 |
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Yet, in a March 26 interview, no less an anti-war icon than Joan Baez cited Sheehan as one of a line of inspiring anti-establishment figures who plowed the ground in preparation for Obama's ascension.
"There was Cindy Sheehan, and now Obama," Baez was quoted as saying in a a recent interview in Canada's Edmonton Journal. "I've never felt that there was any government that spoke for me. Never. But you could say that anyone running for president that has the Life of Mahatma Gandhi in his top 10 book list, and puts compassion back in the English language, or considers speaking to heads of state that are supposedly "enemies" of ours, well, you have to take that seriously."The above is from Matt Smith's " Anti-War Smackdown: Baez vs. Sheehan on Whether Obama Deserves His Own Camp Casey" ( San Francisco Weekly) and we've been really, really kind and we've bit our tongues when it comes to Joan And a ___ To Sing With Baez. I'm really damn sick of Joan Baez at this point. We could take this any number of ways. We could note how 'brave' bi-sexual Joan gets tons of snickers because it wasn't just Kim and her interest in Kim had to do somewhat with Kim also being Janis Joplin's lover. I'll set Mimi aside because I still appreciate Mimi and doubt very seriously Mimi, were she alive, would have pimped Barack. But the difference between Joan and Mimi was always that Mimi did her own work. She never needed an Ira or some other sap to give her a Little Golden Book entitled Political Complexities Made Simple. Joan of course thrived on such things and was more than happy to let anyone and everyone else do the work for her. Most of the time, I just roll my eyes and bite my tongue when it comes to Joan. Most of the time. But then she decided to endorse a presidential candidate. For the first time ever. And please note, I've bit my tongue. I was asked to. I was told how hard life was for Joan these days, losing so many family members in such a short span of time, her mother moving in with her, blah, blah, blah. I even stared at Joan dumbfounded as she explained how Gabe (her son) 'brought her to Barack'. A conversion experience. That was hilarious. So Joanie Phonie, as Al Kapp once dubbed her, found herself bathed in the blood of the War Hawk Barack and she had to testify. Sister Joan had to to convert others. So she WHORED out what little was left of her reputation, that small modicum of decency her name still carried, to endorse the War Hawk Barack. She knows nothing about him. And best as most of us can tell, her endorsement was just some sort of penance for her continued use of the word "Negro" to describe anyone Black or African-American. She always thinks she's cute and funny when she does that. And you can tell her it's offensive and you can ask her to stop it and she refuses to. She's the Queen. The queen of what? Don't ever ask her that, she'll stare at you dumb founded. While many might take offense at many Americans thinking she was the basis for Bob Dylan's "Queen Jane Approximately" (it's not a nice song), Joan loves it. She loves it because she gets to be a "queen" but most of all, she loves it because it convinces her that even though Bob had Sarah, he must have felt something for her, just a little something. She wrote the pathetic "Diamonds and Rust" and he burned with "Queen Jane Approximately." What's really pathetic is she wrote "Diamonds and Rust" about him long after her he'd skewered her in "Queen Jane Approximately." But again, she saw the song as a compliment. It has to do with an oversized ego. Queen? She's not a peace queen. A peace queen doesn't endorse Barack. Forget Sammy Power for a moment, forget Dennis Ross and just zoom in on Sarah Sewall and how she has worked extensively with the military throughout her adult career. Ava and I covered Sarah "Sewer," December of 2007, in " TV: Charlie Rose by any other name would still be as bad:" For those not in the know about Sewer, when not appearing on TV to look like an unwashed freak who just pulled her hair to one side, is a Bloody War Hawk. Some call her a War Whore, but we try to avoid that term and just call her a War Hawk with an "ugly" sometimes tossed in. As a War Hawk she operates out of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy which is really just a fancy way of saying she's a Destruction Pusher. There's no place on the globe that she doesn't feel her big nose can be stuck in and should be stuck in. Granted, it is a large beak, a ski run -- if you will, and it probably is difficult for her to contain it in her so-so dwellings, but not only does no one need to see it, no one wants to.As an Ugly War Hawk, she needs a running buddy and, as many stunted woman know, when you're butt-ugly, you hook up with someone even more butt-ugly so that you can be the 'pretty' one of the pair. Hence her hooking up with Monty who currently bastardizes and betrays the social science of anthropology in order to target populations for military operations.Monty and Sewer teamed up with Mad Maddie Albright and other demented nut jobs to offer up the International Women Leaders Global Security Summit, which Rose was more than happy to promote. 'Global Security' isn't about peace and none of the women involved are 'leaders' -- though calling them criminals wouldn't be stretching the truth.Monty's official bio by the org notes she's "a cultural anthropologist who works on defense and national security issues" and that she's a professor ("adjunct," not full) at the War Hawk institution John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. It's a threadbare bio but, when you're having to hawk that she published in Joint Forces Quarterly, there's not a great deal you can say about her work in her alleged field. Sewer's official bio brags about her work on "counterinsurgency and U.S. strategy in the 'long war'." It says nothing to the effect that "in her free time, Dr. Sewer likes to bite the heads off of kittens and set puppies on fire," but maybe that's implied?Monty and Sewer worked on a little thing called the US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. You may have seen that piece of War Porn advertised. Ourselves, we remember the third of the page advertisement that ran in the October 2007 issue of The Progressive (page 28) which included a blurb from The Problem From Hell Sammy Power. When Our Modern Day Carrie Nations is blurbing you, you know you're on the path, if not the eve, of destruction.On that broadcast, Sarah's bragging about having Barack's ear, bragging about getting stuff in his speeches. And that is who Joan Baez endorsed, this century's LBJ. She's still babbling about Barack because, apparently, Afghanistan lives don't matter to the 'Peace' Queen. Apparently, ending the war in Iraq doesn't matter to the 'Peace' Queen. Here's reality for Joan and her flunkies have shielded her from it but if she weren't so eager to live in ignorance, they wouldn't have been able to: She can't tour. Joan toured Canada for a reason, she's destroyed her base in the US. In 2003, she had a very successful tour. It did better business than anyone could have predicted and it was supposed to be the comeback of Joan. She didn't just go to the safe spots like Boston, she went all over the country and she was received with this huge outpouring of love. That was in part for an incredible album ( Dark Chords On A Big Guitar) which is probably the finest thing she's done since the sixties. But it was also because of who she was seen as. Her tour attracted crowds and these included large numbers of people who had never seen her live. The US had started the illegal war and people went to Joan's concerts knowing she would say something, she would speak out. And she didn't disappoint. She sewed up a fan base that should have carried her through the last act of her life. They were there for her. And then she endorsed Barack. She's got the holdouts that will always be there. That demographic? It wasn't big enough to get her a recording contract in the eighties. Translation, twenty years ago, when she was quite a bit more fresh faced and her voice a lot more flexible, no label would touch her because she couldn't move units. Her audience was too small. She worked it up -- despite cat fights left and right. (And cat fights is the only word for it. When she can't, for example, get along with Sheena Easton, when Joan Baez feels Sheena Easton is a threat, Joan has a problem, a very serious one.) Though she'd never done s**t for any other women, she worked the 'we're all sisters in music' vibe during the 90s to try and increase her audience. But it was the Iraq War and that amazing Dark Chords On a Big Guitar album that gave her the chance to be legendary and not just weren't-you-someone-in-the-sixties? She blew it. She shot herself in the foot and slit her own throat. The "Peace" Queen might endorse a Ralph Nader or a Cynthia McKinney, but she would never endorse a corporatist candidate and certainly not a War Hawk. Joan's fans, the new ones, the ones who were going to allow her to have a career for two more decades, they're gone. They split the second she endorsed Barack. They're not coming back. The woman who stood up to LBJ and Richard Nixon, the woman who bragged that she was for peace and left or right didn't matter, peace did, that woman doesn't exist. If she ever did, current day Joan killed her off. Now in fairness to Joan (whom I've known for many years), there was extreme pressure placed on many. And the biggest arm twisters, believe it or not, were the losers who endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000. I call them losers because they won't endorse him now. They ran from him following the 2000 election. The beared couple, the lavender one, with the infamous kiddie porn collection (they've learned to be more careful about where they have that film developed), for example. They ran from him. And they and a Jeff Chandler who fancied himself a star decided they were "Political Hollywood" and went around threatening and bullying people. (Their power has hugely eroded -- in part due to the election, in part due to box office proving they're non-stars and in part due to the fact that everyone's so damn sick of them and the orders they think they can issue. And, honestly, in part because the years are giving them bodies and faces that match their insides.) So you saw a lot of people, who quite frankly intended to stay out of the presidential race in the general election, make some mealy mouthed pro-Barack statement. So that pressure and her own stupidity may account for why she makes inane remarks like the one Matt Smith's quoting above. But when she decided to hop on board, it hadn't come to that. She made her endorsement because she was told it would help with California's Latino vote. (She was already supporting Barack by that point, Gabe had brought her to him. When that became known, she was urged to make a public statement by several Barack Cultists at higher level. Hence her badly written San Francisco Chronicle column.) Now Hillary carried California and carried the Latino vote. That wasn't a surprise. Joan's name doesn't mean a damn thing to the Latino community because she's spent so many years avoiding it. This isn't Rita Moreno who has proudly embraced her roots and been embraced back. Not only could she not pull in Latino support, she destroyed her own support. It was pointed out, by many, that in the Bay Area, she works with the Green Party more than any other so what the hell is she doing endorsing anyone not of the Green Party? Her downfall is not unlike Michael Moore's. They were seen as truth tellers, not party hacks. Fat Ass Michael Moore is just an embarrassment. He's always been a bad film maker (for all the reasons Pauline Kael explored when trashing his first 'documentary') but he was seen as independent and someone who would call out anyone. Then he became a Democratic Party cheerleader. Convinced that if he didn't his career was over. He's craven and disgusting and that should have been clear to everyone when he was making 'jokes' about Mumia. They weren't jokes. Mumia Abu-Jamal is on death row and Michael Moore's writing 'C'mon, we all know he did it.' That wasn't funny. And to try to say it was a joke after? How about this, Michael, when your fat ass is on death row, we'll all make jokes about whether or not the first ten minutes in the electric chair would smell like someone was melting Crisco? Will that be funny? Moore's no longer seen as independent (and his latest nonsense posted at Information Clearing House explains why) and he's not even seen as smart. Sicko should have been his biggest hit. It was an 'easy' topic and he had all the Democratic Party organs pimping that bad documentary. With all the easy publicity, it didn't top his Iraq film. Nothing ever will and the reason is because he has run off his audience. He did that, no one else. Now he may be able to have the level of 'success' Robert does (Robert Greenwald) in the future, but Robert's not box office. And Moore really isn't anymore either. He could have been the Hitchcock of documentaries (he certainly had the vanity for it) but instead he became a Democratic Party cheerleader. Reality for Joan and Michael, the country has more non-Democrats than it does Democrats. That's not to say "more Republicans." Check the voting records. See who shows up of those eligible -- not just those registered. A huge portion of Americans are not interested in the yes-you-did-no-you-didn't partisan shouting that passes for political dialogue in this country. Joan and Michael could have been embraced by Democrats and Republicans and by those who were Greens, independents, swing-voters, etc as well as those who did not wish to participate in the election system in this country. Instead they allowed themselves to be turned into Democratic Party hacks. There's really no career in that or in being a Republican party hack. Find a Democratic Party hack with a career and chances are she (or he, but usually she) has a large, large gay following (meaning she's a gay icon). Otherwise? There's really no career. And it's not that America abhors politics, it's that they don't care for hacks. Opposing the illegal war was never going to be a kiss of death career move. It was brave and even those who might disagree with you, could still respect you. (Provided you didn't go to Baghdad and deliver speeches asking for US soldiers to defect.) Because as Americans, we are taught to respect that brave stand. We don't all do that but enough of us do that someone taking a brave stand on the Iraq War didn't have to worry about a career ending. (Equally true is that taking a brave stand can turn a minor act into one with a lengthy career, much longer than would have taken place otherwise.) But there are brave stands and there is cheerleading. Michael Moore's columns are 'wonderful, wonderful Dems.' His latest nonsense is praising the firing of the head of GM and, thing is, no intelligent person reading that column will not immediately wonder, "If Bush had done this would Moore be praising it or calling it a huge abuse of presidential power?" When that happens, you've lost your credibility. Truth tellers should never attempt to be party organs, it is the, roll credits, end. This wasn't the planned entry. The planned entry was going to be about why Republicans in the Senate want Chris Hill to be the new ambassador. I may go into that in tomorrow's snapshot but may save it for Sunday night instead. But if the press trying to present Joan and Cindy Sheehan as two voices of peace with conflicting messages then it's important to stress that Joan's not a voice of peace and hasn't been for some time. She's a Barack cheerleader. That's all she is. And, no, Joan, it doesn't make up for using the term "Negro." You need to drop it, it's offensive. It's over, I'm done writing songs about loveThere's a war going onSo I'm holding my gun with a strap and a gloveAnd I'm writing a song about warAnd it goesNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warNa na na na na na naI hate the warOh oh oh oh-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!) Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4259. Tonight? 4263.iraqi hate the warthe balletcindy sheehanjoan baezmichael moore
Posted at 09:15 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, April 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's LGBT community remains under attack, Gareth Porter reports on the assaults on the "Awakenings," a new DoD report spins 'progress' and more.
The country Iraq, liberated by U.S. forces and purportedly on the road to democracy, is set to execute more than 100 prisoners accused of the crime of homosexuality, says a GLBT group headed by an exiled Iraqi gay man.The charge comes from Iraqi LGBT, which is run from London by exiled gay Iraqi Ali Hili, according to a March 31 article posted at UK Gay News. Hili claims that the prisoners face execution from the Iraqi government in groups of 20 starting this week. A total of 128 Iraqis accused of being gay face death. The group has posted a petition at its Web site to protest the reportedly imminent executions, and has issued an appeal to the United Kingdom and to the UN's Human Rights Commission to exert political pressure on the Iraqi government to stop the executions from taking place.
Kelvin Lynch (San Francisco Gay & Lesbian Examiner) notes, "The men were all convicted and sentenced to death by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI), which the group says ignores international standards against torture, and consistently falls short of giving those arrested a fair trial." Lez Get Real posts a video chronicling the targeting of Iraq's LGTBT community. Over photos, the following text appears:
Amar, abducted and shot in the back of the head (2006)
Ameer, abducted by militias and found shot dead (2006)
Emad, lived as a woman and was crushed to death (2006)
Hosam, found shot dead (2006)
Khalid, taken by police. His family collected his body a week later (2006)
Othman, abducted and strangeled to death (2006)
Haydar, a transgender person, beaten and burned to death by Badr militias (2005)
Karar, killed and set alight by Badr militias (2006)
Men [3] suspected of being gay gunned down (2006)
In another section, Peter Tatchell explains, "Wathiq, age 29, a gay archietect, was kidnapped in Baghdad. Soon after, the Badr militia sent his parents death threats accusing them of allowing their son to lead a gay life and demanding an eleven-thousand pound ransom. The parents paid the money, thinking it would save Wathiq's life but he was found dead a few days later with his body mutilated and his head cut off." At Change.org, Michael Jones observes, "If true, this is shocking, and quite possibly one of the gravest consequences of the Bush administration's War in Iraq. Groups like Amnesty International have called for investigations into executions in Iraq based on sexual orientation discrimination, but sadly little has been done to address LGBT discrimination in Iraq. If LGBT people are being systematically murdered in Iraq, it's something the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress need to address. The U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of propping up administrations around the globe that execute people because of their sexual orientation. We've created an action here where you can write your members of Congress, express concern about the reports coming out of Iraq that people are being executed simply because they are LGBT, and ask them to investigate these atrocious killings."
Investigate the killings? What might happen if all the killings in Iraq were investigated? January 16, 2008 snapshot included this: "Today the US military announced: 'Three Multi-National -- North Soldiers were killed by small arms fire while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province Jan. 16. Additionally, two other Soldiers were wounded and evacuated to a Coalition hospital'." ICCC notes the three who died:
The Department of Defense announced today the death of three soldiers who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died Jan. 16 of wounds suffered in Balad, Iraq, when they were attacked by grenade and small arms fire during combat operations. They were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.
Killed were:
Pfc. Danny L. Kimme, 27, of Fisher, Ill., who died in Balad, Iraq.
Pfc. David H. Sharrett II, 27, of Oakton, Va., who died in Pallouata, Iraq.
Spc. John P. Sigsbee, 21, of Waterville, N.Y., who died in Balad, Iraq.
For more information media may contact the Fort Campbell public affairs office at (270) 798-9966.
The three weren't killed by enemy fire nor were the two wounded actually injured by enemy fire. James Gordon Meeks (New York Daily News via US News & World Reports) reports that the David Sharrett was killed by US !st Lt Timothy Hanson "during a botched night raid" in what is being called "friendly fire" and that Robert McCarthy ("the unit's ex-commander") states "he knew within days of Sharrett's death that a soldier had killed him". If the unit's ex-commander knew it why didn't the platoon leader and others also know it? Platoon leader Lt Tim Cunningham told Corey Flintoff, "We assaulted through their [insurgents'] position, we confirmed by kicking or moving their bodies, to make sure that they're dead, and then we secure the site around our casulties." That was for a NPR report which All Things Considered aired January 25, 2008 -- nine days after, recorded eight days after. "Within days" the unit commander McCarthy says he knew what happened. So why, eight days later, did Cunningham tell Flintoff the (now known to be) false story? Yesterday, Corey Flintoff updated his story and noted that the fathers of Kimme and Sharrett say there was no reason for any of the deaths:
Sharrett and Kimme cite a list of mistakes that were documented by the Army investigator. There was no need for the soldiers to approach the enemy position in the dark, Kimme says, "there was no hurry. They owned these guys." In other words, the regiment knew where the six insurgents were hiding and had them under surveillance by helicopter. The insurgents were pinned down. They could have been forced to surrender or killed from a distance. Kimme says the general consensus among soldiers he spoke with "was that [McCarthy] wanted those prisoners, he wanted his trophies," and that the effort to capture them was hasty.
There was also no reason to assume that the insurgents were unarmed.
"Looking at the casualty report," Sharrett says, "we compromised ourselves tactically, and we assumed that the enemy was unarmed, although we knew it was a well known tactic of these guys to cache weapons in the groves and then run to them."
There was no reason to approach a group of six suspected enemy fighters with a team of only eight soldiers.
"They violated the three-to-one rule," Kimme says, referring to Army guidelines that recommend soldiers outnumber their opponents by three-to-one when attacking.
James Gordon Meeks quotes Douglas Kimme stating, "McCarthy should be relieved of duty and Hanson should be court-martialed." In other Iraq shooting news, September 17, 2007 Blackwater mercenary workers staged a slaughter in Baghdad. That's the most famous one but it is far from the only one. It is the one, however, that has nudged Blackwater/Xe out of Iraq. Elaine covered the news yesterday on the US State Dept's decision to turn security tasks over to Triple Canopy noting Charles Keyes (CNN), Sharon Weinberg (Wired) and Wednesday's State Dept press briefing. Quoting ABC News' Kirit Radia on how Triple Canopy and Dyncorp were in northern and souther Iraq, Elaine pointed out that meant they were under less scrutiny seems Bagdhad, due to the press concentration there, gets more oversight from the press corps. Elaine concluded with , "So let's recap with what we learned: Blackwater, now Xe, is no longer going to be in Baghdad. I say 'in Baghdad' because everytime Blackwater is allegedly out of Iraq, it turns out they've found a loophole. Again, I would also caution that just because a mercenary isn't 'Blackwater' doesn't mean it's a group of Santa's happy elves out to save the world."
Today Matt Kelley (USA Today) reports that John Frese ("top security official at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq" when the slaughter took place) made the decision not to take "disciplinary actions" because to do so, he felt, "would be deemed as lowering morale". Frese was aware Blackwater mercenaries were "making fales statements". When did the incident take place? February 16, 2005 ("previously unreported," Kelley notes)and Blackwater had attacked an Iraqi vehilce "with more than 70 bullets". Had that example not been hidden and those involved not escaped punishment, the Sept. 17, 2007 slaughter might not have taken place. But the State Dept repeatedly sent the message that they would look the other way when it came to the wounding and killing of Iraqi civilians.
The challenge for the IqAF [Iraqi Air Force] will be to expand current capabilities and build the foundation of a credible and enduring IqAF for the future. Currently, the IqAF has minimal capability across the spectrum of capabilities, but progess is being made in ISR, airlift (fixed/rotary wing), and developing its Airmen, with a focus on the COIN [Counterintelligence] fight. These areas should achieve foundational capability by December 2010. Ground attack, airspace control, and C2 lag behind with these foundational capabilities expected by December 2012. Despite its rapid growth in the past year, the IQAF lags behind all major Middle Eastern air forces, and achieving a credible and enduring IqAF will require continued Coalition support.
The US Defense Department released the report. Zoom in on one sentence above: "Ground attack, airspace control, and C2 lag behind with these foundational capabilities expected by December 2012." Now how would the US military leave Iraq December 31, 2011? Is Iran going to cover and protect Iraq's air space? Will the US allow that? (If you answered "yes," read the report.) Turkey? No, that won't fly either. Long before the treaty masquerading as the Status Of Forces Agreement was signed, you could find various Iraqi military figures holding press conferences in the Green Zone and explaining the US would help with the Iraqi Air Force till at least 2014. What's changed? A piece of paper?
The new report was released at the end of last month (March 25th) and is entitled [PDF format warning] " Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq March 2009." Every two months, the Defense Deprt does an update and sends the report to Congress. The actual report is 55 pages of text and updates the situation since the last report with the March report covering December 2008 through February 2009. Information included is basic such as the fact that the following countries have left Iraq since the last report (which covered through November 2008): Albania, Armenia, Azebaijain, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Tonga and the Ukraine. It also includes problematic sections such as the evaluation of Iran that seems based on something other than facts and that, in fact, really has nothing to do with the period that report is allegedly covering.
For example, the report insists, "Despite repeated promises to the contrary, Iran atttempted to derail the negotiation of a security agreement between the United States and the GoI [Government of Iraq], but ultimately achieved little success in affecting the SFA [Security Framework Agreement] or the SA." The "SA" refers to what the US government calls the Status Of Forces Agreement. It is what the White House calls it. It is what the document itself, the document Nouri al-Maliki and Bully Boy Bush both signed, called it. Why the Defense Dept feels the need to call it another name -- one not used by the US government -- is a question to put to them. If and when you do, ask them what the hell that sentence is doing in the report to begin with? Allegedly this report covers December through February. Nouri al-Maliki's Council of Minister signed off on the SOFA November 16th, November 17th the agreement was signed by US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari. The Status Of Forces Agreement passed the Iraqi Parliament on Thanksgiving Day, November 27, 2008. While it still had to be ratified by the presidency council (December 4th) and signed by Bully Boy and Nouri (December 14th -- the shoe heard round the world press conference), those were ceremonial events and after it passed the Parliament, the treaty was no longer in doubt. Nouri controls the Cabinet and without his approval, it would not have passed his own Council and gone to the Parliament. The presidency council is a three person council: Jalal Talabani, the president, and Iraq's two vice presidents Tariq al-Hashami and Adel Abdul Mahdi. Who would Iran have pressured? Talabani's a Kurd, al-Hashami's Sunni and that leaves only Shi'ite Adel Abdul Mahdi. However, Iran was already doing cartwheels public (check Iran's Press TV) on the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement after it passed Parliament. Any objections or attempts to derail the treaty on Iran's part would have required Shi'ite channels. Any objections or attempts to derail the treaty on Iran's part would have had to have taken place prior to Thanksgiving. Why are November events making it into a report allegedly covering December through February?
Another problematic area is their rates on unemployment and underemployment which I was not able to verify with any NGO working in Iraq. It was thought by the one that the percentage the report refers to might be a percentage increase since the previous report but no one believed the percentages in the report were the acutal rate of unemployment or underemployment. We're skipping that section of the report for that reason.
The report hails the "progress" in Iraq but reminds "gains remain fragile and uneven throughout the country." That phrase has been a mantra since the first anniversary of the illegal war (March 2004). No commander in Iraq goes before Congress without repeating it and no one occupies the White House without repeating. From Bully Boy Bush to Bully Boy Barack, it is the phrase of choice and that's really frightening and sad. Six years after the start of the illegal war and the US government continues to trot out the "gains remain fraigle" excuse is sad. Frightening comes in when you grasp that if something can't be done in six years, it can't be done. It never could. The first sentence of the introduction to the report lists US goals and, while the goals change from time to time, these are -- more or less -- the generally cited goals: "The United States seeks an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant; an Iraqi Government that is just, representative, and accountable; neither a safe haven for, nor sponsor of, terrorism; integrated into the global economy; and a long-term partner contributing to regional peace and security." Sometimes those goals are wrapped in the words "democracy" and/or "liberation." Those really aren't goals the US can do anything about other than stand and cheer. But for six years, the US has used it as an excuse to be in Iraq and for how many more years will they continue to use it as an excuse?
Stars & Stripes notes the report referred to the drop in the price of oil per barrell and how this might harm "the training and equpping of Iraqi forces." I don't know what report Stars & Stripes read, but the one I read stated clearly that the hiring freeze did not apply to bringing people back into the military. So what's stopping them from doing that? We'll get to it. Yesterday Marcia addressed Reuters' report that "basic services . . . such as sewage treatment and power supply" will have to be cut.` The Government Accountability Office found in their most recent report, [PDF format warning] " Iraq: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight," that "many Iraqis are without water or have access to water that puts them at risk of diseases such as cholera and dysentery, as evidenced by outbreaks in 2007 and 2008. According to the United Nations, only 40 percent of children have reliable access to safe drinking water; with water treatment plants operating at only 17 percent capacity, large voluments of untreated waste are discharged into Iraq's waterways." And what does the Defense Dept's report say about the basic services? Quote: "Simarly, many Iraqis continue to have limited access to clean water, and challenges continue with respect to sewage services and water treatment plant operations, maintenance, and sustainment." And yet this is what will be cut? The report lists billions and billions being spent on military hardware by the al-Maliki government, but apparently cholera outbreaks every summer is a-okay. On electricity, the report noes, "Only 43% of Iraqis feel they have been able to get the electricty they need at least some of the time, twelve percentage points less than the previous ten-month average. Only 18% of Iraqis are somewhat or very satisfied by the zmount of electricity they receive, down from 34% who felt satisfied in November 2007." If the Kurdistan Regional Government was removed from the polling, the percentages would be even lower since their provinces have very high averages of daily electricity with Erbil topping all of Iraq with 22 hours per day on average.
Remember those fragile 'gains' and how we'd also get back to the issue of members who have left the Iraqi military returning? We're getting to it.
Constitutional reform is the responsibility of the 29-member Constitutional Review Committee (CRC). The original deadline for the completion of the CRC's work was March 2007, but it did not issue its final report until August 2008. The CRC's final report left all of the major constitutional issues, including revenue distribution, federalism, and the status of Kirkuk, entirely unresolved.
Yes, it did. And the census the report's so ga-ga over? That too was already supposed to have taken place. As with the Constitution reform, these dates just pass and yet the US continues to want to hail 'progress.' (During the period of review, the Speaker of Parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, was forced out of his job -- December 23rd -- and there is still no one in that position. The 'report' handles it by stating he resigned. A very simplistic version of the events which went down.) So there's a sort of show-progress or non-progress, what does that have to do with the military. Paul Bremer de-Baathified Iraq. He drove the Baathists out. One of the benchmarks the US White House devised for Iraq (which was never met) was for the Baathists to be brought back in -- a kind of de-de-Baathify. The DoD report notes, "Despite the January 2008 passage of the Accountability and Justice Law, the GoI has not begun implementation. The Council of Ministers (CoM) has yet to nominate the individuals to head the new De-Ba'athification Commission, leaving the original Coalition Provisional Authority-appointed commission in place, but with no authority." No, there's been no progress. Nouri al-Maliki signed off on Bush's benchmarks, agreeing to them, and then did nothing. The law referred to, even if implemented, has no oversight mechanism to ensure that it's working. But it's not been implemented. So those who served in the military prior to the 2003 invasion can't be easily brought back in. Bremer purged the Baathists from the government. It should be pointed out that Nouri al-Maliki and his toadies love to scream "Baathist!" whenever they target a Sunni and claim some conspiracy/coup. Nouri doesn't want the Baathists back in and that's why there's been no progress on this issue. Just as he doesn't want to absorb the "Awakening" Council members.
The report notes that he agreed to absorb 20% of the 94,000 "Awakenings" within the Iraqi Security Forces. The others would be considered for civil service jobs or for training for other jobs. Considered. Only 20% -- despite the nonsense the Guardian of 'London' -- see Rebecca's post last night -- and AFP have been reporting -- were pledged to be given jobs. Not all. He doesn't want the "Awakenings" and he doesn't want the Baathists. Over the weekend, Nouri launched another attack on the "Awakenings." Gareth Porter (IPS via CounterPunch) reports:
Despite reported U.S. efforts to reassure Sunnis that they are not being abandoned to repression by the Shi'a government, the U.S.-assisted operation against Sunni militiamen protesting the arrest of Adel al-Mashadani in the Fadhil neighbourhood has already prompted threats by Sunni militia commanders in other neighbourhoods to go back to armed resistance.
Given the present U.S. definition of its mission in Iraq, U.S. forces are likely to be directly involved in more such operations against Sunni militiamen in the future, analysts of Iraqi military affairs say.
The Awakening Councils or Sahwa, which U.S. military officials have generally called "Sons of Iraq", were created in 2007 through arrangements reached by Multinational Forces-Iraq with Sunni tribal chiefs and some commanders of armed resistance groups, under which former Sunni insurgents became paid local security forces in Baghdad neighbourhoods as well as in nearby Diyala Province and in Sunni-dominated Anbar province.
But al-Maliki has never hidden his hostility to the U.S. scheme to set up neighbourhood Sunni security units. "These people are like a cancer, and we must remove them," one Iraqi general was quoted by Shawn Brimley and Colin Kahl of the Centre for New American Security as saying last summer.
Iraqi army units and special operations forces which were controlled directly by al-Maliki began arresting SOI leaders in Diyala and Baghdad, and the arrests continued through the fall.
Despite the evidence that al-Maliki intended to destroy them, the United States agreed last October to turn over control of all 90,000 Awakening Council members to the Iraqis. The government agreed, in turn, to continue paying the neighbourhood Sunni security forces 300 dollars a month.
What Gareth Porter's describing was known as a very real possibility. April 10, 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussed agreements the then-administration was attempting to make with al-Maliki. The then-proposed agreements would require the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war," then-Committee Chair Joe Biden noted, and "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out. . . . Just understand my frustration. We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."
We'll come back to the report tomorrow. On violence it notes that from Dec. 2008 through Feb. 2008, the average number of "insurgent initatied attacks a day" was 12 but in February it increased to 13.75. Moving on to today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Shootings?
Corpses?
Quickly, last night Stan covered Nouri's cabinet minister, Abdul-Latif Jamal Rasheed, blaming Turkey and Iran for Iraq having a water shortage. As Stan observed, "Who would want Nouri al-Maliki for a neighbor?" Ruth noted that the US is supposed to abandon the 75 combat outposts across the country as they retreat from Iraqi cities (some, Nouri has noted it will be only some, despite what the SOFA says). And Mike covered the press on Iraq's new fleet of unmanned drones and he observed, "Because the way I'm taking it, it means that the drones must be weaponized. How else would they have 'engaged' and 'managed to eliminate their threat'?"
David Solnit, author with Aimee Allison (Allison co-hosts KPFA's The Morning Show with Philip Maldari), notes this event by Courage to Resist, Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War & Unconventional Action in the Bay:
Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us! Please Invite your friends: Bay Area Premiere from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQ A Big Noise Film followed by a Public Discussion: How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama? Carl Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq. Antonia Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq. Friday April 3, 7pm ATA THEATER 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required. Obama's Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens. It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go. Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.
|
Posted at 04:21 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Iraq's LGBT community targeted with execution
The
country Iraq, liberated by U.S. forces and purportedly on the road to
democracy, is set to execute more than 100 prisoners accused of the
crime of homosexuality, says a GLBT group headed by an exiled Iraqi gay
man.The charge comes from Iraqi LGBT, which is run from London by exiled gay Iraqi Ali Hili, according to a March 31 article posted at UK Gay News.Hili claims that the prisoners face execution from the Iraqi government in groups of 20 starting this week.A total of 128 Iraqis accused of being gay face death.The group has posted a petition
at its Web site to protest the reportedly imminent executions, and has
issued an appeal to the United Kingdom and to the UN’s Human Rights
Commission to exert political pressure on the Iraqi government to stop
the executions from taking place.The above is from Kilian Melloy's " U.S.-Backed Iraqi Government Set to Execute Gays" ( Edge)
and let's note it didn't have to be that way. No one forced the US to
install fundamentalists. It was done because it was thought the thugs
would be 'tough' with the people and allow the US to quickly focus on
the Baghdad Year Zero tag sale they wanted. Kelvin Lynch (San Francisco Gay & Lesbian Examiner) notes: According
to the group, the men will be executed in batches of 20 starting this
week. At least one of them is a member of Iraq LGBT. In fact, since the
group was started, 17 of its members have been executed. The men were
all convicted and sentenced to death by the Central Criminal Court of
Iraq (CCCI), which the group says ignores international standards
against torture, and consistently falls short of giving those arrested
a fair trial. Iraqi LGBT says executions have been increasing at "an
alarming rate since being reintroduced in 2004" and that men alleged to
be gay have been unreasonably targeted by Iraqi police and the Badr and
Sadr militia.Lez Get Real posts
a video on the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community. Doug Ireland has
covered the targeting and attacks on the LGBT community in Iraq
regularly over the last years. (His most recent report, however,
focused on Iran, click here to read that.)
He is one of the few name reporters who have followed the story. That's
been moved to the top because it is urgent and it is a story that will
get far less attention than what we were originally opening with. The latest chapter in Marine Sgt. Ryan Weemer's unusual case started yesterday in a Camp Pendleton courtroom.
Weemer
is charged with shooting to death an unarmed detainee while his unit
battled through the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq, in late
2004. Two other members of his squad also have been accused of killing
captives in the same incident.
During his opening statement,
civilian defense attorney Paul Hackett told an all-male jury of Marine
Corps officers that prosecutors can't prove Weemer murdered anyone. He
said the shooting that took place stemmed from his client's
self-defense after a senior Marine gave orders to do away with the
detainees.
"This is not a case of revenge," Hackett said. "This is a
tragic story that represents the reality of combat, the reality of war."
Marine Capt. Nicholas Gannon, the lead prosecutor, described the court-martial as focusing on the need to follow rules.
"This is a case about doing the right thing at the most critical time," he said.The above is the opening to Rick Roger's " Marine's trial begins in '04 slaying in Iraq" ( San Diego Union-Tribune).
Paul Hackett was in Faulluja, of course, and he is the pro-War Hawk who
is famous for two embarrassing incidents. He was supposed to be running
for office in 2006 but then he withdrew and claimed/whined others went
back on their promises to him (specifically Sherrod Brown) and dropped
out of the race. He is also infamous for running after a group of young
kids in a car, in the middle of the night, with a gun and frightening
them to death as he played vigilante. It's the sort of disrespect for
the law that can get an attorney's license pulled. Now he's defending
Weemer but he's always defended all the war crimes in Falluja. Weemer's accused of actions that took place November 9, 2004. Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) explains
he's "charged with unpremeidated murder and dereliction of duty" and
that he "told an investigator that he is tormented by the shooting and
has tried to forget what happened that day in Fallouja in 2004,
according to a tape-recording played Wednesday at his court-martial."
On tape Weemer states he stormed a house, was ordered to kill an Iraqi,
"I grabbed a gun and took him to the back of the house. I shot him
twice in the chest." Meanwhile AP notes ( Chicago Tribune carries it) that 40 Indiana National Guard soldiers will be deploying for Iraq and that a ceremony will be held on Saturday. Justin Williams (Longmont Times-Call) notes
Colorodao's Alexander Dawson High School teacher and baseball coach
Jerrod Dailey will leave this month to serve in Iraq: "Jerrod Dailey
was mindful that this day could arrive -- the day he'd have to leave
everything behind. His newlywed wife. His three children. His friends.
His close-knit baseball team that he'd helped build from the ground up." The Kurdistan Regional Government issues the following press release: The Kurdistan Region in brief  | The
Kurdistan Region is an autonomous region in federal Iraq. It borders
Syria to the west, Iran to the east, and Turkey to the north, where
fertile plains meet the Zagros mountains, and is traversed by the
Tigris, Big Zab, and Little Zab rivers. Area: 40,643 square kilometres [1] Population: 3,757,058 [2] Capital city: Erbil (also known as Hewler) Languages: mainly Kurdish; Turkmani, Arabic, Armenian, and Assyrian in some areas. Currency: Iraqi Dinar (IQD). A few facts about the Kurdistan Region in Iraq This is also available as a downloadable fact sheet With
a population of currently around 4 million and rapidly increasing, the
three governorates of Duhok, Erbil and Suleimaniah cover approximately
40,000 square kilometres - four times the area of Lebanon and larger
than that of the Netherlands.
The
Region is geographically diverse, from hot plains to cooler mountainous
areas blessed with natural springs where snow falls in the winter.
Since
March 2003 not a single coalition soldier has died nor a single
foreigner been kidnapped in the areas administered by the Kurdistan
Regional Government (KRG).
The capital and seat of the Kurdistan Regional Government is Erbil, a city known locally as Hawler.
The Citadel in Erbil is said to be the longest continually inhabited place in the world.
The
Kurdistan Regional Government exercises executive power according to
the Kurdistan Region’s laws as enacted by the democratically elected
Kurdistan National Assembly. The current government, led by Prime
Minister Nechirvan Barzani, assumed office on 7 May 2006.
Iraq’s
Constitution recognises the Kurdistan Regional Government, the
Kurdistan National Assembly and the Peshmerga guard as the legitimate
regional forces.
The current coalition
government consists of several political parties that reflect the
diversity of the Region’s people, who are Chaldeans, Assyrians,
Turkmen, Yazidis and Kurds living together in harmony and tolerance.
Since
the Anfal genocide campaign by Saddam Hussein’s Regime in the 1980s,
more than 65% of the razed villages have been rebuilt by the Regional
Administration.
The Kurdish language is
distinct and is in the family of Iranian languages, such as Persian and
Pashto. There are two main dialects, Sorani and Kurmanji.
The
Kurdistan Region has seven universities, including the English language
University of Kurdistan-Hawler in Erbil which opened in September 2006,
and the American University of Iraq in Suleimaniah which started its
first programme in autumn 2007.
References
[1]
KRG-administered territory only. Compiled by the Food and Agricultural
Organisation (FAO) from various national and regional sources:
International Boundaries from National Imagery and Mapping Agency
(NIMA) Digital Chart of the World (DCW). The primary source for the DCW
database is the Operational Navigation Chart series co-produced by the
military mapping authorities of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and
the United States.
[2] According to Oil-for-Food Distribution Plan, approved by the UN, December 2002. And Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes
another of their all male ambassadors (they only have male ambassadors
and no one's ever thought to press Nouri al-Maliki on that, have they?): Iraqi Charge D'affaires in Serbia Meets Serbian Minister of Trade
Mr.
Yahya Salih Mahdi , Interim Iraqi charge d'affaires in Belgrade met
with, Mr. Slobodan Milosa, Serbian Minister of Trade on 25/3/2009 to
enhance cooperation between the two countries.
The Iraqi Charge
d'affaires stressed the need for serious and fruitful cooperation
between the two countries, mentioning the great opportunities for
Serbian companies for investment and reconstruction in Iraq, referring
to the willingness of the Government of Iraq to cooperate with friendly
countries, including Serbia to promote trade in various forms,
explaining that it is time to activate the relations in all areas and
the need for exchange of visits between officials of the two countries.
On
his part, the Serbian Trade Minister welcomed Mr. Mahdi and stressed
the importance of bilateral cooperation between the two countries and
expressed the readiness of his ministry to activate trade at all levels
and also expressed the readiness of Serbia for the exchange of visits
at the ministerial level stating that he is ready to visit Baghdad at
the beginning of next summer on a head of a large delegation to develop
relations between the two countries.The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. killian melloykelvin lynchlez get realdoug irelandrick rogerssan diego union-tribunetony perrythe los angeles timesjustin williams
Posted at 07:32 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The January 16, 2008 snapshot included this: "Today the US military announced:
'Three Multi-National -- North Soldiers were killed by small arms fire
while conducting operations in Salah ad Din province Jan. 16.
Additionally, two other Soldiers were wounded and evacuated to a
Coalition hospital'." ICCC notes the three who died: | US | Private 1st Class Danny L. Kimme | Balad - Salah Ad Din | Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenade |
| US | Private 1st Class David H. Sharrett II | Balad - Salah Ad Din | Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenade |
| US | Specialist John P. Sigsbee | Balad (died in Pallouata) - Salah Ad Din | Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, grenade |
The links all go to the same DoD release which reads:
The Department of Defense announced today the death of three soldiers
who were supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. They died Jan. 16 of
wounds suffered in Balad, Iraq, when they were attacked by grenade and
small arms fire during combat operations. They were assigned to the 1st
Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky. Killed were: Pfc. Danny L. Kimme, 27, of Fisher, Ill., who died in Balad, Iraq. Pfc. David H. Sharrett II, 27, of Oakton, Va., who died in Pallouata, Iraq. Spc. John P. Sigsbee, 21, of Waterville, N.Y., who died in Balad, Iraq. For more information media may contact the Fort Campbell public affairs office at (270) 798-9966. The three weren't killed by enemy fire nor were the two wounded actually injured by enemy fire. US News & World Reports reposts James Gordon Meeks' " Army Lied About How My Son Died in Iraq: Friendly-fire Victim Was 'Misidentified' as Enemy Gunman" from the New York Daily News
(Mort Zuckerman owns both publications) which follows the struggle of
David Sharrett II's father, David Sharret, to get the military to admit
the truth, that the deadly shooting was done by US soldiers: For
four months after the Army knew the truth, it still insisted to
Sharrett's father that he was killed by enemy fire - and gave only
atemporary wrist slap to Hanson under pressure from the families of
Sharrett and two other G.I.s killed in the clash.After
The News uncovered new video evidence and raised questions, a 101st
Airborne Division general said the probe into Sharrett's death may
reopen."The final decisions and dispositions have yet to be made," Brig. Gen. Steve Townsend said.Sharrett's
family claims top officers in the legendary "Screaming Eagles" division
initially -- and angrily -- denied friendly fire was involved, claiming
for months that insurgents killed Sharrett when his eight-man team
tried to capture six suspects in a rural thicket.NPR's Corey Flintoff reported, in 2008, on the funerals. Yesterday he did a "Reporters Notebook" at NPR (text only) noting: More
than a year later, the story is still rippling outward. This January, I
heard from the father of one of the men who was killed. Doug Kimme is a
police officer in Champaign, Ill. His son, 27-year-old Pfc. Danny
Kimme, was shot in the head in a farmer's field northeast of Baghdad.
Doug Kimme, an Air Force veteran and self-styled "gun enthusiast,"
insists that he is not anti-Army and not anti-war, but he is convinced
that there was no reason for his son to die.Kimme
told me that an Army investigation showed that the maneuver in which
the men were killed was botched from the very beginning. He said the
report showed that his son and the other men in his team were marched
into an ambush that could have been easily avoided. It also showed that
one of the soldiers was shot dead by his own lieutenant.Kimme
says that he and the families of the other fallen soldiers weren't told
about the blunders until well after their boys had been buried. It needs to be noted that the DoD wasn't the only ones involved in the cover up. Flintoff's 2008 report for All Things Considered (link has text and audio as well as photos of the three who died) included
people speaking of what happened as if they knew. I'm not referring to
Corey Flintoff who did his job as a reporter. I'm referring to people
like Lt. Tim Cunningham. From Flintoff's report: "We
assaulted through their position, we confirmed by kicking or moving
their bodies to make sure that they're dead, and then we secure the
site around our casualties," said Lt. Tim Cunningham, a platoon leader.Cunningham
said there were six bodies sprawled in the trench where the insurgents
ran after the first ambush. By then, it was clear that two of Charlie
Troop's soldiers also were dead.Three were wounded. One of those men would die soon after.Charlie
Troop had no time to mourn or even consider its losses. There were
wounded to treat, houses to search and acres of orange groves where
insurgents were known to camp and stash weapons."All
of my soldiers reacted very well," said Staff Sgt. Matthew LeVart.
"They were able to compartmentalize. ... Obviously, it's not something
that you can completely forget and just overlook, but we were able to
continue to fight."Corey Flintoff's report was broadcast
January 25th. James Gordon Meeks reports that Lt Col Robert McCarthy
("the unit's ex-commander") states "he knew withing days of Sharrett's
death that a soldier had killed him". If the unit's ex-commander knew
it why didn't the platoon leader and others also know it? Or did they
know and, if so, did they choose to lie to NPR (and the American
people) or were they ordered to do so? James Gordon Meeks' article
explains: Nine months after
Sharrett was buried at Arlington National Cemetery, McCarthy's boss,
Col. Michael McBride, caved to pressure from the families with a
temporary written reprimand for [Timothy] Hanson - which was removed
from his file when he left Iraq days later.This
year, McBride and McCarthy reversed course again and recommended a
tougher reprimand in Hanson's permanent record. But Gen. Townsend
ordered a review by uninvolved officers.The families want career-ending punishment for Hanson, McCarthy and McBride."McCarthy should be relieved of duty and Hanson should be court-martialed," said Douglas Kimme, an Illinois cop.In other Iraq shooting news, September 17, 2007 Blackwater mercenary workers staged a slaughter in Baghdad. That's the most famous one but it is far from the only one. Matt Kelley (USA Today) reports
today that John Frese ("top security official at the U.S. Embassy in
Iraq" when the slaughter took place) made the decision not to take
"disciplinary actions" because to do so, he felt, "would be deemed as
lowering morale". Frese was aware Blackwater mercenaries were "making
fales statements". When did the incident take place? February 16, 2005
("previously unreported," Kelley notes)and Blackwater had attacked an
Iraqi vehilce "with more than 70 bullets". Had that example not been
hidden and those involved not escaped punishment, the Sept. 17, 2007
slaughter might not have taken place. But the State Dept repeatedly
sent the message that they would look the other way when it came to the
wounding and killing of Iraqi civilians. From Kelley's article: The
2005 shooting occurred when a four-vehicle convoy was returning to the
U.S. Embassy from the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. Four guards told
investigators they felt threatened by an approaching car on a parallel
road that ignored orders to stop.The
investigators' final memo in June 2005 said several guards "failed to
justify their actions" and "provided false statements," including a
claim that bullet holes in a Blackwater vehicle were from a passenger
in the Iraqi car. The evidence showed a guard accidentally shot his
vehicle, investigators concluded.Blackwater is the only Iraq news in the New York Times
this morning and it's not even from NYT, it's an AP 'article.' An
article reduced to a brief for "World Briefing" and one that can't even
get its facts right (no link to trash, it's on A6 in the national
edition). Blackwater, now Xe, will be replaced by Triple Canopy. The
brief then concludes with, "The department has not yet determined how
to replace the air support that Blackwater had been providing for
American diplomats in Iraq." Elaine covered this yesterday: Kirit Radia (ABC News) notes,
"Triple Canopy and a third company, Dyncorp, have been providing
similar security in Iraq, mainly in the north and south, for years
while Blackwater mainly held contracts in Baghdad." That does not
reassure me and let me explain why: Mercenaries in Baghdad were under
greater scrutiny due to the fact that so much of the international
press is located in Baghdad.Meanwhile AP notes
a new lawsuit against Blackwater/Xe over the shootings of "three
security guards for the state-run Iraqi Media Network" in Feburary of
2007. March 27th, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following press release: WASHINGTON, March 27 /PRNewswire/ --
A group of injured civilians and families of Iraqis killed in two
unprovoked shootings in Baghdad by Blackwater “shooters” sued the
company and founder Erik Prince in separate lawsuits filed today and
Thursday in California federal court, according to their U.S.-based
legal team.
The lawsuits allege that several Blackwater
defendants – now operating as Xe and other names under the control of
Mr. Prince – have demonstrated “a pattern and practice of recklessness
in the use of deadly force.”
The first case was brought by the
family of Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah, a 53-year-old teacher at a technical
institution Al Amara, who was killed by Blackwater personnel near Al
Watahba Square while in Baghdad on school business on Sept. 9, 2007.
According
to the complaint, Blackwater “shooters” fired, “without justification,
on a crowd of innocent Iraqi persons in and around Al Watahba Square
resulting in multiple deaths and injuries.” The complaint continues,
“This senseless slaughter … was only one in a series of recent
incidents in Blackwater’s lengthy pattern of egregious misconduct in
Iraq resulting in the deaths of innocent Iraqis.”
The second
case involves another Blackwater civilian shooting – the infamous Sept.
16, 2007 Nisoor Square massacre which killed 17 people and resulted in
criminal prosecutions by the U.S. Department of Justice against
Blackwater personnel. One Blackwater employee has pled guilty,
admitting that Blackwater personnel were not protecting diplomats or
being threatened and instead intentionally killed innocents after
ignoring orders to stay in the International Zone by the U.S. Embassy
Regional Security Office.
The 15 plaintiffs include the estates
of 12-year-old Qasim Mohamed Abbas Mahmoud, who was shot while riding
in a car with his father, who also was killed, and his mother, who was
injured; numerous men and women who were in or around Nisoor Square;
and two Baghdad police officers, whose attempts to stop the killing
allegedly were ignored by Blackwater personnel.
According to the
complaint, “Xe- Blackwater created and fostered a culture of
lawlessness amongst its employees, encouraging them to act in the
company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life.”
The
defendants are accused of committing war crimes, assault and battery,
wrongful death, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, training and
supervision, and tortious spoliation of evidence. The complaint also
includes allegations of drug use and cover-ups of illegal conduct by Xe
– Blackwater personnel.
The families of the dead and injured are
represented by attorneys Susan L. Burke, William T. O’Neil and William
F. Gould of Burke O’Neil LLC, of Washington, D.C., and Katherine
Gallagher of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Susan L. Burke, of Burke O’Neil LLC,
stated, “These deaths are part of a pattern of illegal Xe – Blackwater
shootings around the globe known to company management. With the litany
of civilian shootings by Xe – Blackwater personnel, the company has
created, fostered and refused to curb a culture of lawlessness and
unaccountability.”
Center for Constitutional Rights attorney Katherine Gallagher
stated, “The Iraqi victims of Xe - Blackwater’s unlawful actions have
come to U.S. courts in search of justice. Justice begins with
accountability, and private military contractors must be held
accountable when they shoot innocent people.”
The defendants in
both cases include Mr. Prince, Xe, various Prince-controlled entities
such as Blackwater, The Prince Group, Falcon, Greystone Limited, Total
Intelligence Solutions, EP Investments, and Raven Development Group.
The cases are:
•
“Estate of “Sa’ad Raheem Jarallah v. Xe, formerly known as Blackwater
Worldwide, et al.,” in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (Case No. 09 CV 0 631 H JMA), and,
•
“Estate of Mushtaq Karim Abd Al-Razzaq, et al., v. Xe, formerly known
as Blackwater Worldwide, et al.,” in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (Case No. 09 CV 0626 LAB BLM). The
Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and
protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys
who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a
non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative
use of law as a positive force for social change. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announces: Iraqi Charge D'affaires in Serbia Meets Serbian Minister of TradeMr.
Yahya Salih Mahdi , Interim Iraqi charge d'affaires in Belgrade met
with, Mr. Slobodan Milosa, Serbian Minister of Trade on 25/3/2009 to
enhance cooperation between the two countries.The
Iraqi Charge d'affaires stressed the need for serious and fruitful
cooperation between the two countries, mentioning the great
opportunities for Serbian companies for investment and reconstruction
in Iraq, referring to the willingness of the Government of Iraq to
cooperate with friendly countries, including Serbia to promote trade in
various forms, explaining that it is time to activate the relations in
all areas and the need for exchange of visits between officials of the
two countries.On his
part, the Serbian Trade Minister welcomed Mr. Mahdi and stressed the
importance of bilateral cooperation between the two countries and
expressed the readiness of his ministry to activate trade at all levels
and also expressed the readiness of Serbia for the exchange of visits
at the ministerial level stating that he is ready to visit Baghdad at
the beginning of next summer on a head of a large delegation to develop
relations between the two countries.David Solnit, author with Aimee Allison (Allison co-hosts KPFA's The Morning Show with Philip Maldari), notes this event by Courage to Resist, Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War & Unconventional Action in the Bay: Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley
comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in
typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz
to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on
Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us!Please Invite your friends:Bay Area Premiere from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQ A Big Noise Film followed by a Public Discussion: How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama? Carl
Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the
Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq. Antonia
Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most
Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq. Friday April 3, 7pm ATA THEATER 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required. Obama's
Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on
the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers
a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens.
It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison
at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from
the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go.
Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and
how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the
film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us. The following community sites updated yesterday: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqjames gordon meeksu.s. news and world reportsthe new york daily newsnprcorey flintoffall things consideredmatt kelleyusa todaykirit radialike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 07:03 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Wednesday,
April 1, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, today kicks off sexual assault awareness month, tensions
continue between al-Maliki's government and the "Awakenings" which the
government's been attacking, an Iraqi Christian is beheaded, PBS airs a
special for childrens of veterans and their families tonight, and more. Elmo: Hi, Miss Queen Latifah. Queen Latifah: Hey, Elmo. Hi, it's so good to see you. Elmo: It's so good to see you too. Well what brings you here to Sesame Street? Queen
Latifah: Well I'm meeting up with some friends who've been through some
pretty tough times. They were all hurt in one way or another while
serving in the military. And you know those kinds of changes can be
really tough on a family. Little Girl A: When I saw my dad's legs it made me feel a little bit nervous. Little Girl B: He doesn't have no legs and one arm. Dad
B: At first I didn't think she wanted to hug me -- because she was
scared of me maybe. That hug made me feel so happy and complete inside
that it made me feel like I didn't really lose anything at all. Dad
C: When I was first injured I did struggle for awhile with the idea
that I may be chasing this little kid here around on crutches or in a
wheel chair because I didn't know what my future held so I was, I was
nervous. I was afraid it was going to change the way I was going to be
a father. Son D: I was a little worried that he was injured but I don't care if he has his whole body gone as long as he's still living. Daughter
E: I heard Mama was talking. She said that our daddy was injured. I
was scared because I didn't know if he was actually going to come home
or if he would just passed away. Mom E:You know it was really hard for them to comprehend what had happened in Iraq, let alone a burn injury. Dad
E: I was in the denial stage and I didn't want to accept that I had a
problem. Took awhile for me to get the pride to go away. And what it
was that made me let the pride go was I was tearing my family apart. Mom E: To see your kids and your husband have to go through that is hard. Queen
Latifah: My father actually suffered from PTSD. He was a veteran of
Vietnam. I mean it was very challenging for us too as a family so I
can kind of relate to what the kids have gone to. Luckily, he sought
treatment, just like you guys did, and it really made a big difference
because it helped him to recognize you know what was going on. Dad
D: You're not as macho as you thought you are and that you're a US
soldier and you're a fighting machine. This particular fight you can't
do alone. You need, you need that family. Elmo: Is that your daddy's new hand? Son D: Yeah. Elmo: Well can Elmo see it? Wow. Wow. Look at that, it's like a robot hand. John Mayer: It's really important that families talk about the change and say what's on their minds. Elmo: Oh, you mean (singing) "Say what you need to say." [John Mayer begins performing "Say"] The special airs tonight. It's a Sesame Street
special, it is geared towards childen and one of the few programs thus
far -- all this way into the Iraq and Afghansitan Wars -- to note the
effects on the families, especially young children. For example, a
wounded veteran who suffered from extreme depression for over a year
shares his story as does his son who explains, "He'd be laying there
like a lump on a couch. I'd go upstairs and get mad." Again, that's
PBS tonight. First hour of prime time. (Unless your local stations
are playing it at a different time or not at all. Check your local
listings.) The challegned/disabled community and their families rarely
get coverage. Their ranks have increased due to two wars this decade.
Another rarely covered topic was given a full hour on NPR today. USA Today's Susan Page filled in as guest host on The Diane Rehm Show
and, for the second hour, explored the topic of sexual assaults in the
military with guest Helen Benedict and whack-job Kaye Whitley making a
brief appearance that was as fact-free as her Congressional appearances
are. Susan Page: Since March 2003,
nearly 200,000 American women in Iraq -- more than in any other war
since WWII. They are participating in combat more than ever before but
they can feel isolated in a military culture that seems hostile to
females. Helen Benedict is a novelist and journalist who interviewed
forty soldiers and veterans about the struggles and challenges they
experienced in Iraq. Their stories are part of a new book titled The Lonely Soldier. Helen Benedict's The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq
is out today, published by Beacon Press. Benedict explained the book
started when she attended a townhall with veterans discussing their
experiences and all the ones up front were men. She found a female
soldier at the back who explained her experiences serving in Iraq.
Women service members and veterans groups allowed Benedict to find
others who wanted to share their stories. Liar who needs to be fired
Kaye Whitley appeared briefly on the show as a call-in and let's deal
with that liar first off. People seem unaware
that Kaye Whitley helps no one. She does her soft purr and creates
'facts' as she goes along and offers cover for the sexual predators.
That's what she does. If that surprises you, you need to own up to the
fact that you haven't been paying attention. In July of 2008, she
refused -- REFUSED -- to testify before Congress. When she finally did
appear (and you can check out this Feminist Wire Daily News item from September 12, 2008
if you were caught napping when that was going on) she refused --
REFUSED -- to provide an answer as to what allowed her to legally
refuse. Kaye Whitley NEEDS TO BE FIRED. Is that clear? She is paid
by the US tax payer. Barack Obama should have immediately fired her
upon taking office -- and it's a sign of how useless so many 'leaders'
are that they didn't ask for this easy, quick (and probably cosmetic)
change to take place. She insults victims who testify before Congress
by getting in little digs after they've offered their testimony. She
makes up figures and facts as she goes along. Congress needs to
confront her -- each time she provides testimony -- with her previous
testimony because the two never, ever mesh. She's a liar. And she can
sell make up door to door and be as big a liar as she wants to be. But
right now she's the director of DoD's Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office and, in that capacity, her lies are hurting a lot of
people. Susan Page asked the little liar about
the increase in reported assaults and, being the liar she is, Kaye
Whitley tried to assert that there was no increase in actual assaults,
it was just that there was so much more comfort these days with
reporting . . . thanks to the work she (Whitley) had done. That woman
is a menace. And so is the idiotic PSA she's so thrilled with. Prepare to be disgusted in mere seconds. Male voice: My strength is for defending my nation and my fellow service members. Female voice: Preventing sexual assault is part of that duty. Male voice: So when I saw my buddy's date was drunk, I told him, ask her when she's sober. Female voice: When some guy went way too far with my friend, I got her out of there. Male voice: Sexual assault can be prevented when friends and co-workers look out for each other. Female voice: If you see a situation headed in the wrong direction, do your duty. Male voice: Say something, do something. Female voice: Get help. Note,
it's not when a man goes too far, it's when he goes "way too far."
Hopefully, Whitley will explain the difference between the two. And
the first offense was probably "ask her when she's sober." Because
surely sexual assaults are fine and dandy when someone's sober. "Do
you mind if I sexually assult you?" When drunk, a woman is so apt to
immediately say, "Yes, please sexually assault me." Right? Because
sexual assault is nothing but 'good times' gone bad, right? That's
what that insulting and appalling PSA is saying and Kaye Whitley's
proud of it? Whitley then wanted to bring up
"restricted reporting" and forgot to note that it was a pilot program.
She also -- yet again -- revealed how stupid she is, how inept she is
and how fired her ass needs to be immediately. Pimping her stupid
"restricted reporting" program, she claimed that if you were in the
corporate world and were sexually assaulted, you could choose whether
or not to participate and "certainly" no one would phone the CEO about
it. If a sexual assault takes place at any corporation, everyone knows
about for legal reasons. Kaye Whitley is an idiot. We could go on and
on about how she twsited reality to convey a false impression. It's
past time she was fired. She should have been canned on day one of the
new administration for her refusal to testify to Congress. Her job
does not permit her to make such a refusal. The tax payers pays her
salary and when Congress wants her front and center, her ass plops down
before them. That's how it works. She
praised her stupid "restricted reporting" program insisting it was a
"success" and that "the reason I say that" is because, since 2005,
she's had "over 2,500" victims come forward ("and last year alone over
700"). How many of those went on to file charges? That's the question
she refuses to answer when Congress asks her. That was the point of
the "restricted reporting" option -- how it was sold. It would provide
counseling and work the victim towards filing charges. Kaye never
provides an answer -- even when asked by Congress -- how many
"restricted reporting" have gone on to file charges. And "over 2500"?
That's not a lot. Especially when she was claiming before Congress January 28th of this year
that 1,896 was the number. Again, her numers change at random -- based
apparently on whom she's speaking to. When she walked that 1,896 number
out before Congress, US House Rep Niki Tsongas pointed out, "It means a
significant number of people who committed these assaults are not
accountable." Whitley was too busy whining to that Congressional
hearing (chaired by US House Rep Susan Davids) that reporting rape (not
using restricted reporting -- and this was for rape, that was the
topic, not sexual assault which can be attempted and can be verbal,
this was reporting actual rape) "tears a unit apart." You want to
explain where this woman's loyalties are because anyone who,
interviewed about the huge increase in rape, that would want to whine
about how the unit is harmed doesn't need to be the director of DoD's
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. It's Sexual Assault
Awareness month and there's no indication that Kaye Whitely has any;
however, firing her might increase awareness nation-wide. When
Kaye left the show, the broadcast improved tremendously and similar
effects would no doubt happen at the Pentagon. When Kaye Whitley was
gone, Susan Page asked Helen Benedict for her take on Kaye and her
'efforts' at the Pentagon? Helen
Benedict: One is she said that even if you report your assault
anonymously, they call "restricted," the commander is still told that
there was an assault. And the thing is that platoons are very enclosed,
gossipy, hiearchical organizations and everybody knows everybody's
business so what this means is that it's very, very likely that she
[the victim] won't in fact be anonymous and everyone will know exactly
who it is. And women are aware of this so that's enormously
intidimating. The other thing that worries me is how much can an ad
work to really change behavior? I mean, we've seen that sometimes it
works better than others but, uhm, we've had sexual prevention classes
in the military for quite a long time now, we've had the unrestricted
reporting -- I mean the anonymous reporting since 2005. There's no
evidence that sexual assault is going down. And if the numbers of
reporting go up you never know if it's actually more reporting or more
rapes. The culture has to change and advertising alone isn't enough.
I think all these steps are good, but they're not enough. I would like
to see anybody who's ever found guilty of sexual abuse, sexual
harassment, kicked out of the military altogether -- not given some
demotion or slap on the wrist or letter in his file, which happens all
too often. Anybody who has a record of domestic or sexual violence
against women should never be admitted into the military -- some have
under the moral waivers. I'd like to see civilian hotlines put in all
the bases at home so that a woman who has been assaulted can call a
civilian rape crisis center, not even have to deal with the military at
all. And I would like to see a culture where it's really understood
that rape is a war crime just like at war whether you're raping
civilians of the enemy or your own kind, it's a war crime. It's that
serious. And we'll get to some current problems but Page and Benedict also discussed some what ifs and we'll note this section: Susan
Page: You know some people would look at the experience, the difficult
experience many women have had in this combat situation in Iraq and
say, 'Well okay, maybe women should not be put in this situation, maybe
women should not be in the military in these combat support roles that
put them in these isolated situations.' What would you say to that
argument? Helen
Benedict: I'd say it's like the argument that was once used
women-shouldn't-vote, women-shouldn't-be-fire-fighters, or teachers, or
professors. We've always had to fight against the sort of predjudice,
[in order] to be treated equally, but women are adults, they should be
able to have any job they want. Not everybody would choose to have
that kind of role -- just as not every man would -- but it should be up
to women to choose what jobs they want, not up to the government or
anyone else. Susan
Page: Well let's do the reverse side. What if there were no
restrictions on what women could do in the military? What do you think
the effect of that would be? Helen
Benedict: I think if -- if the Pentagon lifted its ban on ground combat
it would help women win respect and stop this perpetuation of seeing
them as second class soldiers. I think it would have a large effect on
how they were treated by their male comrades because at the root of
every assault and harassment is lack of respect. And if the message
comes down from the top "Yes, this is a second class soldier. No, there
is no reason to respect her," then things aren't going to change. Violence against servicewomen will continue to exist so long as sexual assault is treated as an internal military mater. As
it did in the aftermath of the Tailhook and Aberdeen Proving Ground
scandals, Congress has lately renewed its demand that the military
imporve the matter in which it polices itself. But why should the
military be trusted to police itself at all? Under
military policy, the disposition of harassment and assault cases is
left entirely to the discretion of unit commanders, who alone decide on
the need for corrective action. Since service members are exempt from
civilian workplace harassment laws, the military is shielded from
precisely the sort of outside judicial review that could act as a real
deterrent. This lawlessness has
fostered a culture of underprosecution in which only 38 percent of
substantiated rape cases even go to trial. Surely these numbers prove that it's time to stop trusting the fox to protect the henhouse. VETWOW is an organization for female military veterans and RAAIN
(Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) is an organization serving
all victims of sexual assault (civilian and military, male and female)
-- RAAIN's toll free number is 1 (800) 656-HOPE or 1 (800) 656-4673. Helen
Benedict said rape should be treated like a War Crime and, if it were,
that might be the saddest thing of all. That's said because what
happened to Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, was a War Crime and yet most outlets, including the New York Times, refused to print her name or run a photo ( USA Today and the Washington Post were two exceptions -- the Associated Press
repeatedly did a strong job portraying Abeer as a person and not a
statistic or, worse, an 'other'). The 14-year-old girl was gang-raped
at her home by US soldiers while one US soldier shot her parents and
her five-year-old sister dead in the next room. Then that soldier
joined the others and allegedly shot her after he raped her. He then
allegedly attempted to set Abeer's body on fire to destroy the
evidence. When that didn't work, they just made sure 'insurgents'
would be blamed for their actions, then they returned back to the base
where -- after disposing of the blood-stained clothes -- they grilled
chicken wings and proceeded to get drunk while celebrating. All the US
soldiers have confessed to their role in the conspiracy and rape (two
soldiers confessed to their rape, others to various parts of the
conspiracy where they planned to do this to Abeer and her family)
except one: Steven D. Green. The others, still in the military, faced
an August 2006 court-martial and then trials that were completed by
last year. All fingered Steven D. Green as the ringleader. They
stated Green came up with the plan(Abeer's brother told reporters that
Green stroked his sister's face and had long made his sister
uncomfortable), that he shot and killed the sister, the parents and
then Abeer, that he participated in the gang-rape and that he set
Abeer's corpse on fire. Steven D. Green has, through is attorneys,
maintained he was innocent. How 'innocent' the world will soon see
since his attorneys have been attempting to navigate an insanity plea
with the court. The last Friday in June 2006, Green, who had already
been discharged from the military before the War Crimes came to light,
was apprehended by federal authorities in Kentucky. After many delays
(including a postponement for a quilting fair -- that is not a joke,
they actually postponed last year's trial for a quilting fair) Green's
trial is now scheduled to begin April 27th at the United States
District Court Western District of Kentucky. April 6th jury selection
will begin. They are anticipating media interest (after the media
silence on Abeer, that's an interesting prediction) and Judge Thomas B.
Russell issued media guidelines March 26th including that a media room
would be set aside and laptops and cell phones would be allowed there,
they also restricted the press to doing all interviews outside the
courthouse ("Interviews may be conducted on the sidewalk on Broadway
across from the courthouse"). Well maybe they're expecting the
international press? Sunday AFP noted
the case: "In another case involving the rape and murder of a
14-year-old Iraqi girl and the killing of her father, mother and
younger sister, four soldiers were convicted by a court martial and
handed sentences of up to 110 years in prison. The last defendant,
Steven D. Green, is to be tried next month in a civilian court in
Paducah, Kentucky and could face the death penalty if convicted." ( AP
filed two stories on Green's attempt to make a motion that the
prospective jury pool did not contain enough African-Americans.
Green's attorneys filed paperwork today to withdraw that motion -- PDF format warning, here for that paperwork.]
And, to be clear, James Barker and Paul Cortez entered guilty pleas,
Jesse V. Spielman was convicted and Bryan L. Howard had made a plea
agreement. Yesterday in Basra, a ceremony was
held for the 'withdrawal' of British forces which really isn't a
withdrawal since 400 of the 4100 will remain behind after 'withdrawal'
and which was strange since most will be leaving by May 31st and not
yesterday. But, hey, any excuse to throw a party, right? Campbell Robertson and Sam Dagher (New York Times) note
that a one time, British forces in Iraq numbered 40,000 and that the
main thrust of the ceremony was to turn Basra over to US control. As Richard Beeston (Times of London) observes,
"The British Army still knows how to perform a ceremonial withdrawal
better than anyone, as the Royal Marines band and a lone piper proved
at Basra airport yesterday. Thanks to decades of lowering flags and
marching into the sunset on every corner of the planet, the drill is
dignified and graceful -- and certainly well rehearsed." Caroline Wyatt (BBC) reports
that the majority of British forces leaving will not be leaving until
May 31st. She also notes 179 British troops have died and we'll add
"thus far" because British troops are not home and will not be home
come May 31st. Xinhua notes,
"Tuesday's departure is part of an agreement signed between Iraq and
Britain in November last year, in which the latter pledged to complete
pullout of its last 4,100 soldiers from Iraq by late July 2009." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports of the ceremony,
"Major General Andy Salmon handed over what will become known as
Multinational Division South to U.S. Major General Michael Oates during
a ceremony at a military base in the southern city of Basra. The
pullout is a process that will culminate on May 31, the Ministry of
Defence said." Alsumaria points out,
"It is to be noted that senior Iraqi officers attended the ceremony and
praised the British Army saying that Iraq owes them a lot for helping
Iraq's Army in all its missions." The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan (at Financial Times of London) quotes
US Gen Ray Odierno stating, "We have shed blood together and that is a
bond that no man can break. You have restored hope where chaos
reigned." Raghavan notes that approximately 7,000 US service members
will replace the departing British. Terri Jud (Independent of London) explains,
"Yesterday, a bright pink trailer offering 'pretzel dogs' was a sign
that the Americans had begun moving into the British base, having been
warned by their unofficial website that they will have to endure more
spartan living conditions until the luxuries to which US forces are
accustomed are built." British Maj Gen Andy Salmon tells Deborah Haynes (Times of London),
"I think we have made a difference; we can see amazing progress has
taken place in Basra. There is still an awful lot to do, of course.
At least we can go having done our bit." He added his plans for his
return to England will include, "Have a couple of beers, I think, and
see my missus." Meanwhile Anna Mulrine (US News & World Reports) notes
this weekend's Baghad battle and states "the arrest of Adil
al-Mashhadani" has put "the spotlight" on a long "simmering issue."
The "Awakenings" are being targeted now -- the Sunni thugs the US put
on the payroll after they installed Shi'ite thugs into the puppet
government. Robert H. Reid (AP) observes the
attack "carried big risks -- chief among them that Sunnis would view
the action not as a move against a criminal but a politically motivated
Shiite push against Sunnis." With the weekend violence in
Baghdad which found "Awakening"s on one side and Iraqi and US forces on
the other, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapes) observed,
"Most Iraqis think that today's lower level of violence is the eye, not
the end, of the storm, and that the decisive power struggles are just
beginning. The U.S.-backed Iraqi government is widely regarded as an
undeserving group of exiles who returned to Iraq on the backs of
American tanks." And they're right to think that since all the high
positions -- such as prime minister -- are occupied by people who fled
Iraq long ago and waited until after the US declared war and began
occupying Iraq to return to the country they now 'rule'. This morning, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reports
on the shifting ground and notes a US "military intelligence officer"
who just knows the resistance is dead but "terrorism" will always
remain in Iraq -- like the Tigris, I guess. Others are less sure and
Iraqi and US officials echo many of the concerns Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) reported (noted in yesterday's snapshot).
Is the concern realistic or not? At this point, no one knows (and Rubin
doesn't attempt to present it any other way or to take sides). But,
true or false, it feeds into al-Maliki's talk of why he can't let
"Awakenings" be absorbed by his puppet government. (The
counter-argument is that these concerns are not about potential
absorbings, these concerns are that "sleepers" are already in the Iraqi
security forces.) Nouri's best buddy, the Condi to his George, Mowaffak
al-Rubaie (who was awarded the title of "Iraq's national seucirty
adviser" following a dramatic upset in the swimsuit competition) is
insistent that it's (you know it's coming) "Al Qaeda and the hard-core
Saddamists" -- and you get the feeling that al Qaeda's tossed in for
the international audience and "Saddamists" for all the Shi'ites in
Iraq. Like Condi, Mowaffak knows how to work the room. For the
article, "14 leaders of the Awakening movement" were interviewed and
they see reason for concerns: "assassination attempts, homemade bombs
placed near their homes or under their cars, leaflets urging them not
to work with the Iraqi government." Mullah Nadhim al-Jubori goes on the
record and notes kidnappings of four men serving under him (two set
free when ransom was paid, the other two killed)and notes: "The ransom
was picked up in Baghdad. That tells me there is good coordination and
organization among Al Qaede members." Meanwhile, as noted in yesterday's snapshot,
the US military and Iraqi officials were telling Rod Nordland that the
Fadhil neighborhood of Baghdad was weapon free. Not quite. Robert H. Reid (AP) reports
this afternoon that the approximately 250 "Awakening"s in Fadhil turned
over their weapons . . . excpet for "at least 25 percent" who "escaped
with their weapons." And Reid reports the figure may actually be 30%.
Reid notes the weekend attack in Baghdad has other "Awakening" Council
members in Iraq suspicious and wary and that they have refused to work
13 of their 21 checkpoints in Jurf al-Sakhar as a result ("The area had
been a major al-Qaida staging area until the rise of the Awakenings").
Thomas E. Ricks, author of the new bestseller The Gamble, writes (at Foreign Policy) of how Col Pete "Mansoor had warned in Baghdad that signing the Status of Forces Agreement
could lead the United States into fighting the Sunni 'Awakening' units
also known as the 'Sons of Iraq,' or SOI" and quotes Mansoor's
confirmation of that warning (confirmation to Ricks) which includes,
"As I recall what I said was that the status of forces agreement would
put U.S. forces into a position where they could not intervene to stop
the government of Iraq from attacking SOI. If the Iraqi Security
Forces needed help once engaged against the SOI, U.S. forces could be
drawn into the fight against the very people who helped us turn the war
around." Back to Alissa J. Rubin who reports a
new weapon being utilized, RKG-3 grenades which "weigh just five pounds
and, attached to parachutes, can be lobbed by a teenager but can
penetrate the American military's latest heavily armored vehicle, the
MRAP." Rubin notes these inexpensive weapons cost $10 a piece. Me
speaking, not Rubin, the American military has long laughed at the
mortar attacks. The mortar attacks are not precise and rarely cause
alarm. (Troops stationed inside the Green Zone have been injured by
mortar attacks. An attack that wounded Australian troops several years
ago stands out. However, the attack that frightened the US military,
the attack on the Green Zone, was the 2006 late spring attack which
wasn't mortars but an attempt to storm the Green Zone -- this led to
the first in a series of al-Maliki's 'crack downs'.) If more precise
than the mortars, the RKG-3s could become a serious source of concern.
Turning to today's violence.. Bombings? Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report
an RPG7 was launched in Baghdad "during a visit by vice president
Tariq al-Hashimi to Sadr City" leaving two soldiers injured, a Baghdad
sticky bombing resulted in two people being wounded, a Mosul car
bombing left twelve people wounded and, dropping back to last night for
all that follows, a Mosul grenade attack wounded three people, a Mosul
roadside bombing which wounded four police officers and an al Juboor
bombing which resulted in an exchange of gun fire with the US military
and house raids by the US military. Shootings? Corpses? Today the US military announced:
"TIKRIT, Iraq -- A Multi-National Division - North Soldier died in a
non-combat related incident in Salah ad Din province, March 31. The
name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of
kin and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under
investigation." The announcement brings the number of US service
members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4263. Yesterday's snapshot
covered the hearing on Iraqi refugees US Senator Bob Casey chaired
yesterday. At the hearing, Nabil al-Tikriti expressed the opinion that
Iraqi Christians are not refugees of interest in the way that those who
help the US military are or other (non-Christian groups -- let's be
honest on that, it was his point, that Iraqi Christians get attention
from the US because they can relate or think they can). It was an
insulting remark and a lousy call because Iraqi Christians are
repeatedly targeted for who they are. That qualifies as refugee by any
standard of the term. (By contrast, some of the ones al-Tikriti
considered refugees would not qualify as refugees by many
definitions.) Today Sahar Issa and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report
Sabah Aziz Sulaiman was beheaded in Kirkuk yesterday. The 71-year-old
man's 'crime'? Apparently being an Iraqi Christian. It's not a small
point, Iraqi Christians are targeted and it is wrong to assume they get
any extra attention. They don't. There are Christian groups in the US
that note and support them (and their are Muslim groups in the US that
do the same with Muslim Iraqis) but in terms of real recognition
translating as press or governmental, they get very little. The
hearing yesterday (attended by so few senators) made that point. It's
foolish to be so petty about 'attention' that you deny the realities of
what is going on and has gone on for Iraqi Christians. They are
targeted in the same way that Jews in Germany were -- not to that
length and degree yet -- by which I mean, no round ups have taken
place. But they are killed, they are targeted and they are
threatened. The Jews in Germany (in the lead up to and during WWII)
were targeted for who they were, the Iraqi Christians are targeted for
who they are. It is a bigotry and a specific hate and to deny that is
to deny the reality of what's taking place. They are not the only
refugees but they make up a significant percentage of them. Refugees International has issued a press release yesterday: Washington,
D.C. - As security in Iraq improves, refugees and internally displaced
Iraqis are starting to return home, but the returns are slow and
tentative, Refugees International told Congress today. The new security
climate in Iraq has not yet translated into increases in the provision
of services to displaced Iraqis and more must be done to assist and
protect them. Last month, Refugees International completed a mission to
Baghdad, Eskanderia, Fallujah, Karbala and Hilla to assess the
humanitarian situation inside Iraq. According to the United Nations,
about 20 percent of Iraq's population, or more than four million
people, remain displaced.
"In its strategy to
encourage returns, the Government of Iraq has failed to take political,
social and economic reality into consideration and examine the
country's capacity to absorb large numbers of returns," said RI
President Ken Bacon. "Instead, it has made the return of displaced
Iraqis a component, as opposed to a consequence, of its security
strategy." The testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adds
that, "Assistance to returnees, property restitution, and the provision
of basic services are essential for Iraqis to return home. But many
will still not return until they feel the root causes of the conflict
have been addressed. They need to feel accepted by the community and
provided with security guarantees."
Refugees
International also expressed concern that the Government of Iraq is no
longer registering internally displaced people in an effort to make the
displacement problem disappear. Corruption within Iraq's government is
widespread and makes it extremely difficult to effectively deliver
assistance and for international and national aid agencies to operate.
However, Refugees International met with impressive local groups, who
provide assistance to thousands of vulnerable Iraqis without any
support from the Iraqi government or the international
community.
"There is no unified process to deal with
returning internally displaced persons or refugees. Property disputes
will linger for many years to come and are likely to spark renewed
violence," added Mr. Bacon. "While security remains the major factor in
a family's decision to return home, other factors play a role -
infrastructure, particularly water and electricity, employment
opportunities and health care. The Government of Iraq, the U.S. and the
United Nations have to do a better job of working together to provide
the services necessary to support returning Iraqis."
Refugees
International is a Washington, D.C.-based organization that advocates
to end refugee crises. Since November 2006, the organization has
conducted nine missions to the Middle East to assess the needs of
displaced Iraqis and work with international leaders to develop
effective solutions to this crisis. RI's latest field report on
displacement inside Iraq will be available on April 9, 2009. For more
information, go to www.refugeesinternational.org/Iraq. Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley
comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in
typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz
to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on
Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us!Please Invite your friends:Bay Area Premiere from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQ A Big Noise Film followed by a Public Discussion: How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama? Carl
Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the
Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq. Antonia
Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most
Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq. Friday April 3, 7pm ATA THEATER 992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required. Obama's
Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on
the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers
a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens.
It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison
at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from
the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go.
Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and
how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the
film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join
us.
Posted at 02:51 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
AP misplaces 1.1 million Iraqi refugees
Yesterday,
I was present for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee
hearing on Iraqi refugees. I have no idea where Kimberly Hefling (AP) was because her figures are off:
"Nearly 2 million are estimated to remain outside the country, mostly
in Syria and Jordan, and an additional 1.6 million, forced from their
homes by sectarian and ethnic violence, are displaced inside Iraq."
Check the snapshot,
you'll see this wasn't a fleeting reference. The figures given were 2
million (not "nearly") outside Iraq and 2.7 million displaced
internally. Senator Bob Casey mentioned those figures (for a total of
4.7 million -- those are the UNHCR figures) several times in his
opening remarks and, in fact, made the figures a round of questioning.
Did the three have faith in those figures? Ellen Laipson (Henry
L. Stimson Center) felt the figures were fluid and was less likely to
commit one way or the other, Nancy Aossey (International Medical Corps)
was comfortable with the figures (and agreed the numbers were fluid)
and pointed out that the UN uses the same methodology when calculating
refugees in other regions while Nabil al-Tikriti (University of Mary
Washington) noted that the UN figures are neither the highest numbers
regularly reported by some or the lowest but within the middle. (Nancy
Aossey's name was mispelled in yesterday's snapshot the first time it
appeared. It appeared multiple times after and was spelled correctly. I
was rushing the dictation -- due to the hearing running so late -- and
take the responsibility for that mispelling. My apologies. It's
pronounced "Aussie" -- for any wondering, she clarified that when Casey
asked her in yesterday's hearing.) This was a lengthy exchange
(that's just a summary, I have notes, we can quote in full). And the
4.7 million would be utilized throughout the hearing. (And is utilized
in the Senate press release on the hearing that will be included at the
end of this entry.) If a figure was given once and AP
got it wrong, we'd note they got it wrong and move on. But I was at
that hearing and it wasn't just used once. Not only was the number used
repeatedly, the validity of the 4.7 million number was raised by Casey
and all three witnesses weighed in on it. So how, from 4.7 million, AP
runs with 3.6 million is anyone's guess? The less generous speculation
would be that they have intentionally set out to underplay the refugee
crisis. Whether that was the intent or not, their sloppy reporting has
resulted in that as they erase 1.1 million Iraqi refugees. AP
gets credit for covering it. That appears to be the only report on
yesterday's hearing. But they cover it very poorly and considering what
AP's emphasizing by Nancy Aossey (the only witness AP
even mentions) it would appear someone showed up late for the hearing
(real late when you consider it started over an hour after it was
scheduled to begin) and left early. (The points AP's
emphasizing by Aossey were not her main points in her opening remarks
or the points she made at the end when Bob Casey Jr. gave all three the
chance to emphasize the areas they thought were most important before
the hearing ended.) I'm going back and forth and don't have the
time to debate this further. We would prefer not to link to Voice of
America. It is government sponsored propaganda. That's why it cannot
broadcast in the US. That said, Deborah Tate has a lenthy VoA report and does a much better job than AP (including getting the figures used in the hearing correct). (Tate's report omits Nabil al-Tikriti for some reason.) Refugees International has issued a press release on the hearing: For Immediate Release
Washington,
D.C. - As security in Iraq improves, refugees and internally displaced
Iraqis are starting to return home, but the returns are slow and
tentative, Refugees International told Congress today. The new security
climate in Iraq has not yet translated into increases in the provision
of services to displaced Iraqis and more must be done to assist and
protect them. Last month, Refugees International completed a mission to
Baghdad, Eskanderia, Fallujah, Karbala and Hilla to assess the
humanitarian situation inside Iraq. According to the United Nations,
about 20 percent of Iraq's population, or more than four million
people, remain displaced.
"In its strategy to encourage returns,
the Government of Iraq has failed to take political, social and
economic reality into consideration and examine the country's capacity
to absorb large numbers of returns," said RI President Ken Bacon.
"Instead, it has made the return of displaced Iraqis a component, as
opposed to a consequence, of its security strategy." The testimony to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adds that, "Assistance to
returnees, property restitution, and the provision of basic services
are essential for Iraqis to return home. But many will still not return
until they feel the root causes of the conflict have been addressed.
They need to feel accepted by the community and provided with security
guarantees."
Refugees International also expressed concern that
the Government of Iraq is no longer registering internally displaced
people in an effort to make the displacement problem disappear.
Corruption within Iraq's government is widespread and makes it
extremely difficult to effectively deliver assistance and for
international and national aid agencies to operate. However, Refugees
International met with impressive local groups, who provide assistance
to thousands of vulnerable Iraqis without any support from the Iraqi
government or the international community.
"There is no unified
process to deal with returning internally displaced persons or
refugees. Property disputes will linger for many years to come and are
likely to spark renewed violence," added Mr. Bacon. "While security
remains the major factor in a family's decision to return home, other
factors play a role - infrastructure, particularly water and
electricity, employment opportunities and health care. The Government
of Iraq, the U.S. and the United Nations have to do a better job of
working together to provide the services necessary to support returning
Iraqis."
Refugees International is a Washington, D.C.-based
organization that advocates to end refugee crises. Since November 2006,
the organization has conducted nine missions to the Middle East to
assess the needs of displaced Iraqis and work with international
leaders to develop effective solutions to this crisis. RI's latest
field report on displacement inside Iraq will be available on April 9,
2009. For more information, go to www.refugeesinternational.org/Iraq. ###
Contact:
Vanessa Parra; +1-202-540-7025
Vanessa@refugeesinternational.org We've
got another press release but we'll close out this entry with it. (It's
lengthy.) That hearing was very important and the topic was very
important. It's a telling statement of today's press that it's better
covered by the Voice of America and that it's ignored otherwise except
for an AP report. Is the refugee crisis given the attention it
warrants? Pick up your paper of choice and you'll see that they are
obviously not given that attention. Along with front paging Iraq, this morning the New York Times also has two articles filed in Iraq. The second is Campbell Robertson and Sam Dagher's " British Forces Transfer Command in Southern Iraq to U.S. as Bomb Kills 7 in North"
which notes British forces once numbered 40,000 in Iraq, fell to 4,000
and will further fall to approximately 400 now that the 'withdrawal'
has taken place. (Those remaining are 'non-combat' and they will be
under US command.) We'll note this from the article: With
the end of the British-led southeast division on Tuesday, Basra became
the headquarters of a new division for American-led forces that
stretches all the way from Baghdad's southern suburbs to the Kuwaiti
border, encompassing Iraq's nine southern provinces.Basra,
Iraq's second-largest city, prides itself on being a cosmopolitan port
city, a gateway to the Persian Gulf and Iraq's engine of economic
development because of the vast oil reserves nearby. Basra Province has
further strategic significance as the land route to Kuwait for American
forces as they withdraw over the next 17 months.It's
interesting that this gets covered when you consider that the
government e-mails about the pre-war intel and the announcement that an
inquiry would take place after the 'withdrawal' got no coverage. That's
not a slam at the paper's Baghdad correspondents. That is a slam at its
many London-based correspondents including John F. Burns. The UK Socialist Worker uses the withdraw to ("finally," as Pru notes) cover the inquiry: This article should be read after: » Pakistan: Nato's war escalates Iraq: British troops withdrawal does not mean peace The British occupation forces in southern Iraq passed military command of the region to the US Army this week. The
handover was hailed by Gordon Brown's government as a major landmark on
the road towards the final withdrawal of the 4,100 British troops in
Basra. But Iraq is far from a success story – with more than a million
Iraqis dead, and thousands more wounded. Since the 2003 invasion, some 179 British personnel and over 4,000 US troops have also been killed. The
US claims that Iraq is now stable, but this "stability" rests on the
cooperation between US forces and the Sunni-based Iraqi "awakening
councils". The fragility of this
set up was made clear last week when clashes broke out between fighters
from the "awakening councils" and occupation forces in Baghdad. The
occupation rests on dividing up the country into Sunni, Shia and
Kurdish areas. The northern city of Mosul, a key oil centre, is
increasingly the scene of clashes between Kurdish and Sunni forces over
who will control it. British troops are to remain in Iraq even after formally withdrawing in order to train Iraqi security forces.
Iraq inquiry must be public Reg
Keys, Rose Gentle and Peter Brierley, three members of Military
Families Against the War who have all lost sons in Iraq, delivered a
letter to Downing Street last week calling for a full public inquiry
into the Iraq war. Later the same
day, foreign secretary David Miliband told parliament that an inquiry
would take place "as soon as practicable" after most British troops
return from Iraq in July. However, Miliband suggested that the inquiry is likely to take place in secret. This
would be an insult to democracy and all of those who have campaigned
tirelessly for the truth about the disastrous Iraq war. The following should be read alongside this article:
» Pakistan: Nato's war escalates
» Anti-war campaigners help force out Czech PM
» Nato's role in promoting Western imperialism
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original. Share this story on: Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation. » comment on article | » email article | » printable version
Arab Times notes: Britain's
chief of defence staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup paid tribute
"to those who made the ultimate sacrifice" and described the Iraq
campaign as "a noble endeavour." "This occasion is about the countless
number of men and women from the far-flung corners of the United States
and from Great Britain who have striven with such courage here," he
said. "I salute you with pride." Major General Andy Salmon, the senior
British officer in Basra, handed over the southern base to an American
commander, in a key step towards all foreign troops leaving the country
and a full return to Iraqi sovereignty. The colours of the coalition's
Multinational Division South-East, a specially inscribed Royal Marines
flag, were lowered and replaced with the standard of the US Army’s 10th
Mountain Division.Salmon, a
Royal Marine and veteran of the 1982 Falklands conflict and 1991 Gulf
War, was among 40 British troops to leave Basra after Tuesday's
ceremony. He and his predecessors were praised by Iraqi army General
Nassir Abadi.Caroline Wyatt (BBC) reports
that the majority of British forces leaving will not be leaving until
May 31st. She also notes 179 British troops have died and we'll add
"thus far" because British troops are not home and will not be home
come May 31st. Xinhua notes,
"Tuesday's departure is part of an agreement signed between Iraq and
Britain in November last year, in which the latter pledged to complete
pullout of its last 4,100 soldiers from Iraq by late July 2009." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains: Major
General Andy Salmon handed over what will become known as Multinational
Division South to U.S. Major General Michael Oates during a ceremony at
a military base in the southern city of Basra. The pullout is a process
that will culminate on May 31, the Ministry of Defence said."This
is a further step forward in the U.K.’s work in Iraq," Prime Minister
Gordon Brown said in a statement. "There have been difficult times
along the way, but British troops have made an outstanding contribution
to laying the ground for a stable and increasingly prosperous Basra."The Washington Post's Sudarsan Raghavan (at Financial Times of London) quotes
US Gen Ray Odierno stating, "We have shed blood together and that is a
bond that no man can break. You have restored hope where chaos
reigned." Raghavan notes that approximately 7,000 US service members
will replace the departing British. Terri Jud (Independent of London) explains,
"Yesterday, a bright pink trailer offering 'pretzel dogs' was a sign
that the Americans had begun moving into the British base, having been
warned by their unofficial website that they will have to endure more
spartan living conditions until the luxuries to which US forces are
accustomed are built." Richard Beeston (Times of London) observes:
The
British Army still knows how to perform a ceremonial withdrawal better
than anyone, as the Royal Marines band and a lone piper proved at Basra
airport yesterday. Thanks to decades of lowering flags and marching
into the sunset on every corner of the planet, the drill is dignified
and graceful – and certainly well rehearsed.
Yesterday was a
poignant moment, not just for the 300 assembled American, British and
Iraqi officers and other officials but for the tens of thousands who
have served in Iraq over the past six years. The Times of London's Deborah Haynes interviews UK Maj-Gen Andy Salmon: "I
think we have made a difference; we can see amazing progress has taken
place in Basra. There is still an awful lot to do, of course. At least
we can go having done our bit."Asked
what he planned to do when he arrived home, the general, who left Basra
last night, said: "Have a couple of beers, I think, and see my missus."A
staff of about 40 also departed with him, flying first to Cyprus and
then on to Britain, where they will be greeted with a champagne
reception. Their exit paves the way for the majority of Britain's
remaining 4,100-strong contingent to leave Iraq by July.And Alsumaria points out,
"It is to be noted that senior Iraqi officers attended the ceremony and
praised the British Army saying that Iraq owes them a lot for helping
Iraq's Army in all its missions." The Kurdistan Regional Government notes: Kurdistan's history until the 19th century  | | » | Alexander
the Great defeated Persian Emperor Darius at the Battle of Arbela, near
the ancient city of Erbil. Today Erbil is the capital of Kurdistan
Region |
| Timeline of the Kurdistan Region’s history Some of the key events in the Kurdistan Region’s history up to the 19th century. 60-80,000 years ago:
Evidence of Neanderthal man living in caves. From 1957-1961 nine
Neanderthal skeletons were found in Shanidar cave, close to the Big Zab
River in Erbil province just above the Kahlon-Rezan road. 30-300,000 years ago:
Evidence of Old Stone Age (Middle Paleolithic) people living in six
caves near the village of Hazar Merd, south-west of Suleimaniah. In one
cave near Zarzi village, many flint implements of the Upper Paleolithic
era were found. [1] 9,000 BC:
At Karim Shahir near Chemchemal, the earliest evidence of wild wheat
and barley cultivation and domesticated dogs and sheep. Start of the
global change from food gathering to food producing culture. [2] 6,750 BC:
At Jarmo near Chemchemal, evidence of the oldest known permanent farmed
settlement of mud houses, with wheat grown from seed, herds of goats,
sheep and pigs. [3] 4,000 BC:
Evidence that Arbela, today’s Erbil, was occupied, making it one of the
oldest continuously inhabited sites in the world. Excavation is
difficult because the modern city lies on top of the ancient town. [4] 612 BC:
After the Babylonians destroyed the Assyrian capitals of Ashur and
Nineveh, the Assyrian empire city of Arbela, today’s Erbil, becomes
part of the Babylonian empire. [5] 539 BC:
After Persian leader Cyrus the Great takes over Babylon, Arbela,
today’s Erbil, joins the vast Achaemenid or ancient Persian empire. [6] 331 BC:
Alexander the Great and Darius III of Persia fight the Battle of
Gaugamela, also known as the Battle of Arbela, about 75 kilometres
north-west of Erbil. In the aftermath, Darius is murdered by his
kinsmen and Alexander goes on to conquer the Persian Empire including
Babylon, and extends his empire to the Punjab. [7] 6-700 AD: Arabs conquer Kurdistan and convert many to Islam. 1100s – 1800s: Today’s Kurdistan Region is ruled by several semi-independent principalities, the Ardalan, Botan, Badinan, Baban and Soran. [8] Early 1500s: Kurdistan becomes the main stake of the rivalries between the Ottoman and Persian empires. [9] 1514:
After Turkish sultan Selim I defeats the Shah of Persia, Kurdish
scholar Idriss Bitlissi persuades the sultan to give back to the
Kurdish princes their former rights and privileges, in exchange for
their commitment to guard the border between the two empires. The
principalities in Kurdistan enjoy wide autonomy until the early 19th
century. [10] 1784:
The city of Suleimaniah is founded by Prince Ibrahim Pasha Baban when
he decides to transfer the Baban emirate’s capital from Qala Chwalan. [11] 1847: Collapse of Botan, the last independent Kurdish principality, which included the towns of Amadiya and Akra. [12] [1]
"The Palaeolithic of Southern Kurdistan: Excavations in the Caves of
Zarzi and Hazar Merd" (1930) Bulletin of American School of Prehistoric
Research 6, 9-43 [2]
Old Testament Life and Literature, Gerald A. Larue. Also Prehistoric
Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks, L. S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood,
B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J. Watson, eds. [3]
Old Testament Life and Literature, Gerald A. Larue. Also Prehistoric
Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks, L. S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood,
B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J. Watson, eds. [4] Jona Lendering, Vrije University of Amsterdam, www.livius.org [5] Jona Lendering, Vrije University of Amsterdam, www.livius.org [6] Jona Lendering, Vrije University of Amsterdam, www.livius.org [7] Encyclopedia Britannica. [8] www.wikipedia.org [9] A brief survey of the history of the Kurds, Kendal Nezan, President of the Kurdish Institute of Paris. [10] A brief survey of the history of the Kurds, Kendal Nezan, President of the Kurdish Institute of Paris. [11] KRG Ministry of Tourism. [12]
Martin van Bruinessen, (1983) ‘Kurdish tribes and the State in Iran:
The case of Simko's revolt’, in Tapper, Richard (ed.), The Conflict of
Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan, London, Croom Helm, pp.
364-400. The 'withdrawal' will be covered
in today's snapshot. A few e-mails on that and the reason it wasn't
noted had to do with covering yesterday's Senate hearing. If you look
for news on the UK's ceremony, you will find a ton of options (far
beyond what's noted in this entry). The refugee issue received very,
very little coverage. On the refugee crisis, Senator Bob Casey Jr.'s office issued the following: March 31, 2009 WASHINGTON,
DC- U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee, today chaired a hearing on the return and resettlement of
displaced Iraqis. The hearing focused on the efforts being taken by the
Iraqi government, the United States and the rest of the international
community to facilitate the return of Iraqis displaced internally and
the repatriation of Iraqi refugees living in neighboring countries. "Large
numbers of Iraqis unable to return home not only has humanitarian
consequences, but poses security risks to future Iraqi stability and
the interests of neighboring states and the international community,"
Senator Casey said. "Accordingly, as the United States begins to draw
down its military presence in Iraq, we have a both a moral and a
security interest in ensuring the safety and welfare of Iraqi refugees
and internally displaced persons (IDPs)." At
the hearing, Senator Casey urged the United States to work in concert
with Iraq’s neighbors, donor governments and other international actors
to address challenges facing Iraqi refugees and IDPs, such as: the lack
of legal status for refugees; the inability of refugees to work
legally; limited access to health care and education; critical food
shortages and inadequate shelter, drinking water, sanitation and
protection. The panel of witnesses that testified at today's hearing
included: Ms. Ellen Laipson, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Henry L. Stimson Center; Ms. Nancy Aossey, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the International Medical Corps; and Mr. Nabil
Al-Tikriti, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Mary
Washington. The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that 4.7 million Iraqis
have been forced to leave their homes. Approximately 2.7 million are
displaced internally, while 2 million have fled to neighboring states,
particularly Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Last year, Senator Casey joined
Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) in introducing the Support for Vulnerable and
Displaced Iraqis Act of 2008 to mandate the development of a
comprehensive U.S. strategy to address the mass displacement of Iraqis. Senator Casey's opening statement follows below. U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs Subcommittee Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. Opening Statement on the Return and Resettlement of Displaced Iraqis March 31, 2009 Today,
the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and
Central Asian Affairs meets to examine the crisis concerning Iraqi
refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), one of the tragic
humanitarian consequences of America’s war in Iraq. The purpose of this
hearing is to determine the efforts being taken by the Iraqi
government, the United States and the rest of the international
community to facilitate the resettlement of Iraqis displaced
internally, and the repatriation of Iraqi refugees living in
neighboring countries. The presence of such a large population in a
state of displacement not only has humanitarian consequences, but poses
security risks to future Iraqi stability and the interests of
neighboring states and the international community. Accordingly, as the
United States begins to draw down its military presence in Iraq, we
have a both a moral and a security interest in ensuring the safety and
welfare of Iraqi refugees and IDPs. The
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that
4.7 million Iraqis have been forced to leave their homes. Approximately
2.7 million are displaced internally, while 2 million have fled to
neighboring states, particularly Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. Indeed,
these numbers have been called into dispute, and I invite the views of
our witnesses today on whether they are too high or too low. The Iraqi
government has demonstrated an inability to deal with a problem of such
magnitude. Declining oil revenues and institutional deficiencies are
preventing the government from effectively addressing this issue. In
spite of improved security conditions, displaced Iraqis who return home
are confronted with deplorable living conditions, or worse, destroyed
homes. I am also concerned that ongoing sectarian divisions could be
preventing the government from mustering the political will necessary
to deal with the refugee crisis. We should assess whether the
government’s Shiite majority has an agenda to keep large numbers of
Sunni refugees from returning to Iraq, and we also need to understand
what is prompting thousands of Iraqi Christians to flee to Syria. The
exodus of refugees out of Iraq is overwhelming Iraq’s neighbors, which
I witnessed firsthand during my trip to Jordan in 2007. Counties like
Jordan and Syria cannot handle the constant flow of refugees from Iraq,
and some have started to impose legal and visa restrictions on new
arrivals. These countries are not signatories to the 1951 Refugee
Convention and have denied Iraqi refugees within their borders the
protections and basic human rights refugees claim in most countries. As
Refugees International reported last month, these Iraqis cannot find
gainful employment in their host countries, and they are quickly
running out of resources to sustain themselves. Unfortunately, the
return of refugees to Iraq, however desirable, continues to be
problematic, due to a difficult security environment and inadequate
living conditions awaiting them at home. I
was pleased to hear that the Obama Administration announced FY2009
contributions of more than $141 million to help displaced Iraqis.
However, the crisis does not appear to be improving. It is my
understanding that the Administration is engaged in an ongoing review
of policy towards the refugee challenge. President Obama has announced
that, by August 2010, the majority of U.S. troops will be withdrawn
from Iraq. While I fully support the President’s plan to withdraw our
forces from Iraq, I believe we must sustain our commitment to the
refugee and IDP situation affecting nearly five million of its
citizens, especially when the problem cannot be effectively controlled
by the Iraqi government and places undue strain on its neighbors. We
cannot ignore the consequences for regional stability and Iraq's
internal order if a large population of dispossessed and displaced
individuals remains in place. Without any opportunity for reintegration
or an escape from poverty and despair, displaced populations may be
susceptible to recruitment by extremist groups, threatening the
viability of the Iraqi state. In
September 2008, my distinguished colleague, Senator Ben Cardin, and I
filed legislation -- titled "The Support for Vulnerable and Displaced
Iraqis Act of 2008" -- to mandate the development of a comprehensive
U.S. strategy to address the mass displacement of Iraqis. This bill
addressed several issues that are still pertinent today. And as several
of my colleagues and I emphasized to then President-elect Obama in a
letter we wrote in December 2008, these issues should be a focus of his
administration’s overall approach to Iraq. First,
a U.S. strategy on Iraqi refugees should address the responsibility of
the Iraqi government to help meet the urgent needs of its displaced
citizens, including an assessment of how much assistance is needed to
help meet these needs. Second, it should assess what conditions are
necessary for the voluntary, safe, and sustainable return of displaced
Iraqis. Finally, it should outline steps the U.S. government will take
to engage the international community to implement the strategy. It is
imperative that the United States work in concert with Iraq's
neighbors, donor governments, and other international actors to address
challenges facing Iraqi refugees and IDPs, such as: the lack of legal status for refugees;
the inability of refugees to work legally;
limited access to health care and education;
critical food shortages;
inadequate shelter, drinking water, sanitation and protection.
Moreover,
in the context of renewing U.S. engagement with Syria, the
Administration could find an important avenue for cooperation by
working with Damascus on the refugee crisis. The
U.S. government can also bolster its efforts to resettle in the United
States those Iraqi refugees who risked their lives to assist the U.S.
mission. Resettlement is the right thing to do, and it would also ease
the burden on Iraq's neighbors. Only in 2007 did the previous
Administration significantly increase the number of Iraq refugees to be
settled in the United States. And even though the U.S. exceeded its FY
2008 admissions target of 12,000 Iraqi refugees, the demand for
resettlement outpaces the steps the U.S. government is taking. Any
comprehensive U.S. strategy on Iraqi refugees should examine our
current resettlement plan, and draw on all relevant government agencies
to support this process. We are
joined here today by an esteemed panel of experts, who will discuss the
myriad challenges involved in the Iraqi refugee crisis. Our first
witness is Ellen Laipson, President and CEO of The Henry L. Stimson
Center since 2002. Ms. Laipson is one of Washington’s preeminent
authorities on the Middle East, having written extensively about the
challenges the United States faces in Iraq. Prior to joining the
Stimson Center, Ms. Laipson served nearly 25 years in the United States
government, many of which were devoted to analysis and policymaking on
Middle Eastern issues. She was the Vice Chair of the National
Intelligence Council from 1997-2002, and held senior posts at the U.S.
Mission to the United Nations and in the National Security Council. I
look forward to her analysis of the refugee crisis, how it relates to
regional stability, and how the United States should approach this
problem. Nancy Aossey is President
and CEO of the International Medical Corps. After becoming CEO shortly
after IMC's founding in the mid-1980s, Ms. Aossey helped to transform
International Medical Corps into one of the world's largest
humanitarian organizations, providing more than $120 million in
disaster response and recovery programs annually. Thanks to Ms.
Aossey’s leadership, International Medical Corps assists the internally
displaced throughout Iraq, providing badly needed medical care to those
in need. She has also served as Chairman of the Board of InterAction
and now serves on its Executive Committee. Our
final witness is Dr. Nabil al Tikriti of the University of Mary
Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Dr. al Tikriti has written
extensively on the effects of population displacement in Iraq and its
neighbors, and its policy implications for the region. In addition to
his scholarship, Al-Tikriti volunteered with the Catholic Relief
Services humanitarian assistance project in Iraq in 1991-1992, and
later served with Doctors without Borders as a relief worker in
Somalia, Iran, Albania, Turkey, and Jordan. ### Press Contact
Larry Smar - (202) 228-6367 The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqkimberly heflingthe new york timescampbell robertsonsam daghercaroline wyattterri judddeborah taterefugees internationalcaroline alexanderthe socialist workersudarsan raghavanrichard beestondeborah haynesalsumaria
Posted at 06:54 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Iraq actually makes the front page of the New York Times today (a rarity) via Alissa J. Rubin's " Iraqi Militants Show New Boldness" which documents the currently shifting sands. It's a strongly written article and although I was referring to news value, it's also strongly written stylistically: "A recent series of attacks, however, like bubbles that indicate fish beneath still water, suggest the potential danger, all the more perilous now because the American troops who helped to pacify Iraq are leaving." She sketches out the recent violence and the possible meanings very well but we'll grab from other things for that and instead zoom in on some of the news she's reporting that's not in other reports (or highlighted from her article elsewhere). She notes a new weapon being utilized, RKG-3 grenades which "weigh just five pounds and, attached to parachutes, can be lobbed by a teenager but can penetrate the American military's latest heavily armored vehicle, the MRAP." Rubin notes these inexpensive weapons cost $10 a piece. Not in the article, this is me, is the fact that the American military has long laughed at the mortar attacks. The mortar attacks are not precise and rarely cause alarm. (Troops stationed inside the Green Zone have been injured by mortar attacks. An attack that wounded Australian troops several years ago stands out. However, the attack that frightened the US military, the attack on the Green Zone, was the 2006 late spring attack which wasn't mortars but an attempt to storm the Green Zone -- this led to the first in a series of al-Maliki's 'crack downs'.) If more precise than the mortarts, the RKG-3s could become a serious source of concern. (Which is why we're noting it. I'm not interested in doing war pornography on all the gadgets.) Rubin's article contains a wide range of voices -- Iraqi officials, American officials, "Awakenings," etc. One unnamed US "military intelligence officer" is convinced the resistance is dead and that "terrorism" is just going to be a fact of life for Iraq ("for a long time") but others are less sure. Col James Phelps thinks it could rebound like a spring (however, his grasp of how a spring works seems, at best, weak). There is a concern/panic over 'sleeper cells' which echoes statements made in Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) report (noted in yesterday's snapshot). Is the concern realistic or not? At this point, no one knows (and Rubin doesn't attempt to present it any other way or to take sides). But, true or false, it feeds into al-Maliki's talk of why he can't let "Awakenings" be absorbed by his puppet government. (The counter-argument is that these concerns are not about potential absorbings, these concerns are that "sleepers" are already in the Iraqi security forces.) Nouri's best buddy, the Condi to his George, Mowaffak al-Rubaie (who was awarded the title of "Iraq's national seucirty adviser" following a dramatic upset in the swimsuit competition) is insistent that it's (you know it's coming) "Al Qaeda and the hard-core Saddamists" -- and you get the feeling that al Qaeda's tossed in for the international audience and "Saddamists" for all the Shi'ites in Iraq. Like Condi, Mowaffak knows how to work the room. For the article, "14 leaders of the Awakening movement" were interviewed and they see reason for concerns: "assassination attempts, homemade bombs placed near their homes or under their cars, leaflets urging them not to work with the Iraqi government." Mullah Nadhim al-Jubori goes on the record and notes kidnappings of four men serving under him (two set free when ransom was paid, the other two killed)and notes: "The ransom was picked up in Baghdad. That tells me there is good coordination and organization among Al Qaede members." Rubin notes Diyala Province never saw the 'safety' increase Baghdad did although Baquba is less likely to be called "the city of death" today. ("Forty-three people were killed in Diyala in March, up from 29 in February and 6 in January, according to the Diyala Operations Command.") And she quotes Ali al-Tamimi ("chief of the Proinvicial Council's security committee") stating that despite warnings made (by him) there has been no heeding of them as the situation continues to deteriorate. It's a very strong article. We'll note this from it: Several well-planned bombings, one on a street recently reopened because it was thought to be safe, have killed 123 people, most of them in and around Baghdad. Three were suicide bombings, signatures of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni extremist group with some foreign leadership. And the reason we're noting that is because the attack Rubin's linked to (linked to NYT report on) is also addressed by an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy: "I just can not understand why the insurgents target the civilians. They are not security forces like us. They don't cause any harm to anyone. They just want to live" With thes words and with a strong will to control the tears, the policeman who escorted me to the scene of yesterday's explosion started the conversation. I couldn't give him any answer because the same question troubles my mind. The blast killed at least 16 people and wounded some 45. The death toll likely rose today.I walked slowly down the street which was, until the explosion a lively street filled with men, women and children. I saw some of them but they were still under the effect of the explosion. Their faces tell the story of ongoing pain and suffering of Iraqis.That's the opening to the photo essay provided in " Story of ongoing pain" and the photos (no corpses, but blood is in them) remind of how long it's been (the very early days of the illegal war) since bombings have really been covered. (The BBC frequently runs a photo essay, I'm referring to US outlets.) This is post-bombing, after the scene has been 'cleaned.' And look at at all the damage and all the remaining blood. Back to the shifting sands Rubin's covering, Nathan Hodge's " Iraq's Militia Clash Could Bode Ill for Afghanistan" ( Wired) covers it via a roundup of sources (Fadel, Ricks, etc. -- we linked to all of those yesterday morning so no excerpt). We'll note this from Anna Mulrine's " What's Behind the Latest Sunni-Shiite Clashes in Iraq" ( US News & World Reports):
It seems clear that U.S. commanders had cause for concern. SOI leaders throughout the country have complained that they haven't been paid in months. One U.S. military spokesman said that the dearth of paychecks was the result of a problem with the Ministry of the Interior's payroll process and that it had been rectified recently.
Beyond payroll issues, the government has failed to incorporate these Sunnis into the predominately Shiite Iraqi security forces as the U.S. government said would happen. While the Iraqi government had promised to allow one fifth of the SOI members, or 19,000, to join security forces, only 5,000 had been given jobs. Sunni SOI leaders attribute this to animosity among the majority-Shiite government leaders and fears that members of the Awakening movement could turn against them as U.S. forces withdraw.
The simmering issue moved into the spotlight last week with the arrest of Adil al-Mashhadani, a Sunni leader who was handcuffed and brought in on terrorism charges. He had been an outspoken critic of what many believe to be the Iraqi government's marginalization the Sons of Iraq.Robert H. Reid (AP) observes: But the move into al-Fadel, a crime- ridden slum run by insurgents for years, carried big risks -- chief among them that Sunnis would view the action not as a move against a criminal but a politically motivated Shiite push against Sunnis. It came after arrests of other Awakening Council figures in Baghdad and nearby Diyala province.With suspicions running deep, some council leaders questioned the government's motives -- including why the warrant was issued in December but served only now.In some of today's violence, Alsumaria reports, "Eight people including 4 police officers were killed and 10 other people were wounded when a suicide bomber broke into a police compound with his booby trapped car and blasted it there in the middle of Mosul city. To that, two civilians were wounded in a blast that took place near Al Ali Al Aazim mosque in Al Zaafaraniah region. To that, a mortar fell beside the Oil Marketing Company." Iraq's Foreign Ministry notes:  31 March, 2009
Deputy Foreign Minister Meets French Senate Council Delegation
Dr. Abdul Karim Hashim, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary for Administration and Financial Affairs met on Tuesday, March 31st with the French Senate delegation consisting of Senator Jean-Francois Bonese, former Foreign Minister and Mrs. Monique Saurizea, members of Foreign Relations, Defense and Security Committee of the French Senate.
During the meeting they reviewed bilateral relations and ways of promoting the interests of the two friendly nations. Dr. Abdul Karim Hashim stressed the importance of communication and exchange of visits at various levels since they strengthen dialogue and cooperation between the various political actors.
On his part, the guest was pleased with the progress of security in the country and the political developments after the success of provincial elections that took place recently and expressed willingness to activate dialogue and meetings to serve the political process in Iraq. In the US, With Aimee Allison (co-host of KPFA's The Morning Show with Philip Maldari), David Solnit authored Army Of None -- a valuable and wonderful book on counter-recruiting and strategies for peace. David Solnit notes: Friend and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a better place. Hope you can join us!Please Invite your friends:Bay Area Premierefrom the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQA Big Noise Filmfollowed by a Public Discussion:How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama?Carl Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq.Antonia Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop ItRick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq.Friday April 3, 7pmATA THEATER992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SFEveryone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required.Obama's Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens. It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go. Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.Sponsored by Courage to Resist,Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War,& Unconventional Action in the Bay.Added, the following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesalissa j. rubinrania abouzeidmcclatchy newspapersanna mulrinenathan hodgerobert h. reidalsumariaaimee allison
 philip maldari
david solnitobama's iraq
Posted at 06:50 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday,
March 31, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US announces another
death, Bob Casey holds a hearing on Iraqi refugees, tensions continue
in Baghdad, and more. Today Senator Bob Casey
chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommitee hearing on the "The
Return and Resettlement of Displace Iraqis." The hearing started late
(one minute shy of an hour late) and lasted approximately one hour and
thirty-two minutes. The turnout among senators was dreadful. On the
plus side, I've never attended a hearing where witnesses were asked to
be frank, given additional time to be frank, offered the chance clarify
and to raise issues that they had not been asked about. Casey ran a
very effective hearing and did it all by himself because no one else
asked any questions. (Senator James Risch passed on speaking and
Senator Edward Kaufman just noted that they were voting and had already
voted on three budget proposals). Casey opened by noting the refugee
crisis and called it "one of the most tragic humanitarian consequences"
of the Iraq War. He entered his statement into the record and skipped
reading it out loud ("for the purposes of moving" the hearing along).
He noted the UNHCR numbers of 2.7 million internal refugees (IDP --
internally displaced persons) and 2 million external refugees for the
total of 4.7 million refugees and wanted the three witnesses to discuss
the numbers at the start. Appearing before the committee were Ellen
Laipson (Henry L. Stimson Center), Nansy Aossery (International Medical
Corps) and Nabil al-Tikriti (University of Mary Washington). Ellen
Laipson worries whether Iraqi refugees will be seen as the new
Palestinians? That's a thread that came up throughout her responses
and one she introduced in her opening remarks. She feels that
countries such as Jordan and Lebanon are motivated to help the Iraqi
refugees today in part because of scars from being less helpful to the
Palestinians in earlier times. She noted that there were "definitional
problems" regarding the refugees because some of the returnees (to
neighborhoods, IDPs) are returning from pre-2003 exits. The current
terminology does not help clarify the situation. She noted there were
two big refugee waves since the start of the Iraq War. You had the
2003-2005 wave and then the 2006 wave which was larger and came in
response to the fighting between Shia and Sunni sects. She would like to see: 1) Work to improve conditions in Iraq and make returns viable 2) More support for host countries 3) Encouragement and support for Iraqis to find long term solutions Nancy
Aossey's International Medical Corps has been in Iraq since 2003 and
they have a staff of 5,000 ("primarily outside the Green Zone"). She
would touch on the issue of women and children -- which make up the
bulk of the refugee population -- throughout the hearing. She noted
the number of returnees from outside Iraq is small and she noted the
"debt of gratitude" the international community owes those countries
who have taken in the refugees. She would stress repeatedly who
decides on returns: "Return, and I repeat, can only occur when Iraqi
families feel it is safe to do so." She explained that even when they
leave, they are in contact with "relatives and friends from the
community" and they do get news and updates from them which provide a
sense of how things are in Iraq, specifically in their home
neighborhoods. On the numbers of refugees, she agreed with Laipson
that the numbers were fluid but she pointed out that the United Nations
uses the same methodology when determining any refugee crisis in the
world. And she noted that some do not register for relief programs or
with the UN refugee program because they fear being forced to return to
Iraq. Her recommendations were: 1) US policy towards Iraq needs to develop a strategy for IDPs and refugees. 2) Increased support for humanitarian efforts 3) Additional resources should be provided to the US State Dept and USAID 4) Urge and support the Iraqi government to develop a safe and sustainable return 5) Capacity building measures within Iraqi ministries ("managing this crisis must be an Iraqi process") Nabil
al-Tirkirit stressed that the ethnic and religious identities do go
back in Iraqi history but not sectarian conflict and that outbreaks of
sectarian conflict have been rare in Iraq's history. He would stress
various groups (including MEK which he wrongly stated at the end had
not been mentioned) in his opening statements -- bascially the entire
demographics of Iraq -- and note that the three divisions most utilized
and noted (Kurds, Sunni, Shia) were a division that the US brings along
to 'explain' Iraq when he would characterize the division in Iraq prior
to the start of the Iraq War as "between Baghdad and the rest of the
country." On the issue of refugee numbers, he would point out that the
low is 3.8 million while the high if 5.5 million -- general range -- so
4.7 million seems to be a reasonable average. His recommendations
included: 1) Property adjudication and returnee assistance 2) Radical increase in housing across 3) Ensure that all Iraqis -- regardless of where now located -- are able to vote in the upcoming Parliamentary elections 4)
Make the public distribution cards easily transferable (if you move
from one neighborhood to another, your rations card does not transfer
in most cases and you're required to go back to your former
neighborhood) 5) Increase protection for "micro-minorities" possibly through the creation of a micro security council 6)
Create a look-and-see program for Iraqis to return to their
neighborhoods to determine if there are improvements. If not, they
should easily be allowed to leave (not always easy to enter or leave
due to border policies). 7) Speed up the process for refugees applying for asylum and increase US programs. Aossey
spoke of capacity building in her opening statement and Chair Casey
wanted to know if she could expand on her remarks about the Ministry of
Displacement and Migration? Aossey explained, "Our expereince with
this Ministry is that they do have the will. I mean, we've worked very
closely with them and we do believe that they [. . .] are very
interested in doing the right thing thing with their people." The
issue is the capacity building she feels is needed. "We haven't seen
within Iraq, throughout the country, that there's an ability for the
people and for people within the ministries -- they just literally
don't have any historical experience with setting up systems, with
delegation . . . to not only make decisions but to implement them as
well." She would touch on the historical experience in the time
immediately prior to the Iraq War (Saddam Hussein period) and how there
was a need for capacity skills to be increased through civilian
internation and programs. Bob Casey would sum it up as "experience in
operation" and she would agree with that and note that "the history
there is that people there were not necessarily empowered to do these
things." Bob Casey wanted to know about other agencies working to
assist with the crisis and Aossey stated that bolstering "the civilian
capacity is very, very important. . . . A lot of this is just
management training and adminstrartive expertise." al-Tikriti
pointed out that the Ministry of Displacement and Migration was "a
post-2003 cretation itself" (by Paul Bremer) and that, as late as 2007,
it still "had a small staff and budget." He wasn't sure how they'd do
with the issues today but stated that prior to the creation of the
Displacement and Migration Ministry, the issues would have gone to the
Ministry of the Interior and the Red Crescent. Senator
Casey notes that he and other senators wonder "what's happening at the
senior levels of the government. One of the challenges we face is
determining whether the central government, which has Shi'ites in
charge, whether the govenrment is discriminating against the displaced
Sunni population." Before going to the answers, note that both women's
organizations interact with and are dependent upon the al-Maliki
government. Laipson felt that if there was a
problem it might be that the Sunnis are "not fully testing the
system." They might not, she stated, believe that the rule of law is
in place and would be followed. She then made an interesting comment
that Jalal Talabani, President of Iraq, "sees the return of some
refugees as part of Iraq's credibilty" and image to other countries but
"others such as the prime minister . . . are simply enjoying being the
ones on top." Really? Talabani's more concerned than al-Maliki?
al-Maliki and his spokespeople have repeatedly lied and said it was
safe to return to Iraq. Talabani's never publicly made those
statements. Talabani's also noted he's stepping down from his figure
head post at the end of his term (this December). al-Maliki would like
to continue as prime minister. Again, her organization depends on
al-Maliki to continue its work. Aossey
sidestepped the issue by noting, again, the networks refugees have, the
ones they're in contact with, and the communication which allows them
to know whether or not it is safe to return or not. She noted "it
first starts with the feeling that safety must be durable" because no
one's going to return if they don't believe it's safe. She then noted
that, in Iraq, "people who are Sunni have a more difficult time
accessing services" ("our general experience" in working in Iraq with
all the populations). The Sunnis "seem to struggle more in accessing
services that they need but we don't know why that is, we can't
pinpoint it but there tends to be trends in that regard." al-Tikirit
pointed out "just this past weekend" you saw the tensions flare up with
the move on the Sunni "Awakenings" which "may have set off the
beginnings of a civil uprising in Baghdad." He also noted the rising
tensions between the Kurds and Arabs "happening right now." Casey
would follow with "a more blunt question" to al-Tikriti, "is it your
sense or do you have any reason to believe that Prime Minister
al-Maliki is actively inhibiting the return of refugees who happen to
be Sunni?" al-Tikriti responded, "No, I do not believe that. I do,
however, believe -- and think there's a lot of evidence to back this up
-- that those who do not want to return do not trust al-Maliki." Bob
Casey noted that the Obama administration is committed to spending $150
million on Iraqi refugees this fiscal year and he wanted to know if the
United States was providing adequate resources? Assoey's response was
that "additional resources are needed less for infrastructrue and more
to do the things that USAID and the State Department have known all
along are important: to build the capacity of the people." She
explained this civilian training needed to be emphasized. "The
training becomes a priority?" Casey asked and she agreed. al-Tikriti
poined out that "$160 million is not so greatly different than it was
in the last couple of years" under the previous adminsitration. And
that "much of the international community feels that this is a US
crisis" and therefore that the US should be contributing more monies. "Look
at this problem just through the eys of a child," Bob Casey suggested
noting that children make up a significant number of Iraqi refugees.
He asked them to think about not just what services they receive or not
but whether they would be attracted to some "harmful" ideology. Ellen
Laipson's "deep concern" was Iraqi teenagers in Syria "who are idle all
the time". Nancy Aossey noted that 75% of the refugee population are
said to be women and children and that "Refugee populations and IDP
populations children suffer disproportionately and, if I could add,
women and children." She pointed out how many of the families
suffering are now one-parent families due to the deaths and destruction
of the war. She futher pointed out, "Children living in poverty for a
whole host of reasons is always a bad situation" and that the hardships
are frequently "too much for an adult to cope with [. . .] let alone a
child." She stated children measure the world through their parents.
"If you don't help the mother and the father, if they aren't employed
[. . .] if they are deprived, if they are afraid, then chances are so
are the children." Nabil al-Tikriti explained, "I'm personally
uncomfortable with the paradigm of youth as a security risk." He went
on to state this could translate as, "Educate me or I'll blow up a
building." In terms of neighboring countries,
Ellen Laipson declared that Jordan and Lebanon "are deeply, deeply
nervous" that Iraqi problems will be transferred to their regions but
she feels this was "more acute in 2006 and 2007" and that the fear "is
down a bit". On Syria, she stated there was frustratation on the part
of Syria "that they have not been able to do business with Iraq." She
noted the US attitudes towards Syria and stated that the attitudes were
seen (by Syria) as having impacted Syria's chances. Nancy Aossey
pointed out, "I can't think of many countries that want refugee
populations in their country permanently." She then talked about
general concerns regarding influxes of refugees and how those "affect
their own balance." Senator Casey floated the
idea of a Special Coordinator for Refugees in the White House. Nabil
al-Tikriti was in favor of this noting the government maze already
existing with departments like State and Homeland Security and felt it
was necessary for the issue of assistance when refugees manage to make
it to the US. Ellen Laipson feels it's all already "mindboggling
complex" and "I'm not sure that Czar in the White House can break
through all of that." She'd prefer to see Homeland Security streamline
its process and noted that the refugee process is stalled by many
post-911 measures in the US. Nancy Aossey, like al-Tikriti, was in
favor of the position, "I think it would show the extraordinary
importance of this -- whether or not it would get muddled into
bureaucratic process, it's difficult to know. She feels it's "a good
idea in large part because it would be someone's only job" allowing
them to focus on the issue. al-Tikriti felt there was much more the
federal government could be doing with the refugees here in the US and
pointed to the refugees from Vietnam and a program that allowed them to
obtain jobs in which the federal government paid half the salary. It
provided steady income and allowed families to set down roots. As an
example, he offered Joesph Cao who was a Vietnam refugee and his family
benefitted from that program. (Cao is a US House Rep today.) What of
the issue of resettling the refugees, Casey wanted to know? This
led to an interesting discussion. I've tried to stay with they-said
throughout but I'll be offering opinions here and it will be obvious
when I do. Ellen Laipson rightly noted that "we're doing poorly across
the board. I think the numbers are too low and I think once they get
here we're not doing enough." "American affiliated Iraqis" getting
special treatment while others waited concerned her. It concerns me as
well. However it does not concern al-Tikriti who thinks they should be
able to jump in line and also thinks it is bad to help Iraqi
Christians. It causes problems back in Iraq. Iraqi Christians are
targeted. For who they are. Not because they collaborated with an
invading force, not because they went against their own country. They
are targeted for who they are. When you read of a liquor store owner
shot dead, that's usually an Iraqi Christian. The external refugee
population has a huge number of Iraqi Christians. Inside Iraq, a huge
number have left their homes and relocated to the Kurdistan Regional
Government where they feel safer. (Relocated after threats and
attacks.) Just last summer you saw the attack on Christians in Mosul.
They are attacked for who they are. They are real refugees. Ellen
Laipson was correct in her remarks and al-Tikriti was wrong in his.
It's just that simple. Laispon did not say "No translators!" She did
note that refugee is a classification and that the US needs to be sure
that they are meeting the needs of refugees which includes determining
refugee status. That goes beyond "I like ___ because they helped us
with . . ." Nancy Aossey skipped the issue
and took it back to the proposal of a White House level coordinator.
She stated there "needs to be some overall leadership at the highest
level." That's an overview (I've skipped PRTs -- and
al-Tikriti had his best point there, we may return to it tomorrow). In
closing, Senator Casey asked them to offer what they would underscore
as important. Ellen Laipson feels the
"refugee story is an important test of American leadership" and she
"would like the United States to pay more attention to the refugees.
Having said that I want to think about this refugee problem in a more
holistic way" which, she explained, means looking at it in terms of the
system and not just a group of people here, a group there, but the
system and how the solutions can be integrated. Nancy
Aossey wanted to stress "that we take the hard won gains and the
progress that have been made over the last few years and keep things
progressing so that we don't bracktrack. That is, we cannot rush the
returns of the refugees or the IDPs. People need to be comfortable. [.
. .] Certainly, I believe that this should be civilian led." Nabil
al-Tikriti stated that "the focus should be on the most vulnerable
populations and it hasn't always been" (like in his remarks about Iraqi
Christians?). He listed three groups. We'll note the Palestinain
refugees -- "effectively trapped. They need to go somewhere and
they're stuck." He again noted the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) although
he stated thay hadn't been noted. He rightly pointed out that the US
has been the only thing protecting the Irani refugees in Iraq -- since
1979 -- and that when the US leaves, what happens then? Ashraf
is home to Iranian opposition members from the PMOI -- or People's
Mojahedin Organization of Iran. These people are the reason Iran's
nuclear program was exposed -- it was their intelligence that brought
it to the world's attention.
But in Iran's eyes, they
are a terrorist organization. The current Iraqi government agrees and
the group is still on the U.S. blacklist, although it has been taken
off the list of terrorist organizations by the EU.
Tehran wants their camp shut down, wanted members arrested and handed over for trial - and their organization destroyed.
But
the U.S. has an obligation to the people of Ashraf. In July 2004, the
United States Government recognized PMOI members as Protected Persons
under the Fourth Geneva Convention, meaning that they should not be
deported, expelled or repatriated, or displaced inside Iraq.
Now,
as U.S. influence wanes in Iraq, Iran's influence continues to
strengthen and grow. Through Iran's allies in the Iraqi government, a
noose has been applied around Camp Ashraf and the people living there,
and is slowly tightening.
So far that has meant stopping fuel
supplies, cutting off logistic trucks -- allowing only limited
shipments of food to the camp. This month, when Iraqi forces occupied a
building that had been housing Iranian women, there were clashes with
the camp's residents and several were beaten by Iraqi soldiers, until
U.S. forces stepped in. Over the weekend,
the uneasy tensions between the Shi'ite government of al-Maliki and the
Sunni "Awakenings" erupted as Sunni leader Adel Mashhadani was targeted
and arrested. The response in his Fadhil neighborhood of Baghdad was
outrage and many took up arms against the combined Iraqi and US
forces. Several Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped (later released) and
people were killed and wounded. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (All Things Considered) reported yesterday: The
Baghdad neighborhood of Fadhil is on lockdown. Dozens of tanks and
Humvees, and hundreds of Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces now control
the area. They are conducting house-to-house searches looking for
weapons and wanted men. Until this weekend, the U.S.-backed Sunni
paramilitaries known as the Sons of Iraq kept security here. [. . .] But
on the streets of Fadhil, several residents said they feel there were
sectarian motives for the crackdown. Approching an NPR correspondent,
an older Fadhil resident angrily denounced the raid, shouting
repeatedly, "This is a war against the Sunni areas." Iraqi army officers quickly arrested him, abruptly accusing him of planting roadside bombs. Nearby,
another woman cries out that the army arrested her son for no reason.
Dozens of other residents line the street, silently watching the
security operation. In this morning's New York Times, Rod Nordland reports
on yesterday's situation and the US military's claim that Fadhil was
now weapon free -- the US military is presumably military spokesperson
David Perkins who is quoted throughout the piece. Weapon-free, as the
house-to-house raids went on. That timeline is what had a friend at M-NF laughing this morning who
noted that "Awakenings" have seen this coming and have no doubt stashed
weapons which, in Iraq, would include burying them and a house-to-house
search (even a thorough one which would take some time -- more than was
spent yesterday) wouldn't turn those up. Nordland explains, "Only a
week ago, Mr. Mashhadani had complained publicly about late pay and
lack of jobs, warning that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia might well return to
his community." And then he was arrested. Not unlike the elderly man
attempting to speak to NPR only to be seized with the 'excuse' that he
was wanted for planting bombs because, after all, don't most bomb
planters want to go on NPR -- I believe they all covet an hour with
Terry Gross. Rania Abouzeid (Time magazine) reports
today continued unease among the Sunni population over Nouri
al-Maliki's latest stunt. Sheikh Hamid al-Hayess tells Time, "The
Sahwa has been infiltrated by al-Qaeda. A civil war is coming."
(Sahwa, "Awakenings" and "Sons of Iraq" are three interchangeable
terms.) Abouzeid writes: In recent
months, al-Qaeda in Iraq and its affiliates have been regrouping,
recalibrating their targets and tactics; they have recruited
disenfranchised members of the U.S.-allied Sahwa movement, planting
them as sleeper agents among the mainly Sunni neighborhood patrolmen,
who number some 94,000 nationwide, according to a highly placed source
close to the insurgency. "Many of the Sahwa have returned after seeking
forgiveness, but they are still Sahwa," the source tells TIME. "They
wear the government's uniform, but they plant explosives and sticky
bombs. The Sahwa is the biggest recruiting pool for al-Qaeda." (See the most dangerous streets of Baghdad at the height of the insurgency.) The
source claims that some 40% of the Sahwa are insurgent spies. A senior
source in the Interior Ministry who requested anonymity does not deny
the infiltration but puts the figure closer to 20%. The Interior
Ministry source says intelligence agencies are reviewing the Sahwa
files. Abdel-Karim Samarraie, the deputy leader of parliament's defense
and security committee and a senior member of the largest Sunni bloc,
the Tawafuk, says that al-Qaeda moles represent a small minority of
Sahwa but should be weeded out. "The Interior Ministry fired 62,000 of
its employees because there were legal accusations against them. The
same thing can be applied to the Sahwa." The U.S military did not
respond to repeated requests for comment. Now
it isn't a 100,000 people being detained but there are hundreds of them
being detained and the people that are being detained or are in exile
are the ones that were the faces of the movement when it was really
dangerous. When if you joined the police, you were killed. When there
were headless bodies in the streets of Diyala Province. This was at a
time when this was a really dangerous thing to do and those types of
guys, if you look at it now, are the ones who are really getting
targeted. Author of the new bestseller The Gamble, Thomas E. Ricks, noted at Foreign Policy yesterday: I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening
this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are
fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad. Anyone
who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize
this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington
Post: "As
Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood,
former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against
American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military
and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which
lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five
Iraqi soldiers hostage." That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved? Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2
Baghdad mortar attacks which left five people wounded, a Mosul suicide
truck bombing which claimed 4 lives and left thirty-eight injured, a
Falluja sticky bombing which wounded one police officer. Reuters notes
a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and that the Mosul
suicide bombing claimed 7 lives and also a Mosul grenade attack which
injured three people. Today the US military announced:
"AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died
as the result of a non-combat related incident here March 31. The
Marine's name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification and
release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under
investigation." The announcement brings to 4262 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.
Friend
and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on
the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is
joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge
movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective
thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a
better place. Hope you can join us!
Please Invite your friends:
Bay Area Premiere
from the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"
OBAMA'S IRAQ
A Big Noise Film
followed by a Public Discussion:
How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama?
Carl
Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the
Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq.
Antonia
Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most
Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop It
Rick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq.
Friday April 3, 7pm
ATA THEATER
992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SF
Everyone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required.
Obama's
Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on
the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers
a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens.
It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison
at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from
the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go.
Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and
how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the
film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.
Lastly, as Trina (" The economy"), Kat (" Stevie Nicks, music and TV") and Elaine (" Stevie Nicks") noted last night, Stevie Nicks
releases her first ever live album today. (A DVD is also available --
and I believe it is her first made for DVD. Red Rocks and others
originally filmed for home video were released on videotaped and
transferred to DVD years later, but this is the first one recorded for
the DVD technology.) That makes it big news but the fact that it's
Stevie makes it big news period. The Soundstage Sessions is the name of the CD (or album downloadable at iTunes and Amazon) and Live In Chicago is the DVD. Deborah Barrow (wowOwow) profiles Stevie today: What's
it like to be a rock goddess at the tender age of 60? "I would be lying
to you if I told you it was easy. Our show is very hard and very long:
two hours and ten minutes. Spinning around in seven-inch heels, it's
long. You have to be in really good shape. You have to take care of
yourself." In her new DVD,
Stevie Nicks takes to the stage like the gypsy that she was: blonde
hair to the waist. Morgane Le Fay wedding dress under a black jacket.
Top hat. Feather. Ubiquitous scarves. As The Washington Post said about the Fleetwood Mac concert, "Nicks showed she still knows how to really work a shawl." |
Posted at 04:15 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
The US military announces another death
Today the US military announced: "AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -- A Multi National Force -- West Marine died as the result of a non-combat related incident here March 31. The Marine's name is being withheld pending next-of-kin notification and release by the Department of Defense. The incident is under investigation." The announcement brings to 4262 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. And Reuters' report of violence today includes a Mosul grenade attack which left three people injured, a Mosul suicide bombing which claimed 7 lives (eight when you count the bomber) and left at least forty injured, a Falluja sticky bombing which left three police officers injured and 2 Baghdad mortar attacks which left five people injured. Attacks on British soldiers in Iraq rose dramatically in 2005 after military chiefs, under orders from Tony Blair, switched their attention to a new campaign in Afghanistan, the head of the Army has told The Times.
General Sir Richard Dannatt, who retires as Chief of the General Staff in August, indicated that the MoD became distracted after Mr Blair committed Britain to "a bigger effort" in Afghanistan in 2004. At that time southern Iraq was rela-tively quiet compared with Baghdad, where US troops were coming increasingly under attack. It was in this context that Mr Blair then decided to order military chiefs to start planning for Afghanistan.
Sources close to the former Prime Minister said that he had made the decision because of deteriorating security in Afghanistan, not because he wanted the main focus to switch from Iraq.
General Dannatt told The Times in an exclusive interview: "The importance about that decision [however] is that it was a strategic move by the United Kingdom to make a bigger effort in southern Afghanistan to relieve some of the pressure on the United States, because by the middle of 2004, in Baghdad and the north and the west of Iraq, violence was mounting considerably more than it was in the south."The above is from Michael Evan's " General Sir Richard Dannatt says MoD took eye off Iraq as Afghan instability grew" ( Times of London) and we noted it in the snapshot today but we're opening with it (after the announcement) to make sure everyone catches it. When you choose to fight illegal (and unwinnable) wars, as Barack Obama has now done, you are begging for announcements like the one Dannatt's making above. And as Barack plays his own version of whack-a-mole, determined to continue both illegal wars, he will tell the American people at some point (or more likely his political opponents will) the the Iraq War needs to continue and, woops, victory was in sight, but "We took our eye off the prize" (add "at Tora Bora" and you've got what John Kerry's been saying about Afghanistan since 2003). There is no "win." The brave thing to do would be a withdrawal (not a draw down). Barack's refused to do that, he owns both wars and he'll see-saw back and forth between the two. And that's a rather obvious point, even if it escapes the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times this morning. And if you're not getting that, refer to Leila Fadel's " Vow to fight raises question: Is calm in Iraq just the eye of the storm?" ( McClatchy Newspapers): In America, the U.S. "surge" of additional troops to Baghdad is heralded as a success, and President Barack Obama has said he'll draw down American forces in Iraq and turn his attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Iraq, however, what the U.S.-led invasion and occupation started is far from over.Most Iraqis think that today's lower level of violence is the eye, not the end, of the storm, and that the decisive power struggles are just beginning. The U.S.-backed Iraqi government is widely regarded as an undeserving group of exiles who returned to Iraq on the backs of American tanks.Over the weekend, fighting broke out between Sunni Muslims and Iraq's Shiite Muslim-led security forces, and it's unclear whether the security forces, still heavily backed by U.S. air and ground support, are loyal to their nation rather than their sect, tribe, town or ethnicity.Although the Sunni insurgency that earlier had battled U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces and killed thousands of civilians is weakened, Mohammed is one of many Iraqis who still believe in what he calls the muqawima, the resistance. He always will.Mohammed is one of the thousands of detainees who're being released from U.S. detention centers as America prepares to withdraw forces from Iraq. There are about 13,400 detainees in U.S.-run prisons, and on average 50 are released each day. Some are guilty of crimes, others are innocent, many have never been afforded due process and some have become radicalized by their time in prison. Or as the author of the bestseller The Gamble, Thomas E. Ricks, noted at Foreign Policy yesterday: I thought some of the surge-era deals in Iraq would unravel but I didn't think that would begin happening this quickly. It's only March 2009, and already Awakening fighters are fighting U.S. soldiers in the streets of Baghdad.Anyone who tells you that the Iraq war is over should be forced to memorize this paragraph from the Sunday edition of the Washington Post:As Apache helicopter gunships cruised above Baghdad's Fadhil neighborhood, former Sunni insurgents fought from rooftops and street corners against American and Iraqi forces, according to witnesses, the Iraqi military and police. At least 15 people were wounded in the gunfights, which lasted several hours. By nightfall, the street fighters had taken five Iraqi soldiers hostage.That is Iraq 2009. Does it sound peaceful to you? Does it seem like the political questions vexing Iraq have been solved?Fadel's article today opens with some lines of poetry and another article McClatchy's offering, " Iraqi ex-detainee's poem: 'When I see you I see Paradise'" is a translation of a poem by Sahar Issah: Stop at the ruins and ask the wrecked corner. . . . Are my people aware of what's happening to me?Ask the river, does it still remember me? . . . And the people, do they still hold their noses high?Are they sleeping in comfort and in peace? . . . With an unembarrassed smile upon their lipsTell them I am a hostage to humiliation. . . . Oh, my poetry, or have they become deafMy partner, my passion for you is killing me. . . . In the heart there is flame from a blazing fireHow to reach those who have become so dear a quest. . . . And the longing inside me, my friend, is burningThe hand of days has torn me apart leaving. . . . A deep wound and a sick bodyThat's an excerpt and the poem is credited to Abu Izzuddin. As Trina (" The economy"), Kat (" Stevie Nicks, music and TV") and Elaine (" Stevie Nicks") noted last night, Stevie Nicks releases her first ever live album today. (A DVD is also available -- and I believe it is her first made for DVD. Red Rocks and others originally filmed for home video were released on videotaped and transferred to DVD years later, but this is the first one recorded for the DVD technology.) That makes it big news but the fact that it's Stevie makes it big news period. The Soundstage Sessions is the name of the CD (or album downloadable at iTunes and Amazon) and Live In Chicago is the DVD. Below is the article Third did two weeks ago: Stevie Nicks is on the road in the US with Fleetwood Mac. She's also got a new album and DVD due out at the end of this month. The DVD is Live In Chicago and from it comes The Soundstage Sessions album -- ten tracks from the concert which have had additional arrangements and vocals added in Nashville. Both are released March 31st. Ten tracks on the album proper. Amazon will offer one bonus track ("Enchanted") and iTunes will offer two bonus tracks ("Gold Dust Woman" and "Edge of Seventeen"). Stevie's released only one solo studio album this decade ( Trouble in Shangri-La). She's also released a studio album with Fleetwood Mac ( Say You Will). So for Nicks fans ( and we are), this new live release is of huge interest.  And if it interests you, you may want to check out the single Amazon is offering as a download currently, Stevie performing her "Landslide" and Dave Matthews' "Crash Into Me." You can purchase either for ninety-nine cents or both for $1.89. "Crash Into Me" is a five minute and thirty-three seconds live track that Stevie owns from the moment she tosses "You've got your ball, you've got your chains" up and to the back of her throat. She could have sang the entire song that way and we (and many others would have loved it) but she brings it down lower and manages to honor the original while owning her cover. The music in her version makes clear the debt Dave Matthews owes to Tom Petty ("Free Falling"). Three minutes the backup vocals come in and that's a Stevie hallmark. It's been a hallmark of many a great singer, interplay with backup vocalists, but you clink and they're on tour and on album with nothing but their own multi-tracked vocals. Stevie was a Mamas and Papas fan as a young girl and her love of vocals (plural) and the elements they can create in harmony and counter-point has led to some of her finest work ("Nightbird," for example). Between her lead vocals, the backing vocals, the guitar playing and some amazing drum work, "Crash Into Me" is a must-have for any Stevie fan. And "Landslide?" This Stevie Nicks song first appears on Fleetwood Mac's 1975 self-titled album. Along with "Rhiannon" (also written and sung by Nicks) and "Say You Love Me" (written and sung by Christine McVie), it would become a big hit for the group and enter their canon. 1980's Fleetwood Mac Live and 1997's The Dance feature the song. (As do various best-ofs, anthologies and greatest hits put out by the Mac.) She's reconfigured this song. It's nothing like the intense revitalization she gave "Rhiannon" for her three-disc, boxed set Enchanted but it's still fairly amazing. You'll enjoy the song throughout, she's doing a softer vocal on the verses and there's a wonderful backing joining her for the chorus. But it's at 2 minutes and fifty-three seconds that you especially want to start paying attention. From that moment on to the end, you'll be cursing your bad luck that you didn't see this performed live. (But you can purchase the DVD.) Stevie Nicks is a one of a kind original. As such, she was relentlessly attacked by male rock critics at the start of her career. Why didn't she do it that way, why didn't she record something more like . . . She rocked it on her own terms and, in doing so, became one of rock's most distinctive and memorable artists. The bulk of male rock critics faves and raves from 1975 to 1979 are forgotten today -- and for good reason. Stevie's a living testament to the strength needed to be a real artist and, listening to her, you never forget it. She rocked it on her own terms and she had the last laugh. Listening to her, you never forget that either. (March 31st, you do not want to miss the live version of "Sara.") Posted by Third Estate Sunday Review at Sunday, March 22, 2009 As Elaine observed last night, "In a world that offers increasingly little and a government that promised 'change' but delivered none, I'll place my bets on Stevie." Indeed. The DVD and CD are available in stores today, both can be downloaded as well and Kat says to check out the bargain for both (plus a litograph) offered at Stevie's website. "Would you swallow your pride, could you speak a little louder, and the wind became . . ." You don't want to miss the live version of "Sara." The Kurdistan Regional Government notes: Fact sheets about the Kurdistan Region Some essential fact sheets about the Kurdistan Region. Please click the links below to view, download and save the files in PDF format. The Kurdistan Region in brief About the Kurdistan Regional Government Travelling to the Kurdistan RegionA guide to flights, hotels, communications, currency, national holidays, places of interest and specialist travel agencies. Doing business in the Kurdistan RegionAn overview of direct investment, chambers of commerce, company registration, trade missions, visas, and trade shows. See also Economy and business Natural resources: Oil & gas Kurdistan Region Investment Law Kurdistan Region Oil and Gas Law Travel information Investment guide, The Kurdistan Region: Invest in the FutureIraq's Foreign Ministry notes: NEWS  30 March, 2009
Concluding the Work of the 21st Session of League of Arab States
The Summit concluded on the evening of 30/3/2009 after leaders documented the items on the agenda of the Conference and issued a communiqué on the Doha conference after the final approval by the Arab leaders.
Prime Minister, Mr. Nuri Kamel Al-Maliki gave a speech to the Conference stressing Iraq's right to host the next summit in Baghdad, and then asked to postpone the summit from 2010 to 2011 to allow Iraq to complete the substantive and logistical preparations for the conference to ensure the success of this event.
The Conference approved the invitation of Libya to host the summit in 2010 in its (22) session in the capital Tripoli. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmichael evansmcclatchy newspapersleila fadelsahar issaabu izzuddinthomas e. ricksstevie nicksthe los angeles timeslike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe third estate sunday review
Posted at 06:35 am by thecommonills
Permalink
The "Awakenings" . . . awakened
Rod Nordland has a major piece in this morning's New York Times entitled " Rebellious Sunni Council Disarmed After Clashes, Officials in Baghdad Say."
The weakest section is the opening paragraph which repeats a claim and
uses the verb "confirms" which makes a claim case-closed and true. It
is not. The "Awakening"s in Fadhil have not been disarmed and it
doesn't matter what Iraqi or US officials say. (Speaking on the phone
with a friend at M-NF this morning and relaying that paragraph resulted
in laugher and the comment, "Now that's a gut buster.") For starters,
there is disarmament and there is disarmament in Iraq. Second of all,
it's well known that "Awakenings" have been nervous about what they saw
coming (and they appear to have been correct in their premonitions) and
no one doubts for a moment that there are weapons stashed. Only
house-to-house searches could collaborate the disarmament claim and
"even that would be suspect" because burying weapons is fairly common
in Iraq. We'll note this section. Iraq
is in the process of taking over most of the responsibility for paying
the Awakening Councils, which formerly was done by the Americans.
Control of the councils passed from the American military to the Iraqi
Army on Jan. 1.
"I personally was in the finance minister's office
about two hours ago and he showed me basically what you would call a
deposit slip, depositing the money in the Rafidain Bank," General
Perkins said. The amount was $30 million, he said, which is the monthly
payroll for Iraq's 94,000 Awakening Council members.$30
million is the monthly payroll? David Perkins needs to appear before
Congress because they were told, in testimony, that $18 million a month
was the cost. That's $12 million more per month than anyone bothered to
inform, $164 million a year. "He said he was satisfied that the
Iraqi government acted on valid evidence." Prior to that sentence,
Nordland summarizes charges Perkins says are against Adil
al-Mashhadani. Nordland should have provided an actual quote. The
comments Perkins is making are not helpful to the mitigating tensions
and may inflame them. I don't doubt Nordland's summary, but it should
have been a direct quote because you have a US military spokesperson
vouching for -- which really isn't Perkins' job -- criminal charges
brought by the Iraqis against an Iraqi citizen. Perkins is a military
flack. He is not an attorney nor is he trained in the criminal justice
system. His comments should not have been made. Had Nordland quoted him
directly, we'd rip Perkins apart right now; however, if there is
fallout, Perkins will claim that the summary is incorrect. (Which is
why Nordland should have provided a direct quote.) It's a very strong article and you can comb over it for multiple details. We will note this section: Criticism
of the events in Fadhil continued to pour in from other members of the
Awakening movement. "We made their hot places cold, but now the
government's making them hot again," said Mustafa Kamel, leader of the
council in Dora and Arab Jabour, both areas that saw particularly heavy
fighting previously.Kamel's feelings are a perfectly natural response and shouldn't surprise anyone. In yesterday's snapshot, we touched on this element: Fadel explains to the Real News Network
that "Awakenings" feel betrayed because the US military gave or
"Awakenings" thought they were given amnesty but that the US military
could only give amnesty for attacks on the US, not attacks on Iraqis.
Note that the term "amnesty" was used (this is me, not Leila) by the US
military in recruiting "Awakenings." It caused some rumbles on the
internet play left side of the world (Arianna Huffington was a huffing
back then about it). Clearly, had the "Awakenings" known that the
"amnesty" was limited, they wouldn't have gone along. What would be the
point? Help pacify/terrorize the country and then when Nouri no longer
needs them, he can pick them off? If they had known that the amnesty
did not apply across the board, they would not have gone along because
the reason they were armed and against the puppet government in the
first place was they didn't trust the puppet government (or the
puppet). Iraq was up for grabs and the ones who became
the "Awakenings" did not support the Shi'ite controlled and dominated
government the US was setting up. There is no way in the world that,
for a few dollars a day, they would have thrown their lot in with the
central government if they'd known they'd be sidelined (or imprisoned)
after they'd been utilized by the central government (and by the
Americans) to do what neither US nor Baghdad-controlled forces could
do. And Fadel is Leila Fadel of McClatchy. We'll note a new article by her in the next entry. Borzou Daragahi was among the earliest of US correspondents in Iraq for the current Iraq War. He remains a Middle East correspondent for the Los Angeles Times
but was moved out of Iraq at the time Iran seemed to be the war in
waiting. In today's paper, he interviews Shi'ite thug Jawad Bolani in " A look inside Iraq's Interior Ministry:" Say the words "interior ministry" in almost any Middle Eastern country and you're certain to evoke fear and resentment.In
the name of protecting the homeland, internal security forces in just
about every Arab country limit civil liberties, intrude on private
lives and abuse human rights.Iraqi
Interior Minister Jawad Bolani bills himself as an independent-minded
democrat and civil servant who wants to secure his country without
resorting to heavy-handed tactics that might undermine what he
describes as his nation's democratic progress. He took a break from a
recent conference of Arab interior ministers in Beirut to sit down for
an interview with The Times.In
Iraq 2½ years ago, you said that death squad infiltration of your
ministry was a problem that you were addressing but that you didn't
want to disparage the work of most of your officers. How did you fix
the problem?In 2006,
the security situation was not good, the ministry was infiltrated.
Today we have an institution functioning well and following rules. A
lot of reforms have been implemented. We worked on creating an
institution that monitors the country but remains under the law.We also cleansed the institution of bad elements, replacing 58 senior officers.Was it a matter of increasing intelligence capacity?A
few months ago, we inaugurated a new intelligence center equipped with
the best technological equipment. We rely a lot on intelligence
information to fight against [the group] Al Qaeda [in Iraq] and other
outlawed militias. We have more than 10,000 elements [operatives] in
the intelligence agency of the ministry.These 10,000 elements, what have they accomplished so far?They
submitted 43,000 reports on various issues. Through the information
they provided, we were able to arrest more than 800 wanted elements.With Aimee Allison (co-host of KPFA's The Morning Show with Philip Maldari), David Solnit authored Army Of None -- a valuable and wonderful book on counter-recruiting and strategies for peace. David Solnit notes: Friend
and filmmaker Rick Rowley comes to town with three films just shot on
the ground in Iraq-- in typical high energy in-your-face style. Rick is
joined by local IVAW organizer Carl "Davey" Davison and cutting-edge
movement analyst Antonia Juhasz to do some collective
thinking-discussing about how we can take on Obama to make the world a
better place. Hope you can join us!Please Invite your friends:Bay Area Premierefrom the makers of "Fourth World War" & "This is What Democracy Looks Like"OBAMA'S IRAQA Big Noise Filmfollowed by a Public Discussion:How Do We End Occupation & Empire Under Obama?Carl Davison, organizer with Iraq Veterans Against the War, served in the Marines and the Army, and refused deployment to Iraq.Antonia Juhasz, analyst, activist, author of Tyrany of Oil; The World's Most Powerful Industry--and What We Must Do to Stop ItRick Rowley, Big Noise film maker recently returned for Iraq.Friday April 3, 7pmATA THEATER992 Valencia Street (at 21st), SFEveryone welcome, $6 donation requested, not required.Obama's
Iraq is an evening of short films never before seen in America. Shot on
the other side of the blast shields in Iraq's walled cities, it covers
a very different side of the war than is ever seen on American screens.
It reports unembedded from war-torn Falluja, from the giant US prison
at Umm Qasr, from the Mehdi Army stronghold inside Sadr City -- from
the places where mainstream corporate channels can not or will not go.
Obama's Iraq asks the questions -- what is occupation under Obama, and
how can we end the war in Iraq and the empire behind it? After the
film, a public discussion will begin to answer that question. Join us.Sponsored by Courage to Resist,Bay Area Iraq Veterans Against the War,& Unconventional Action in the Bay.That
will appear every morning between now and Friday in one of the morning
entries. I'll try to add additional links in the announcement as the
week progresses. We'll also note a film this morning, A Jihad for Love:  |  |
| |
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Kelly Hargraves
Phone: 1-323-662-1930
kelly.hargraves@firstrunfeatures.com
|
|
|
| 
Wins the Prestigious GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Documentary  At the 20th Annual GLAAD Media Awards last night in New York, director/producer Parvez Sharma and producer Sandi Dubowski accepted the Outstanding Documentary Award for A Jihad for Love, the world's first feature documentary to explore the complex global intersections between Islam and homosexuality. A Jihad for Love
enjoyed a successful national theatrical release and comes out on DVD
April 21. GLAAD, the nation's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, presents the GLAAD
Media Awards to recognize and honor media for their fair, accurate and
inclusive representations of the LGBT community and the issues that
affect their lives.
Fourteen
centuries after the revelation of the holy Qur’an to the Prophet
Muhammad, Islam today is the world’s second largest and fastest growing
religion. In A Jihad for Love, Muslim gay
filmmaker Parvez Sharma travels the many worlds of this dynamic faith,
uncovering the stories of its most unlikely storytellers: lesbian and
gay Muslims. Produced by Sandi DuBowski (Trembling Before G-d) and Sharma, the film was shot - often in secret - in twelve countries and nine languages over the course of six years.  In
Western media, the concept of 'jihad' is often equated with holy war.
But it also has a deeper meaning: ' to struggle' or 'to strive in the
path of God.' The majority of Muslims believe that homosexuality is
forbidden by the Qur'an, and many scholars quote Hadith (sayings
attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) to condemn homosexuality. As a
result, gay and lesbian Muslims often must engage in their own personal
‘jihad for love’ – a pursuit that brings them into conflicts with their
countries, their families, and even themselves. Many end up renouncing
their faith altogether.
But the subjects of A Jihad for Love
aren't willing to abandon their faith. Instead, they struggle to
reconcile their ardent belief with the innate reality of their being.
They don’t seek to vilify or reject Islam, but rather to negotiate a
new relationship to it. In doing so, the film's extraordinary
characters attempt to point the way for all Muslims to move beyond the
hostile, war-torn present toward a more hopeful future. A Jihad for Love is endorsed by Human Rights Watch, which recognizes select First Run Features films that shed light on human rights abuses throughout the world. Director/producer Parvez Sharma is a New York based writer and filmmaker. A Jihad for Love is
his first feature and has become an international phenomenon with more
than 700,000 viewers in 30 nations in the first year of its release.
Sharma variously has been hailed “a gifted filmmaker” (WSJ), “frankly brave” (NPR), “provocative” (San Francisco Chronicle),
and “an apostate” (South Africa's Muslim Judicial Council). A leading
commentator on Islamic, racial and political issues, his writings
frequently appear on The Huffington Post. Currently he is
engaged in a nationwide speaking tour and in pre-production for a new
film, partly set in his home country of India. Sharma previously has
worked as a television journalist in India and the UK. He also worked
on Democracy Now! in New York as a producer and as a print journalist
in India and the US. He was educated in India, the UK and the US and in
the past has served as an adjunct professor at American University,
developing and teaching that university's first curriculum on Bollywood
and other Indian cinemas. OUT Magazine named Sharma one of the OUT 100 for 2008. Producer Sandi DuBowski directed Trembling Before G-d (2001),
which had a world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, received
twelve awards, was released theatrically in the United States, Israel,
Canada, Germany, South Africa, and UK and is airing on BBC, The
Sundance Channel, ZDF-Arte, HBO Latin America, Israel’s Keshet/Channel
Two, and other TV stations worldwide. DuBowski has conducted 800 live
events with the film across the globe, and it has been seen by an
estimated 8 million people. He created Trembling on the Road to document this life-changing movement for the DVD and launched www.filmsthatchangetheworld.com
to engage people through global house parties and online events.
DuBowski has spoken on numerous panels at conferences and festivals,
including the Toronto IFF, Sundance, the Berlin Film Festival Talent
Campus, Hot Docs, Silverdocs and IFP. Currently he is directing a new
film called Soul Trainer. DVD BONUS FEATURES: Behind the Scenes • Director Interview • New Footage from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia • 8 Language Subtitle Options
“Revealing and moving…notable for its depiction of the tenacity with
which its subjects hold on to their faith despite the wall of bigotry,
often homicidal, that confronts them.” – Wall Street Journal
“A remarkable exploration, six years in the making, of the lives and
struggles of gays and lesbians in the Islamic world today.” – Huffington Post “Dignity and despair woven tightly together…Courageous.” – The Guardian “Lifts the veil of secrecy….frankly brave.” – NPR, Talk of the Nation “A passionate, essential first step … both haunting and inspiring.” – New York Sun “Fascinating, provocative, important.” – San Francisco Chronicle “Intimate portrayals...courageous.” – Boston Globe “Pioneering, heartfelt...this film will both inspire and anger.” – Bay Area Reporter “Provocative, deeply felt, original and emotionally complex.” – Village Voice “Heartfelt debut… Gains depth of feeling as it goes and even develops something of a nail-biting narrative.” – The New York Times
“Rich with compelling, often heartbreaking stories…a much-needed
reminder that the foundation of any great religion consists of love and
understanding.” – Film Threat 
A JIHAD FOR LOVE
81 minutes, color, English and Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Hindi, Turkish & French w/English subtitles, 2008
UPC #: 720229913430 • Catalog #: FRF 913430D
Suggested Retail Price: $24.95
Pre-book Date: March 17 • Street Date: April 21 
For more information, including the press kit, photos, credits and more, please visit www.firstrunfeatures.com/jihadforlove_press.html. | |
The following community sites updated last night: -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stevie Nicks 13 hours ago
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe new york timesrod nordlandmcclatchy newspapersleila fadelreal news networkthe los angeles timesborzou daragahiaimee allison
philip maldari
david solnitobama's iraqa jihad for love
Posted at 06:32 am by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
