:09:00.002-05:00

By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 5, 2007.While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament --now representing a majority of the body -- continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.
The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.

The law requires that any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's Prime Minister, be approved by the parliament. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Without the cover of the UN mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peace-keepers -- 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies -- the UN mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The resolution was initiated when a majority of Iraqi lawmakers signed a non-binding legislative petition two weeks ago that called on the Iraqi government to demand a withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.

While the issue of the Multinational Force's (MNF) mandate has been virtually ignored by the American media, it has been a point of fierce contention in Baghdad. Last fall, just after the mid-term elections in the U.S., a coalition of Iraqi nationalists in the parliament tried to attach conditions to the extension of the mandate.

Iraqi lawmaker Jabir Habib (a Shia closely aligned with the al-Sadrist Movement), said in an interview last fall that the Iraqi Assembly had been poised to vote on the issue: "We spent the last months discussing the conditions we wanted to add to the mandate," he said, "and the majority of the Parliament decided on three major conditions. These conditions included pulling the coalition forces out of the cities and transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqi government, giving Iraqis the right to recruit, train, equip, and command the Iraqi security forces, and requiring that the UN mandate expire and be reviewed every six months instead of every 12 months."

WIDER VIEW OF BAGHDAD MAP

2007-06-05T13:51:00.000-05:00

CLICK MAP TO ENLARGE AND SEE DETAIL

BAGHDAD MAP

2007-06-04T12:50:00.000-05:00

CLICK TO ENLARGE MAP

U.S. ADMITS PLANNING PERMANENT MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ

2007-06-04T09:30:00.000-05:00

The United States is constructing multiple military bases in Iraq, and a gigantic embassy in Baghdad. Even as the US Congress, media, and citizenry debate withdrawal from Iraq, indisputable evidence on the ground shows a permanent imperialistic plan for US-occupied Iraq, says Patrick Seale.

....This is a geopolitical development of the first importance. It is a clear statement that, in spite of its current difficulties in Iraq -- May was the most lethal month since 2004, with 119 U.S. soldiers killed -- the United States firmly intends to maintain control of Iraq and its vast oil reserves. Iraq’s neighbours and energy-hungry states and oil companies will take note.

On a visit to the U.S. Pacific Command in Honolulu on 31 May, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States was looking for a "long and enduring presence" in Iraq under a mutually agreed arrangement with the Iraq government.

"The Korea model is one, the security relationship we have with Japan is another," he said. U.S. troops have been in South Korea since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War and in Japan since the end of the Second World War.

Last week, the White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed that President George W. Bush wanted to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq at the invitation of the host government. "The situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time," he said.

....In the years since the invasion, there have been numerous journalistic accounts of mammoth bases the United States has built and continues to expand. There is the giant Al-Balad base covering 14 square miles some 40 miles north of Baghdad, formerly the Iraqi Air Force Academy. There is the even bigger Al-Asad (in al Anbar) base covering 19 square miles; the Al-Tallil base (Ali Air in Nasiriyah) ; the Al-Sarq (sic: Al Saqr or Rasheed/CampFalcon in Baghdad) base; the Al-Qayyarah (Q West, with 11,500 and 11,800 foot runways) base in the north, and many others. (corrections, clarifications are editor's)

Shortly after its invasion, the United Staes established 110 bases in Iraq. The present plan appears to consolidate these into 14 "enduring bases" in Iraqi Kurdistan, at Baghdad airport, in Anbar province and in the southern approaches to Baghdad.

Nor does the construction of a U.S. embassy able to house 1,000 staff on a 100 acre site on the banks of the Tigris -- the biggest U.S. embassy in the world -- point to an early U.S. disengagement from Iraq.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.

U.S. WARNS TURKEY AGAINST UNILATERAL ACTION...

2007-06-03T18:01:00.000-05:00

(as another blogger says: "He sure does have a leg to stand on!"

)By Steve Negus, Iraq correspondent, and Vincent Boland in Ankara
Published: June 3 2007 18:41 Last updated: June 3 2007 18:41

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, on Sunday warned Turkey not to invade northern Iraq amid a build-up of Turkish forces on the border between the two countries.

There is an intense internal debate in Turkey about whether Ankara should push across the border to root out guerrillas of the Kurdistan Workers’ party (PKK), based inside the Kurdish autonomous region of northern Iraq. Turkey accuses the PKK of launching attacks inside Turkish territory.

The Turkish government, which faces a general election next month, has appeared so far to want to avoid a military incursion. But a bomb attack in Ankara two weeks ago in which six people were killed, has been blamed on Kurdish separatists and put the issue of terrorism, and Turkey’s appropriate response to it, at the top of the election agenda.

The military holds a spring offensive in the region every year, but the build-up in recent days has taken on an ominous dimension amid ever-louder rhetoric from Turkey’s senior generals about the need to crush PKK fighters.

Speaking at a security conference in Singapore, Mr Gates expressed sympathy for Turkey’s “genuine concern with Kurdish terrorism that takes place on Turkish soil”.

However, he added that the US hoped that there “would not be a unilateral military action across the border into Iraq”.

DISPLACED IRAQIS: THE PRICE OF "PERMANENT OCCUPATION"

2007-06-02T09:13:00.000-05:00

800,000 Internally Displaced Persons

There are no safe places in Iraq. Militants or insurgents find you wherever you are,” Abdul-Yassin said. “Each time we arrived in a new camp, dozens of other families arrived with us.

Most of the places are full to bursting and some of the displaced families are forced to sleep rough on the ground without tents until aid agencies can give them some protection and food. In the camp where we are staying now, we were forced to sleep in the open air for three days and drink dirty water because the aid agencies couldn’t reach us,” he said.

Contaminated Water

“Displaced families in Anbar, Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf and all the southern provinces are suffering from a shortage of potable water,” a spokesperson for the Iraq Aid Association (IAA) said. “Some are drinking contaminated water and children can be seen nearly starving, requiring urgent water and food.” The UNHCR report confirmed the above, adding that there was an urgent need for shelter, food and non-food supplies, as well as jobs. Aid agencies say they face difficulties accessing IDPs many of whom face severe water shortages.

Unemployment

Unemployment remains the main cause of growing poverty among IDPs, according to Professor Jamal Obeidi, a displacement expert from Baghdad University and an analyst in the Ministry of Displacement and Migration. “If at least one person from each [displaced] family was working, they would have been earning money and been able to buy food for their families, despite the insecurity. The lack of jobs has put these families in the worst conditions,” Obeidi said. Income and employment are reported as priority issues for 65 percent of IDPs, according to the UN-affiliated International Organisation of Migration (IOM).

Lack of Food

Forty seven percent of displaced families in Iraq have no access to the national food programme, according to the country’s Ministry of Trade and the UNHCR. “Lack of security has prevented families getting to warehouses and many others have moved to southern provinces which have been tardy in registering the newly displaced. Some areas cannot cope and lack food to give to the population,” said Maruan Muhannad, a senior official in the Ministry of Trade. Obeidi recommended to the Ministry of Trade that it organise convoys to deliver food parcels directly to IDPs in displacement areas. “They could take the warehoused food which has no owner, fill a convoy and deliver directly to such families.” “Our children are sick because they do not receiving enough food. They are eating badly because we cannot get our share of the national food programme since we got displaced a year ago and have lost our documents,” said May Kareem, 34, a displaced mother of three who lives on the outskirts of the capital. “We cannot get food and cannot leave our place. If the government really wants to help, they could deliver food parcels to us,” she said.

INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS BY LOCATION (ROSE 50% IN 2006)

Northern Provinces 741,900
Central Provinces 450,000
Southern Provinces 716,500
Total 1,908,400

IRAQI REFUGEES

1,200,000 Syria (another 200,000 since these figures were quoted)
750,000 Jordan
100,000 Egypt
54,000 Iran
40,000 Lebanon
10,000 Turkey
200,000 Gulf States
175,000+ Elsewhere in World (Number in US: 6,000)

SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS

65,000 - 70,000

SOURCE: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

Dancewater also reports: "Figures provided by the Lancet study suggest that 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 in that same period (March 2003 through June 2006) were due to coalition airstrikes." Since April, 2003, Turse reports, the U.S. has dropped at least 59,787 pounds of cluster bombs in Iraq, a type of weapon Human Rights Watch(HRW) termed "the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use."

Addition: This is a summary of what was said by UNHCR spokesperson Jennifer Pagonis – to whom quoted text may be attributed – at the press briefing, on 5 June 2007, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

The situation in Iraq continues to worsen, with more than 2 million Iraqis now believed to be displaced inside Iraq and another 2.2 million sheltering in neighbouring states. Calls for increased international support for governments in the region have so far brought few results, and access to social services for Iraqis remains limited. Most of the burden is being carried by Jordan and Syria.

Inside Iraq, some 85 percent of the displaced are in the central and southern regions. Most of those displaced are from Baghdad and surrounding districts. Since February last year, an estimated 820,000 people have been displaced, including 15,000 Palestinians who have nowhere to go.

Individual governorates inside Iraq are becoming overwhelmed by the needs of the displaced. At least 10 out of the 18 governorates have closed their borders or are restricting access to new arrivals. UNHCR is receiving disturbing reports of regional authorities refusing to register new arrivals, including single women, and denying access to government services. Many displaced have been evicted from public buildings. Combined with the general lack of resources, this has led to a growing number of impoverished shanty towns. The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) and WFP indicate that at least 47 percent of the displaced have no access to official food distribution channels.

The number of Iraqis fleeing to neighbouring countries remains high. According to government figures, some 1.4 million Iraqis are now displaced in Syria, up to 750,000 in Jordan, 80,000 in Egypt and some 200,000 in the Gulf region. Syria alone receives a minimum of 30,000 Iraqis a month.

Recognition rates of Iraqis in various countries outside the region, particularly in Europe, remain low. UNHCR repeats its call for all borders to remain open to those in need of protection.
UNHCR is rapidly expanding its operations and presence in the region, but the magnitude of the crisis is staggering. We now have 300 staff working full time on Iraqi displacement. They are based in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Geneva and in Iraq itself. Since the beginning of the year, our offices in surrounding countries have registered more than 130,000 Iraqi refugees. By the end of May, UNHCR had interviewed some 7,000 of the most vulnerable Iraqis and sent their dossiers to potential resettlement countries for their further assessment and action. We urge these countries to make rapid decisions and facilitate the departure of those most in need. Resettlement, however, remains an option for only a few of the most vulnerable Iraqis. Our goal is to provide up to 20,000 Iraqi resettlement cases to governments this year.

Analysis of detailed statistics show that in Syria alone, about 47,000 of the 88,447 refugees registered since the beginning of this year are in need of special assistance. About a quarter of them require legal or protection assistance, including many victims of torture. Nearly 19 percent have serious medical conditions. UNHCR has opened two community outreach centres in Damascus and will shortly open two more. Food and medical aid is being provided to the most vulnerable. We are also working with an increasing number of local and international partners who are helping with health, education, counselling and vocational training.

Two international UNHCR staff are working in Erbil and another is scheduled to go to Baghdad when the security situation permits. These international staff are reinforcing more than 20 local UNHCR staff in seven locations in Iraq. Our goal is to provide basic assistance and shelter to some 300,000 uprooted Iraqis inside the country by the end of this year. This, however, is just a fraction of the overall needs. UNHCR legal aid centres in 18 governorates have provided advice to over 10,700 displaced Iraqis. By the end of 2007 we also plan to provide essential medical/health, food and individual assistance to 50,000 of the most vulnerable Iraqis in neighbouring countries.

CEASEFIRE TALK & MALIKI DESCRIBES RESPONSE TO SURGE

2007-05-31T10:43:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-28T19:37:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-25T04:26:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-05-24T16:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-23T08:07:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-05-21T09:16:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-18T09:58:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-17T08:38:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-15T06:12:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-15T04:49:00.000-05:00

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:

2007-05-14T19:03:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-14T18:29:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-13T09:33:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-13T08:15:00.000-05:00

....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

2007-05-12T06:20:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-11T23:50:00.001-05:00

NOAH MERRILL TALKS ABOUT THE IRAQ REFUGEE CRISIS

Cheney Warns Iran; Five Warplanes as Backdrop?

2007-05-11T23:37:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-11T13:27:00.000-05:00

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'?

2007-05-11T09:13:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-10T17:19:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-09T19:54:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-09T19:48:00.000-05:00

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

IRAQ'S OIL PRODUCTION FALLS SHORT OF GOALS

2007-05-07T07:29:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-06T13:20:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-04T07:03:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-03T08:57:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-03T08:01:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-01T09:33:00.001-05:00

Global Incident (updated constantly) Map

The Iraq War Coalition (not always updated) Fatalities

sample

MORE ON GEORGE TENET'S BOOK & 60 MINUTES

2007-04-29T22:42:00.001-05:00

.http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2739654n (WATCH IT)

Tenet opens with a scene that was to turn out prescient. As he entered the West Wing at 7:30 a.m. on Sept. 12, 2001, he writes, he encountered Richard Perle, chairman of the president’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.

“Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. They bear responsibility,” Tenet quotes Perle as saying.

As Tenet tells it, the CIA spent great amounts of energy and time trying — futilely, as it would turn out — to rein in the determination of Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and others to use the Sept. 11 attacks to justify removing Saddam from power, which they had failed to do during the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

As early as Bush’s first meeting at Camp David with his top advisers on the weekend after the attacks, Wolfowitz “was fixated on the question of including Saddam in any U.S. responses,” Tenet writes.

Thereafter, the National Security Council staff held regular meetings on Iraq in which discussion proceeded on the assumption that Saddam would be ousted. The confidence in that outcome was so high that sometimes, debate centered on details like whose portrait would be put on the country’s new currency, Tenet says.

“I didn’t pay enough attention to the gathering storm,” Tenet writes, blaming himself for not having done enough to stem the tide of sentiment to take out Saddam whatever the justification.
Bush is depicted as having been steamrollered by more ideological members of his administration. At one NSC meeting, Bush’s questions and body language led Tenet to conclude that “the President seemed less inclined to go war than many of his senior aides!”

Tenet reserves his harshest words for Cheney, who comes across as Machiavellian, ideological and surrounded by a coterie of overly self-confident advisers. But Tenet offers unflattering assessments of numerous other top Bush aides, as well.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, is painted as insecure and almost naive in some sections. At times, she strikes Tenet as incompetent; at others, she appears duplicitous. Overall, she is depicted as never being quite up to the task. Rice’s deputy at the time, Stephen Hadley, is portrayed as a mirror of his boss, but with an extra gloss of arrogance.

Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, comes in for a scorching review. To Tenet, no one else in the administration was so captive to the core beliefs of Wolfowitz and other neoconservative thinkers as Feith, to such an extent that he refused to brook any alternative interpretation of events.

And in characterizations certain to rankle some quarters of the administration, particularly the Defense Department, Tenet casts former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s rival, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as sharing Tenet’s principled doubts about the strategy for war.

SAUDI KING DECLINES TO RECEIVE IRAQI LEADER

2007-04-29T15:15:00.000-05:00

By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page A19

In a serious rebuff to U.S. diplomacy, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has refused to receive Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the eve of a critical regional summit on the future of the war-ravaged country, Iraqi and other Arab officials said yesterday.

BUT..........Iran to attend key Iraq meeting

April 29, 2007

Iran will attend a conference of key powers including the United States this week that will focus on stabilising Iraq, a meeting Baghdad said might be a turning point for regional cooperation in easing the violence.

Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said there's a "high possibility" arch foes Tehran and Washington will hold bilateral talks at the May 3-4 conference in Egypt, although not necessarily at the ministerial level.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who will attend the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, said she will not rule out the possibility of meeting directly with Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Iran-to-attend-key-Iraq-meeting/2007/04/29/1177787971184.html

A Failure in Generalship

2007-04-29T07:10:00.000-05:00

(excerpt is last section of his full article and the photo is courtesy of Raising Kaine) http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

"Yingling's comments are especially striking because his unit's performance in securing the northwestern Iraqi city of Tal Afar was cited by President Bush in a March 2006 speech and provided the model for the new security plan under way in Baghdad. He also holds a high profile for a lieutenant colonel, having attended the Army's elite School for Advanced Military Studies.The most insightful examination of failed generalship comes from J.F.C. Fuller's "Generalship: Its Diseases and Their Cure." Fuller was a British major general who saw action in the first attempts at armored warfare in World War I. He found three common characteristics in great generals — courage, creative intelligence and physical fitness." LOLITA C. BALDOR, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The Generals We Need: Lt. Col. Paul Yingling

The need for intelligent, creative and courageous general officers is self-evident. An understanding of the larger aspects of war is essential to great generalship. However, a survey of Army three- and four-star generals shows that only 25 percent hold advanced degrees from civilian institutions in the social sciences or humanities. Counterinsurgency theory holds that proficiency in foreign languages is essential to success, yet only one in four of the Army's senior generals speaks another language. While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage. In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent lack of candor on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters. Now that the public is immediately concerned with the crisis in Iraq, some of our generals are finding their voices. They may have waited too long.

Neither the executive branch nor the services themselves are likely to remedy the shortcomings in America's general officer corps. Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage. Officers rise to flag rank by following remarkably similar career patterns. Senior generals, both active and retired, are the most important figures in determining an officer's potential for flag rank. The views of subordinates and peers play no role in an officer's advancement; to move up he must only please his superiors. In a system in which senior officers select for promotion those like themselves, there are powerful incentives for conformity. It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.

If America desires creative intelligence and moral courage in its general officer corps, it must create a system that rewards these qualities....

Iraq is America's Valmy. America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers. As at Valmy, this one debacle, however humiliating, will not in itself signal national disaster. The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War. We still have time to select as our generals those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security. The power and the responsibility to identify such generals lie with the U.S. Congress. If Congress does not act, our Jena awaits us.

Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq

2007-04-28T01:13:00.000-05:00

.....Mr. Tenet largely endorses the view of administration critics that Mr. Cheney and a handful of Pentagon officials, including Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, were focused on Iraq as a threat in late 2001 and 2002 even as Mr. Tenet and the C.I.A. concentrated mostly on Al Qaeda.

Mr. Tenet describes helping to kill a planned speech by Mr. Cheney on the eve of the invasion because its claims of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq went “way beyond what the intelligence shows.”

“Mr. President, we cannot support the speech and it should not be given,” Mr. Tenet wrote that he told Mr. Bush. Mr. Cheney never delivered the remarks.

Mr. Tenet hints at some score-settling in the book. He describes in particular the extraordinary tension between him and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, in internal debate over how the president came to say erroneously in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

He describes an episode in 2003, shortly after he issued a statement taking partial responsibility for that error. He said he was invited over for a Sunday afternoon, back-patio lemonade by Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state. Mr. Powell described what Mr. Tenet called “a lively debate” on Air Force One a few days before about whether the White House should continue to support Mr. Tenet as C.I.A. director.

“In the end, the president said yes, and said so publicly,” Mr. Tenet wrote. “But Colin let me know that other officials, particularly the vice president, had quite another view.”

He writes that the controversy over who was to blame for the State of the Union error was the beginning of the end of his tenure. After the finger-pointing between the White House and the C.I.A., he wrote, “My relationship with the administration was forever changed.”

COVER-UP OF TILLMAN AND LYNCH INCIDENTS AT HIGHEST LEVELS

2007-04-24T14:51:00.000-05:00

Ranger Alleges Cover-Up in Tillman Death
Tillman Family, Lynch Address House Panel
By SCOTT LINDLAW and ERICA WERNER
AP
WASHINGTON (April 24) - An Army Ranger who was with Pat Tillman when he died by friendly fire said Tuesday he was told by a higher-up to conceal that information from Tillman's family. "I was ordered not to tell them," U.S. Army Specialist Bryan O'Neal told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

He said he was given the order by then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey, the battalion commander who oversaw Tillman's platoon. Pat Tillman's brother Kevin was in a convoy behind his brother when the incident happened, but didn't see it. O'Neal said Bailey told him specifically not to tell Kevin Tillman that the death was friendly fire rather than heroic engagement with the enemy. "He basically just said, 'Do not let Kevin know, he's probably in a bad place knowing that his brother's dead,'" O'Neal said. He added that Bailey made clear he would "get in trouble" if he told. Kevin Tillman was not in the hearing room when O'Neal spoke.

In earlier testimony, Kevin Tillman accused the military of "intentional falsehoods" and "deliberate and careful misrepresentations" in portraying Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan as the result of heroic engagement with the enemy instead of friendly fire.

There was additional testimony from Jessica Lynch, then an Army private, who was badly injured when her convoy was ambushed in Iraq. She was subsequently rescued by American troops from an Iraqi hospital but the tale of her ambush was changed into a story of heroism on her part. Still hampered by her injuries, Lynch walked slowly to the witness table and took a seat alongside Tillman's family members. "The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideals of heroes and they don't need to be told elaborate tales," Lynch said.

54.433 CASUALTIES AND BLOGGER CHALLENGES "HOPELESSLY MISBEGOTTEN POLITICAL" STRATEGY

2007-04-24T09:16:00.000-05:00

Home
US Iraq casualties rise to 54,433
Media
By Michael Munk
US military occupation forces in Iraq suffered at least 169 combat casulties in the week ending April 24, as total casualties reached at least 54,433.

Empire Notes concludes his weekly blog commentary today:

even if it (The United States) had the best intentions in the world, there is almost certainly nothing that it can do about that fragmentation now. Instead, it should limit itself to learning one of the key lessons from Vietnam: if your enterprise is hopelessly misbegotten politically, it cannot be saved by technical fixes.

The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism: Mahajan's newest book

Rahul Mahajan is a student at the University of Texas, Austin

Lee Iaccoca Has Had Enough

2007-04-23T16:45:00.000-05:00

Had Enough?

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?: order it

http://www.bordersstores.com/features/feature.jsp?file=wherehavealltheleadersgone: read it

CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP

2007-04-21T13:31:00.000-05:00

....President Bush has warmed to strategies and ideas he once rejected to turn around the violence and chaos in Iraq - such as sending thousands more troops to the country in an effort to calm Baghdad. His new crop of Iraq leaders bypasses ideologues and loyalists in favor of professionals with previous experience in Iraq and war zones.

"None of them are particularly ideological or were associated with the original public push for the war," said Kurt Campbell, chief executive officer of the nonpartisan, centrist Center for a New American Security. The new leaders "are probably quietly appalled that we find ourselves in the situation that we do in Iraq," Campbell said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17351284/ Olbermann: Condi's inaccurate historical comparison (SEE IT)

Baghdad Burning reports that: 'The World Health Organisation reported on Tuesday that Iraq’s hospitals are so dysfunctional that “70 percent of all critically injured patients with violence-related wounds die in emergency and intensive care units due to a shortage of competent staff and a lack of drugs and equipment”.'

ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS LOOTED THE US AND IRAQ TREASURIES: ETHICAL MALFEASANCE

2007-04-21T10:55:00.000-05:00

When Bremer Ruled Baghdad

When President Bush announced "Mission Accomplished," and the end of the war in May 2003, he also said we would help the citizens of Iraq rebuild their country. "Now that the dictator's gone," he stated, "we and our coalition partners are helping Iraqis to lay the foundations of a free economy."

....Bremer granted himself the authority to run the government ministries, appoint Iraqi officials and award contracts for reconstruction. Next he fired 500,000 Iraqis, most of them soldiers, but pink slips also went out to many doctors, nurses, teachers and other public employees as well.

For the most part, the CPA financed its activities with billions of dollars that belonged to the Iraqis. On May 22, 2003, a UN Security Council passed a resolution that directed the proceeds from Iraqi oil to be placed in a Development Fund for Iraq, and the CPA was granted authority to control the fund and decide which profiteers would get contracts. During the year that Bremer controlled the purse strings, the Iraqi Development Fund received $20.2 billion, including $8.1 billion from the UN's oil-for-food program, $10.8 billion from Iraqi oil, and the rest from repatriated funds, vested assets and donations.

The CPA accounting system was cash and carry and a steady stream of cash was flown into Bagdad from the US. Inspector General, Stuart Bowen later said that he knew of one $2 billion flight. A report released by the House Government Reform Committee in February 2007, shows that in the 13 months that Bremer ruled, from May 2003 to June 2004, the Federal Reserve Bank in New York shipped nearly $12 billion in a cash to Iraq. One can only imagine the Bank service charges associated with these shipments because to accomplish this feat, according to the Democratic chairman of the Reform Committee, Henry Waxman, the cash weighed 363 tons and the Bank had to count and pack 281 million individual bills, including more than 107 million $100 bills, and then load them onto wooden pallets to be shipped to Bagdad on C-130 cargo planes.

....In June 2004, the Government Accounting Office estimated that more than $1 billion in had been wasted due to illegal overcharges by contractors since the war began. A later audit by the Iraqi government found that as much as $1.27 billion was lost to accounting irregularities between June 2004 and February 2005.

....Not surprisingly, Cheney's Halliburton remained the top profiteer under Bremer's rule. A July 23, 2004, audit conducted by Bowen, showed the company had received 60% of all contracts paid for with Iraq money, including 5 no-bid contracts worth $222 million, $325 million, $180 million, and the last 2 together totaled $194 million for the last two. In comparison, the audit showed that the CPA awarded only 2% of the reconstruction contracts to Iraqi companies. In one example of blatant fraud, an audit found that Halliburton was charging for more than 41,000 meals a day for soldiers when only about 14,000 were served.

....Senator Robert Byrd said he was outraged over the inability to monitor CPA spending. "There is no reason why any arm of the executive branch charged with making such significant spending decisions," he said, "should not be working directly with Congress." "Former Bush Administration officials," he warned fellow Senators, "are even setting up consulting firms to act as middlemen for contractors hoping to take part in the bonanza." "Are we turning the U.S. Treasury into a grab bag for favorite campaign contributors to be financed at taxpayer expense?" he asked.

The answer was yes, and what a grab bag it was. Media reports revealed that Bush's ex-campaign manager and Feith's former law partner had set up consulting firms to profit off the war by lining up contracts for clients through their partners in crime within the CPA. Other reports revealed that contracts worth $407 were awarded to a firm called Nour that was formed less than 2 months after the war began. The names linked to the profits from Nour, among many others, included former Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, Ahmad Chalabi via a $2 million kickback, his nephew Salam Chalabi as the attorney handling the deal, and the money trail even led to the First Brothers, Marvin and Jeb Bush. But come to find out, Doug Feith the ringleader on the ground in Washington, had awarded a batch of no-bid contracts to a favored company the month before the war began for the purpose of controlling the media in post-war Iraq.

The favored companies enjoyed a fraud-free-all. For instance, Halliburton said it had lost over $60 million worth of government property including trucks, office furniture and computers. Inspector Bowen reported that 6,975 items valued at $61.1 million were lost, and in June 2005, the Defense Contract Audit Agency reported that the Halliburton had overcharged or presented questionable bills for close to $1.5 billion.
In the end, Bowen's audit concluded that "the CPA's internal controls for approximately $8.8 billion in DFI funds disbursed to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process failed to provide sufficient accountability for the use of those funds."

As of February 2007, according to Bowen, audits of the CPA have resulted in 300 criminal and civil investigations, 5 arrests and convictions, and another 23 cases are currently under prosecution at the DOJ, and he is working on 76 on-going investigations. One of the convictions involved Robert Stein, a former CPA comptroller and funding officer, who recently pleaded guilty to 5 felony counts including conspiracy, money laundering, and bribery in stealing more than $2 million of reconstruction funds and taking more than $1 million in kickbacks to rig the bids on contracts that exceeded $8 million.

....The whistleblower case against Custer Battle went to trial and a jury found that Custer had committed 37 acts of fraud and filed $3 million in false claims, and rendered a verdict with a $10 million penalty. However, the verdict was overturned by Republican appointed US District Court Judge TS Ellis III, who ruled that the CPA was not a US entity and therefore the false claims act does not apply to it. In the ruling, the judge said Custer's accusers "failed to prove that the U.S. government was ever defrauded. Any fraud that occurred was perpetrated instead against the Coalition Provisional Authority, formed to run Iraq until a government was established."

Legal experts say this ruling is great news for the CPA and contractors because from now on anyone charged with any act of fraud related to the Iraqi money doled out by the CPA in Bagdad will use it in attempt to avoid civil or criminal prosecution.
Evelyn Pringle can be reached at: evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net

BILL MOYERS SLAMS MEDIA'S PRE-WAR COVERAGE

2007-04-21T05:49:00.000-05:00

Next week, PBS welcomes the triumphant return of "Bill Moyers Journal" with a 90-minute documentary "Buying the War," a sharp indictment of the media's coverage of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Bill Moyers returns to PBS Wednesday night with a smackdown of the media performance leading to the Iraq war

Greg Mitchell at E&P got his hands on an advance copy, and rates the program highly:
"While much of the evidence of the media's role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility."

Mitchell also lists some statistics Moyers cites in the show:
Number of William Safire op-eds "fanning the sparks of war" in the year before the invasion: 27
Number of front-page Washington Post stories during the same period that made the Administration's case for war: 140
Number of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on CBS, NBC, and ABC in the six months prior to the war traced back solely to a White House source: Nearly all of them

ANOTHER NOT SO HUMOROUS SIDE OF JOHN MCCAIN?

2007-04-20T09:43:00.000-05:00

In response to an audience question about military action against Iran, the Arizona senator briefly sang the chorus of the surf-rocker classic "Barbara Ann."

"That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran," he said in jest Wednesday, chuckling with the crowd. Then, he softly sang to the melody: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ..." The audience responded with more laughter.

His quip was prompted by a man in the audience who asked: "How many times do we have to prove that these people are blowing up people now, nevermind if they get a nuclear weapon, when do we send 'em an airmail message to Tehran?"

My thoughts: Sounds like PTSD to me. Dissociating likely, decompensating from the pressures of his Iraq stance and endorsement of Bush policies.

UPDATED IRAQ MAP (CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE) and UPDATED BAGHDAD MAP

2007-04-19T05:52:00.000-05:00

2 MILLION INTERNALLY DISPLACED IRAQIS: STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF UN

2007-04-19T05:38:00.000-05:00

(There are) almost 2 million internally displaced Iraqis, of whom over 700,000 have been displaced in the past 14 months. Reports indicate that internal displacement is continuing and, unless peace and stability are restored soon, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) will likely increase.

People are leaving their homes because of the violence in Iraq and while many have sought safety in neighboring countries – as is their right under international law many are unwilling or unable to leave their country. Although systematic data are lacking, it is likely that those who are internally displaced are even more vulnerable than refugees: IDPs are closer to the conflict which led to their displacement and the provision of humanitarian assistance inside Iraq is extremely difficult.

BOMBS KILL 178 IN BAGHDAD TODAY

2007-04-18T14:22:00.001-05:00

Iraqi men evacuate a burned body from the site of a car bomb explosion at Baghdad's al-Sadriyah neighborhood.

NEWEST STATISTIC: OVER 190 KILLED

BAGHDAD (AP) - April 18, 2007 - Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 178 people and wounding scores - the deadliest day in the city since the start of the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital two months ago.

WAS JUST A "SCHOOL OF TERROR", BUT NOW A "UNIVERSITY"

2007-04-18T05:29:00.000-05:00

Qaeda Group Says Iraq A “University of Terror” Developing its own Quds-1 Rocket?

THE POLITICAL BATTLE IN IRAQ:

2007-04-18T04:48:00.000-05:00

The stakes are immense. The political battle is about control. Each Shiite party wants power in Baghdad, the so-called mid-Euphrates provinces, Najaf and Karbala, which are home to Shiite Islam's holiest sites, and the southern province Basra with its vital oil resources and maritime facilities.

"The only thing that [the parties] agree on is remaining in power and confronting one another. There is a negative meeting point, and that's not enough to build a government," says Mr. Dawod.
More than two years since their ascent to the helm for the first time in Iraq's modern history, Shiites have proven that the UIA is little more than a pragmatic marriage of convenience. So far, they have failed to transcend differences and reach out to the country's other communities, mainly the embattled Sunni Arabs.

"There is a great failure by the government," says Dawod. "And unfortunately, because of the situation in Iraq now, this failure does not lead to an alternative government coming to power but more chaos."

But Faleh Jabar, another Iraq expert, says he believes Maliki, who is under tremendous pressure from Washington to deliver on a number of benchmarks that are primarily aimed at promoting reconciliation and resuscitating the economy, may survive the withdrawal of the Sadrists. They held six cabinet posts: health, transport, agriculture, tourism, civil society, and provincial affairs.

"It's possible if the Kurds and [SCIRI] go on supporting him," says Mr. Jabar, director of the Beirut-based Iraqi Institute for Strategic Studies. "And if the Sunnis feel that Maliki is dealing with security in a fair-handed manner."

Jabar explains that more Sunnis could gravitate toward Maliki if they genuinely feel that he is targeting militias implicated in sectarian killing, namely Sadr's Mahdi Army.

By Sam Dagher, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

BREAKING THE HEARTS AND INSULTING THE MIND OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE:

http://empirenotes.org/abuhanifa.html

Issam Rashid, chief of security for the mosque, told us the story. At 3:30 am on Sunday morning, 100 American troops raided the mosque, looking for weapons and resistance fighters. They started the raid the way they virtually always do -- by smashing in the gates with tanks and then driving Hummers in. The Hummers ran over and destroyed some of the stored relief goods (the bulk of the goods had already been sent to Fallujah -- over 200 tons -- but the amount remaining was considerable). More was destroyed as soldiers ripped apart sacks looking for rifles. Rashid estimated maybe three tons of supplies were destroyed. We saw for ourselves some of the remains, sacks of beans ripped apart and strewn around.

The mosque was full of people, including 90 down from Kirkuk with the Red Crescent, arranging for further aid to Fallujah. They were all pushed down on the floor, with guns put to the backs of their heads. Another person associated with the mosque, Mr. Alber, who speaks very good English, told us that he repeatedly said, "Please, don't break down doors. Please, don't break windows. We can help you. We can have custodians unlock the doors." (Alber, by the way, was imprisoned by Saddam for running a bakery. As he said, "Under the embargo, you could eat flour, you could eat sugar, you could eat eggs, all separately. But mix them together and bake them and you were harming the economy by raising the price of sugar and you could get 15 years in prison.)

The Americans refused to listen to Alber's pleas. We went all around the mosque and the adjacent madrassah, the Imam Aadham Islamic College. We saw dozens of doors broken down, windows broken, ceilings ripped apart, and bullet holes in walls and ceilings. The way the soldiers searched for illicit arms in the ceiling was first to spray the ceiling with gunfire, then break out a panel and go up and search.

They even went and rifled through students' exam papers. A feeble old man with a limp who is a "guard" at the mosque (actually a poor man with a large family who is given housing by the imam of the mosque) was hit in the head with a rifle butt and then kicked when he was down -- all because he was a little slow in answering the door. He says he never carries a weapon -- the whole mosque has only three Kalashnikovs, for security, kept in the imam's room (the soldiers confiscated their ammunition in the raid). And, of course, they entered the mosque with their boots on.

The American commanders will say this was a necessary precaution to make sure no military goods got into Fallujah and that this was legal under the laws of war. But the Abu Hanifa mosque was not involved in any illicit activities – nothing was found. The soldiers didn't bother to ask. They didn't go to the Imam and see if they could search to mosque. And, after a year of being stationed in Aadhamiyah, they didn't know the people well enough to know there would be nothing -- even though they were told repeatedly that the resistance in that area never fired from near the mosque because they were afraid of drawing return fire that would hit the mosque.

You can guess how many hearts and minds were won by this little operation -- the third time that the mosque has been raided since the war.

Abu Hanifa mosque has a tower that is being reconstructed. It was destroyed by the American attack during the war and is only now being finished, one year later. Rashid told me why. He said, "After the war, the Americans came and offered money to rebuild the tower. We told them no. We will rebuild the tower with our own money. We will take no money from you. You can't just destroy things and then win our goodwill by paying us off. This is not a game."

Administration Loosens Iraq Refugee Requirements

2007-04-17T12:55:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration is sending to Congress draft special immigrant visa (SIV) legislation, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky announced today in Geneva at the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' international conference on Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons.

She is pictured here at the announcement with Ellen Sauerbrey

US announces USD 18 million, Iraq USD 25 million GENEVA, April 17 (KUNA) -- US Under-Secretary of State Paaula Dobriansky announced today that her government expects in 2007 to provide USD 100 million in humanitarian assistance for Iraqis, both inside and outside Iraq.

She added, in a news conference today, that the US will also contribute USD 18 million to the United Nations High Commissioner (UNHCR) emergency appeal for Iraqi displacement.

Dobriansky added that the US might be able to take this year for resettlement some 25,000 Iraqi asylum seeker. The US official in charge of Democracy and Global affairs said that the US is taking into consideration the plight of 40,000 third-country refugees still living in Iraq among them 15,000 Palestinians. Dobriansky said it is the responsibility of the Iraqi government and UNHCR to protect those refugees.

NOTE: For a number of years the refugee program for Iraqis citizens has severely limited approval to immigrate to the United States. Since April 2003 only 690 Iraqis have been admitted, and have been under close scrutiny by State Department officials. They have had to be interviewed outside the US Embassy and military officers have often been required to provide extensive documentation in their behalf. As the Congress has come under Democratic supervision there has been an effort to open up refugee doors to the US. See:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041607J.shtml

CAN WE EVER BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY?

2007-04-17T05:05:00.000-05:00

New email reveal holes in Attorney General's story...

A recently released email from the Justice Department appears to conflict with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' assertion that he was uninvolved in the firing of 8 US attorneys last December, reports ABC News...

Also, in a closed door meeting with congressional investigators over the weekend, Sampson told senators that President George Bush went to Gonzales in October to notify him of complaints regarding fired New Mexico attorney David Iglesias, according to the Associated Press.

....RAW STORY reported yesterday on an Albuquerque Journal article that alleged that Iglesias was fired after Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) complained to Bush.

"During a phone call with reporters on Monday, [New York Senator Chuck] Schumer said Sampson's statement contradicts what Gonzales has said previously about the firings," continued the AP.

PERSIAN ROOTS IN IRAQ

2007-04-16T17:52:00.000-05:00

NAJAF, IRAQ — Persian script laces and flows across the walls of Najaf's seminaries.

Shiite Muslim religious scholars in the ancient city's turquoise-tiled edifices bury their noses in Koranic texts illustrated with Persian calligraphy, in scenes that evoke Mesopotamia's rich history. For centuries, Najaf has been a key shrine city and center of worship for much of Iraq's people. But for centuries, Iraq's Ottoman and Arab rulers rarely considered Najaf part of their own history. It was always considered a troublesome outpost of the enemy: Iran.

They were right, for the most part. Historically and culturally, Najaf has long been under Persia's sway. But so has much of Iraq. The reading of the Koran in this country differs from the rest of the Muslim world: The rhythm and cadence of Sunnis are unique to Iraq and the Shiites' are unique to Iran. Persian dishes such as fesenjan, a pomegranate stew, are a standard part of Mesopotamian fare. Even this nation's capital carries a Persian name, Baghdad.

The sectarian nature of the war between Shiite and Sunni Arabs in Iraq reflects a centuries-old battle between Persia and the Arab world. It is a point often misunderstood by U.S. policymakers and ground commanders, who perceive the reemergence of Persian influence among Iraq's newly powerful Shiite Muslim majority as proof of meddling by the regime in Tehran.

Rising Persian influence is a sign of Iraq's ascendance, not Iran's. "Iraq has been part of the Persian sphere of influence for more than 400 years," said Karar Dastour, an Iraqi Shiite intellectual who lives in southern Tehran and travels to Iraq. "But governments have always tried to crush anything that had the scent of Shiism or Iran. They were never accepted."

Violent Sunni Arab rejection of Iraq's Persian roots plays out daily on the streets of the capital. In February, three bombs went off in the Shorja market in central Baghdad, killing more than 70 people. It was the fifth time the place, whose name means "salty well" in Persian, was struck in less than a year. Shiite Muslims were the intended targets, but so too was a landmark established long ago by Iranian merchants. When saboteurs blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year, an attack widely viewed as the accelerant of the current civil war, they destroyed the handiwork of Iranian artisans.

In their Internet postings, Sunni Arab insurgents, many of them officers during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, describe their attacks on Shiites as settling accounts with "Safavids," a reference to the 16th century dynasty that embraced Shiite Islam as the official religion of Persia. Shiite Safavids and Sunni Ottomans fought for decades in a conflict that infused sectarianism into what had been a centuries-old ethnic and political conflict between Arabs and Persians."

There has always been conflict between the Arabs and Iranians, and they always tried to involve Iraq," Sheik Humam Hamoodi, an Iraqi Shiite politician and cleric who lived in Tehran during Saddam Hussein's rule, said in an interview last year. "Both have wanted to use Iraq as the trench for their battles."

Ignoring the protests of many Shiites, the British forces who forged modern-day Iraq after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire placed a Sunni Arab tribal leader at the country's helm. They dismissed the quarrelsome Shiite clerics as Iranian-backed interlopers in their plans to create an Iraq dominated by Sunni Arabs.

GAYS GETTING TARGETED BY IRAQ REGIME

2007-04-16T17:39:00.000-05:00

Government Denies Gays Are Targets of Killings

NEO-CON-VERSION

2007-04-16T10:08:00.000-05:00

YouTube capture Analysis by Andrew Sullivan

"The BBC's interviewers are not as deferent as some in America. Paxman is among the most aggressive.

What staggers me about this clip is Bolton's point-blank view that the US had no responsibility to impose order after the invasion, and no responsibility for security within the country. Bolton actually says that the only error Bush really made was not giving the Iraqis "a copy of the Federalist papers and saying, 'Good luck.'" Yes, he says he's exaggerating for effect, but he is conveying the gist of the policy.

The casual recklessness and arrogance of these people never cease to amaze. The world is theirs' to play with -- and the victims of a vortex of predictable and predicted violence are just left to help themselves."

PLEASE, PLEASE, JUST MOVE THE BODIES

2007-04-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

Every aspect of life in Iraq is steadily worsening a report by the International Committee (ICRC) of the Red Cross has said today. The situation is affecting, directly or indirectly, all Iraqis, whose protection must be a priority, the report suggests, and highlights that dead bodies are often left lying in the streets. The conflict is inflicting immense suffering on the whole population with a simple trip to the market becoming a matter of life and death.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today Programme this morning, Canon Andrew White, who is based in Baghdad, confirmed the situation. "What you see on your television screens is just a small percentage of the horror of what is going on," he said. The report seeks to draw attention to what life in Iraq is like, four years after Saddam Hussein was toppled. The bombings and abductions in Iraq happen with such deadly frequency these days they hardly make the headlines.

Recently Red Cross workers asked Iraqi women about their lives and what might be done to help them. The answer was a shock, according to Pierre Kraehenbuehl, ICRC director of operations.

What they would really like is help to "collect the bodies that line the streets in front of our homes every morning and that we find nobody dares to touch or remove," one woman said.She added the women found it "simply unbearable" to confront their children with them morning after morning as they tried to take them to school.

The Red Cross says every aspect of life in Iraq is getting worse. Access to basics like water and electricity are increasingly difficult - so much so that many Iraqis have given up hoping for big improvements and focus on small ones like clearing the bodies from the streets.

The famously neutral International Red Cross will not blame anyone in particular for what it calls the current disastrous security situation. But it does say that everyone with political and military influence in Iraq must do more to protect civilians. The report makes it clear is that nobody, not the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces, has done enough so far.

TURKEY WANTS TO LAUNCH INCURSIONS INTO IRAQ

2007-04-12T12:35:00.000-05:00

By ROBERT Y. PELTON

If its Spring, it must be time for the Turkish military to begin their annual attacks on Kurdish rebels. In the past the fighting was portrayed as a recognized U.S. ally putting down a communist inspired rebel group. The problem is that the former Cold War battle has been reframed into an ethnic fight for freedom with the defacto establishment of Kurdistan in Iraq.

The head of the Turkish military, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, announced large scale offensives in the southeast Kurdish area of Turkey.

Their primary focus has been the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK but it has been an ongoing battle to prevent Kurds from establishing their own autonomy in the historic Kurdish areas in both Turkey, Syria and Iran The thirty year war against the Marxist PKK has left 37,000 people dead since 1984.