 |
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad sees renewed violence, Joe Biden visits Iraq, Odierno reveals US troops really aren't out of Iraqi cities, and more.
GEN. RAY ODIERNO: Well, what we have is we have U.S. forces in joint coordination centers all over Iraq, inside of the cities, and they are there doing training, advising, assisting, and they also are coordinating with the Iraqis. So we have these relationships that are built from the lowest levels up to the highest levels that allow us to communicate. And if they need assistance, they can ask, and we will provide that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So they're not technically out of the cities. They're still there, but they're working side by side with the Iraqis?
GEN. RAY ODIERNO: That's right, but we're at much lower numbers. These are just small advisory and coordination cells, and they're not related to combat formation, such as brigades and battalions. Those are now outside the cities. But we have coordination cells that work very closely with the Iraqis to enable them and train them and advise them and coordinate with them.
David Greene: So 130,000 that's a big number -- the number of US forces remaining in these forward operating bases outside the cities and we'll probably be there until next fall. What exactly does this withdrawal mean? Is anything really different?
Thomas E. Ricks: I don't think it really is that different. I think politicians are trying to make more of it, especially Iraqi politicians, then is really warranted here. American troops are going to continue to fight in Iraq, they're going to continue to die in Iraq. In fact, I suspect, in the areas around Baghdad, the so-called 'belts,' you're going to see some real fighting this summer.
David Greene: One of the Iraqi politicians you're speaking of is probably Nouri al-Maliki. He's made some pretty significant pronouncements of optimism saying, 'We've got this covered.' Let's play out a scenario, if things don't go that well in the city, can he reach out and say to the Americans, 'I need you back?'
Thomas E. Ricks: He can pull the Americans back and, in fact, that's happened several times. This is not the first time the Americans have tried to transfer security responsibility to Iraqi forces. We tried it several times, it hasn't worked several times. Now we look back and say, 'Well that was a rush to failure.' So the question now is: Are Iraqi forces up to the job? And the answer is: nobody knows.
David E. Greene: You joined us on this program back in March and you said at the time you thought we might be half-way through this war. Is that about still where we are?
David E. Green: Optimistic?
Thomas E. Ricks: Yeah, I think we have a lot longer road ahead of us in Iraq than anybody in this country seems to think. It worries me that Americans have turned their eyes away from Iraq and have almost gotten bored with it. The old 1960s slogan was: What if they gave a war and nobody came? Now we're in a situation: What if they gave a war and nobody paid attention?
David Greene: A lot of Americans would be shocked to hear we're less than half-way through this war Certainly President Obama seems to be sending a different message. You also said something about the president. You said that Iraq was going to change Obama more than Obama changes Iraq. Uh, what's your sense so far? Have you seen him adapting since taking office?
Thomas E. Ricks: Well, yeah. I think in fact, he has broken more campaign promises on Iraq than on any other area. He campaigned saying he would take a brigade out a month from the day he took office instead he's keeping troop levels about where they were during the entire Bush administration. Instead of getting out quickly, he's actually is looking at getting out rather slowly. Bush said the mission was accomplished when it wasn't and Obama's saying we're going to get the combat troops out. Well guess what? There are no non-combat troops in the US military. There is no pacifist wing in the military.
David Greene: So what does that mean when he says get the combat troops out?
Thomas E. Ricks: It's a meaningless phrase. Either you have troops there or you don't. If American troops are there, they will be involved in combat. In fact, American troops who are advisers to Iraqi units are going to be vulnerable.
The withdrawal of some U.S. combat troops from Iraq's cities is welcome and long overdue news. However, it is important to remember that this is not the same as a withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors from Iraq.
U.S. troop combat missions throughout Iraq are not scheduled to end until more than a year from now in August of 2010. In addition, U.S. troops are not scheduled for a complete withdrawal for another two and a half years on December 31, 2011. Rather, U.S. troops are leaving Iraqi cities for military bases in Iraq. They are still in Iraq, and they can be summoned back at any time.
This is not a great victory for peace. On May 19, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Iraqi and U.S. military officials virtually redrew the city limits of Baghdad in order to consider the Army's Forward Operation Base Falcoln as outside the city, despite every map of Baghdad clearly showing it wih in city limits. In afact, according to Section 24.3 of the "SOFA" U.S. troops can remain at any agreed upon facility. The reported reason for this decision is to ensure U.S. troops are able to "help maintain security in south Baghdad alon gwhat were the fault lines in the sectarian war."
This troop movement should not be confused with a troop withdrawal from Iraq. In reality, this is a small step toward Iraqi sovereignty as Iraqi security forces begin assuming greater control over security operations, but it is a long way from independence and a withdrawal of the U.S. military presence.
Also issuing statements were insurgent and resistance leaders. Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reports that they issued statements which "all commanded Iraqis to continue fighting the American military until it has left the country completely; nearly 130,000 troops remain. The statements also insisted, in unusually clear language, that Iraqis not turn their violence on one another."
Meanwhile Vice President Joe Biden is in Iraq. The White House released the following statement, "Vice President Biden has arrived in Iraq to visit U.S. troops and to meet with Iraqi leaders, including President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Speaker of the Council of Representatives Ayad al-Samarrai. The Vice President will reiterate the United States' commitment to fully implement the Security Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement and to carry out President Obama's plan to draw down US forces. He will discuss with Iraq's leaders the importance of achieving the political progress that is necessary to ensure the nation's long-term stability. This is Vice President Biden's second trip to Iraq this year and his first as Vice President." The Vice President's oldest son, Beau Biden, is serving in Iraq as a member of Delaware's Army National Guard. Mark Silva (Chicago Tribune) notes that it is "a two-day series of meetings" for Vice President Biden who "was greeted at Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Deputy Foreign Minister Labid Abbawi and Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of American forces there."
In Baghdad today, violence 'returned.' Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and wounded ten people including two more Iraqi soldiers. Patrick Quinn (AP) adds, "The attack occurred near a bridge that controls access to the walled-off Green Zone in central Baghdad." Quinn also notes 2 dead and fifteen injured from a Baghdad car bombing. Aseel Kami, Michael Christie and Charles Dick (Reuters) report that Iraqi police claim it is the first Baghdad bombing since Tuesday but that it is "not immediately possible to verify the claim that the bomb was the first but no major incidents were reported in Baghdad on Wednesday." Alice Fordham (Times of London) adds, "Despite concerns, the Iraqi security forces in Baghdad have already begun a policy of reopening closing roads, reducing the number of fixed checkpoints and removing the concrete barriers that have long dominated the Baghdad streetscape. "
In other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing injured two people, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 2 lives and left fifteen people injured and Falluja roadside bombing targeted an Iraq military officer but killed his driver ("The officer was not in the car"). Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing injured three people, a Yusufiya car bombing claimed 2 lives and left fifteen people injured, an Al-Zab car bombing claimed 1 life and injured six people and a Falluja sticky bombing which claimed the life of 1 police officer and and left two others injured..
Shootings?
Those following the oil industry can refer to Tamsin Carlisle's " Iraq seeks plan B after auction" ( The National): Iraq said yesterday its state oil companies would manage and exploit two gasfields and possibly one oilfield that failed to attract acceptable bids from foreign companies in the country's first post-war oil and gas licensing round.Baghdad also rejected further offers it received after the close on Tuesday of a televised auction of service contracts for work on six of the country's biggest oilfields and the two gasfields."The offers from the foreign companies were rejected by the government," said Ali al Dabbagh, a government spokesman. "If they want the oilfields they have to match the prices offered by the ministry of oil."Reporters who are handmaidens to Big Oil have repeatedly attempted to play the events as a failure. Iraq doesn't need foreigners to reap millions on oil. If they're not happy with the bidding, they don't have to award contracts. There's a Western attitude of "you must" that Iraq fails to respond to (no surprise, that's been the case for Iraq historically). "Emboldened by what Iraqi oil officials are calling a successful first oil-licensing round this week," Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports, "the oil ministry is to move up a second auction that was to be held at the end of this year for 11 oil and natural-gas fields." As Chon explains, Big Oil was the one who "balked" in the auction. AFP quotes Nouri al-Maliki declaring, ""Some companies succeeded, others did not. The oil ministry will think about how to exploit the oil resources of Iraq." Repeating: Big Oil removed itself from the process (kind of the way Barack took his name off the Michigan ballot -- maybe Big Oil thought the DNC 'Rules' Committee would award it contracts regardless?). Big Oil's Pimp Sheila McNulty (Financial Times of London) spins it as a win for Chevron: "The US oil company did not even bid for one of the highly touted contracts. While Chevron is not saying anything about what kept it out of the race, an industry source says the world's third biggest oil company decided the terms being offered were too unfavorable for the company to make money." Meanwhile Vivienne Walt (TIME magazine) notes the hesitation to bid on Kirkuk fields in the past:
Until now, major oil companies such as Chevron and ExxonMobil have stayed out of investing in the Kurdish zone for fear that investing there might prompt Baghdad to blacklist them from bidding for the far larger fields down South. But those fears have diminished as the stalemate in parliament over oil has dragged on. Big Oil might also be emboldened to make deals on oil fields in the Kurdish areas since last week, when the Chinese oil giant Sinopec announced that it was acquiring the Swiss oil company Addax Petroleum, which operates in Iraqi Kurdistan. "It will be much more difficult to blacklist Sinopec," says Yousni. "This is China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, not some small oil company," he says. Having dared to take on Baghdad, China has increased the Kurds' ability to become an autonomous economic power, and perhaps allowed other companies to follow suit. "The Chevrons and Exxons of this world can now do the same, and go into Kurdish fields." For now, some may see that as a safer bet than the riches on offer, at a steeper price and risk, further south.
In yesterday's snapshot, we noted Josh Drobnyk's " Iraq war veteran will lead effort to reverse 'don't ask, don't tell'" ( Los Angeles Times) but we'll return to it to note this: With Murphy, 35, the Democratic leadership has an aggressive two-term lawmaker who in 2006 was the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress. A former prosecutor and West Point professor, Murphy was a captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.He said he anticipated a struggle to rally enough support to bring the bill to the floor. "This is going to take months and months, but change is going to happen."The legislation's prospects are similarly uncertain in the Senate, where Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is suffering from a brain tumor, is expected to take the lead.Opponents are readying their own fight, arguing that gays' open service would hurt national security.It goes on to quote hag, you know who we mean. Monday's snapshot noted Senator Roland Burris' commitment to work with Kennedy on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While that's wonderful that Burris has shown the courage to step up on this issue, Kennedy's not only suffering from a tumor, he's also got his hands on the health care. Burris needs a senior senator to work with and it's past time someone stepped up to the plate. This can't wait for Ted Kennedy to finish working on health care, it needs to be addressed now. Iraq War veteran Anthony Woods is running for Congress, he was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Kel Munger (Sacramento News & Review) spoke with him (and I've added their names before they speak to make it easier to follow): Kel Munger: So you were discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Did they ask or did you tell?Anthony Woods: I told. I reached the point where I had fully accepted who I was, and the more I thought about it, the more I understood that it was not right at all to lie about who I was. I was on the honor committee at West Point. I was raised with regular American values and taught that it's not right to lie in any context. As I started to think about it more and more, it baffled me that we had a policy in place that was the law of the land that required every member of the GLBT community who served to lie.Kel Munger: There's something fundamentally wrong with that, especially in our country. It's unacceptable.Anthony Woods: That compelled me to be honest with my commander. And because of the law, she was required -- whether she wanted to or not -- to launch an investigation into my background to confirm the truth of the matter. I had to provide her with lists of names of people who knew me and knew I was gay. After a six-month investigation, I was honorably discharged. I was asked to repay the tuition that the Army had paid for at West Point, which was about $35,000.Kel Munger: How many years had you given the military? You'd already done two tours in Iraq, right?Anthony Woods: When I was discharged, I'd served just a little over five years. After grad school, I was going to do five more years.[. . .]Kel Munger: And what about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is kind of where we started this conversation?Anthony Woods: Think of all the straight soldiers who are left in the unit now who are going into battle with one less person on their side, one less resource for their unit. Look at my friend Dan Choi, for example. He's an Arab linguist, speaks Arabic fluently. Now his unit has to go to war without translator. They're less effective at doing their job and they're more at risk while they try to do it. It simply doesn't make sense to take talented, competent people who want to do their job and remove them and send everyone else off to war without them. Or we could talk about the $400 million it has cost us to implement "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." That would buy a lot of body armor and a lot of armored Humvees. Instead, we've got a net benefit of zero.Dan Choi is fighting for his military career. Tuesday an army board recommended he be dischared. Catherine Philip (Times of London) reports: An Iraq war veteran has been ordered out of the US military after publicly announcing his homosexuality in a direct challenge to the army's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.Lieutenant Dan Choi, who speaks fluent Arabic, outed himself in March in the military journal Army Times and on national television at the launch of Knights Out, an association representing gay and lesbian graduates of West Point military academy.He said that his declaration was a protest against a policy that forced soldiers to lie in order to serve their country. "It's an immoral code that goes against every single thing we were ever taught at West Point with our honour code," he said.
And from ETAN: The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras)Joint Statement on Accountability in the Run-up to the Indonesian Presidential Elections
As Indonesia prepares for its second direct presidential election on July 8th, the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras) together urge the Indonesian government, its citizens, and the international community to highlight past human rights violations and to push the next Indonesian administration to end impunity for human rights violators.We are especially concerned about the well-documented human rights records of some of the candidates, including vice presidential candidates Prabowo Subianto and Wiranto. Prabowo, vice-presidential candidate for Megawati Sukarnoputri, was commander of Indonesia's special forces unit Kopassus from 1995 to 1998. Under his command, Kopassus kidnapped and disappeared a group of student activists during the last part of the dictator Suharto's rule. For this, he was later forced to retire by a military court. He also presided over brutal actions by Kopassus in occupied East Timor, including the torture, kidnapping and killings of independence supporters.Wiranto, vice-presidential candidate for Jusuf Kalla, was commander of Indonesia's military during the tumultuous period of 1998 and 1999, when Suharto was pushed from power by widespread demonstrations and elite disillusionment with his rule. The military and its militias wreaked havoc in East Timor during its vote for independence. For his role, Wiranto was indicted for crimes against humanity by the UN-backed serious crimes process.Kontras and ETAN are concerned that should either of these candidates assume office, their past crimes will impede the next president's ability to satisfactorily resolve outstanding cases of human rights violations by Indonesia's security forces and hinder the critical movement toward military reform and accountability. Almost certainly Wiranto and Prabowo's own impunity would continue for human rights and war crimes.Under the current Yudhoyono administration, progress in the major human rights cases has been halting at best and military reform efforts have stalled. Also a former general, he has shown only a limited commitment to expanding human rights. Human rights violations have escalated in Papua. The involvement of the highest levels of the government's intelligence agency in the assassination of human rights activist Munir, who was murdered just prior to Yudhoyono taking office, has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. President Yudhoyono once declared the Munir case a "test case for whether Indonesia has changed."As the legal process has stalled in a number of important cases, the installation of a presidential team which respects human rights and can inject new momentum into these cases is critical. The international community can greatly assist efforts for genuine accountability and military reform by restricting military assistance to Indonesia. Together Indonesia's government, its citizens, and the international community must push for human rights accountability no matter who assumes office.
Contact:
Usman Hamid (Indonesia) +62 811 812 149John M. Miller (United States) +1-718-596-7668; +1-917-690-4391Komisi Untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan (KontraS)East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
Pernyataan bersama tentang akuntabilitas dalam pemilihan presiden Indonesia
Seiring dengan persiapan Indonesia menghadapi pemilihan presiden langsung keduanya pada 8 Juli 2009, the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) dan Komisi untuk orang hilang dan korban tindak kekerasan (KontraS), bersama mendorong pemerintah Indonesia, warganya, dan komunitas internasional untuk mengingat pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) di masa lampau dan untuk mendorong pemerintah Indonesia agar mengakhiri impunitas pelanggaran HAM.Kami sangat prihatin dengan catatan HAM- yang terdokumentasikan dengan baik- dari beberapa kandidat, termasuk kandidat Wakil Presiden Prabowo Subianto dan Wiranto. Prabowo, kandidat Wakil Presiden untuk Megawati Sukarnoputri, adalah komandan komando pasukan khusus (Kopassus) dari tahun 1995-1998. Dibawah pimpinannya, Kopassus menculik dan menghilangkan sekelompok aktivis mahasiswa pada masa akhir kepemimpinan diktator Suharto. Karena ini, ia dipaksa untuk pensiun oleh pengadilan militer. Ia juga terlibat dalam tindakan brutal Kopassus di wilayah okupasi Timor Timur, termasuk penyiksaan, penculikan dan pembunuhan terhadap pendukung kemerdekaan. Wiranto, kandidat Wakil Presiden untuk Jusuf Kalla, adalah Panglima Angkatan Bersenjata pada masa bergejolak 1998-1999, ketika Suharto dijatuhkan dari kekuasaan oleh demonstrasi yang meluas dan disilusi elit pada kekuasaannya. Militer dan milisinya melancarkan kekacauan di Timor Timur pada masa referendum kemerdekaan. Untuk perannya ini, Wiranto dituduh kejahatan atas HAM melalui proses peradilan kejahatan serius yang disokong oleh PBB. Kontras dan ETAN prihatin bila salah satu kandidat ini berhasil menang, maka kejahatan masa lalu mereka akan menghalangi kemampuan presiden selanjutnya untuk menyelesaikan kasus kasus besar pelanggaran HAM masa lalu yang dilakukan oleh angkatan bersenjata Indonesia, serta menghalangi gerakan kritis terhadap reformasi militer dan akuntabilitas. Hampir dipastikan impunitas Wiranto dan Prabowo akan terus berlangsung dalam pelanggaran HAM dan kejahatan perang. Dibawah pemerintahan Yudhoyono yang sedang berjalan, perkembangan kasus-kasus HAM besar terhambat dan upaya reformasi militer tersendat. Sebagai mantan Jendral, ia menunjukkan komitmen terbatas dalam penegakkan HAM. Pelanggaran HAM meningkat di Papua. Keterlibatan pejabat tinggi badan intelijen pemerintah dalam pembunuhan aktivis HAM, Munir, yang terbunuh beberapa saat setelah Yudhoyono memangku jabatan, belum terselesaikan secara memuaskan. Presiden Yudhoyono pernah mengatakan "kasus Munir adalah suatu batu ujian seberapa besar Indonesia telah berubah."Seiring terhentinya proses hukum beberapa kasus penting, pembentukan pasangan presiden yang menghargai HAM dan bisa menyuntikan momentum baru pada kasus ini adalah kritis. Komunitas internasional dapat membantu upaya upaya menegakkan akuntabilitas sejati dan reformasi militer dengan membatasi bantuan militer ke Indonesia. Bersama-sama, pemerintah Indonesia, warganya, dan komunitas internasional harus mendorong akuntabilitas HAM, terlepas siapapun yang memangku jabatan.
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
John M. Miller fbp@igc.org
National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA
Phone: (718)596-7668 Mobile phone: (917)690-4391
Skype: john.m.miller
|
Posted at 04:38 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Judy Woodruff: 'So they're not technically out of the cities'
Violence, like the illegal war, continues in Iraq. Aseel Kami, Michael Christie and Charles Dick (Reuters) report
a Baghdad roadside bombing that has cliamed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier
today and left another ten injured. The reporters note that Iraqi
police claim it is the first Baghdad bombing since Tuesday but that it
is "not immediately possible to verify the claim that the bomb was the
first but no major incidents were reported in Baghdad on Wednesday." Patrick Quinn (AP) adds,
"The attack occurred near a bridge that controls access to the
walled-off Green Zone in central Baghdad." Quinn also notes 2 dead and
fifteen injured from a Baghdad car bombing. Reuters reports
1 Iraqi Army Major was shot dead in Kirkuk and that a Falluja sicky
bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer while leaving two more
injured. Staying with reality, from yesterday's NewsHour (PBS -- read, listen or watch): GEN.
RAY ODIERNO: Well, what we have is we have U.S. forces in joint
coordination centers all over Iraq, inside of the cities, and they are
there doing training, advising, assisting, and they also are
coordinating with the Iraqis. So we have these relationships that are
built from the lowest levels up to the highest levels that allow us to
communicate. And if they need assistance, they can ask, and we will
provide that.JUDY
WOODRUFF: So they're not technically out of the cities. They're still
there, but they're working side by side with the Iraqis?GEN.
RAY ODIERNO: That's right, but we're at much lower numbers. These are
just small advisory and coordination cells, and they're not related to
combat formation, such as brigades and battalions. Those are now
outside the cities. But we have coordination cells that work very
closely with the Iraqis to enable them and train them and advise them
and coordinate with them.Despite the fact that each Sunday finds at least one, if not two, pajama bloggers for the New York Times
attempting to pass their summaries of the chat & chews off as
reporting, no one even noticed this interview in this morning's paper.
Certainly not on the op-ed pages where we get more smut this time from
Gail Collins. If you had a unibrow and no talent, you might actually
try to work for a byline. Not Gail. She covers gossip and smut from a
distance failing to grasp what it really says about her. Someone so
obsessed with the sex lives of others clearly either isn't having sex
or has never had good sex. Not all that surprising when you look at her
plain, uni-brow riddled face. They go for tabloid on the front page and
do the usual NYT-s**t-poor
job. If you're going to cover that garbage story, you better grasp that
Access Hollywood, E!, and a million websites (including Yahoo News)
told about the will yesterday. You better grasp that if you want to
front page scandal, you're staff's going to have to burn a little shoe
leather and actually get a scoop, not just toss day-old-news on the
front page. How embarrassing. Campbell Robertson offers " Insurgents Hail Pullout of Troops From Cities"
in this morning's paper -- inside. The article covers resistance and
insurgent groups releasing their own statements noting the for-show
play-day of 'pull-out'. From the article: Iraqi
opposition and insurgent leaders consider themselves to have as much
legitimacy as, or more than, Iraqi government officials, and formal
statements on such a symbolic occasion are expected.
The statements
all commanded Iraqis to continue fighting the American military until
it had left the country completely; nearly 130,000 troops remain. The
statements also insisted, in unusually clear language, that Iraqis not
turn their violence on one another. While Gail Collins
reveals herself to be a homely, sex-obsessed virgin whose smutty mind
never considered anything bigger than who's screwing who, Marie Cocco
sits at the grown up table. From her " Still needing U.S. glue in Iraq" (via San Francisco Chronicle): So,
at most, what we witness this week with the repositioning of American
troops is yet another of those "turning points" we heard about so often
from our former president. We hope it will send us, and the Iraqis, on
a straight and bright path out of violence. Yet the view from this
crossroads even now continues to be obscured by an upsurge in killing
and uncertainty about Iraq's political future. The essential question
being asked and routinely answered - are Iraqi security forces ready to
take over from the American military? - is too limited, and predictably
off base.What if the answer
turns out to be no? What if there are continued bombings that claim
hundreds of civilian lives, sectarian militias take control of some
regions and popular uprisings sprout in others? What, exactly, would we
do?Despite the presence of
131,000 U.S. troops who will remain in Iraq, there is no political
support at home for anything that would look like an open-ended
reassertion of American military control. Besides, the removal of
troops from urban areas is mostly cosmetic, as American forces have
merely been redeployed to less visible areas on the outskirts of
central cities, according to Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director
for the Middle East at the nonpartisan International Crisis Group. "In
any case, they are available if called upon or invited by the Iraqi
security forces. That's the main thing," he said in a phone interview
from Amman, Jordan. "It is a formal handover and the Iraqis are allowed
to claim victory. But a whole lot doesn't change."Katie Couric (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric) offers her take here -- text and video. From Baghdad, Liz Sly files " June death toll of Iraqis highest in 11 months" ( Los Angeles Times) Offering
a possible harbinger of what is to come now that U.S. troops have
withdrawn from Iraq's cities, the death toll in June among Iraqis was
the highest in 11 months, the nation's Health Ministry reported
Wednesday.A total of 438
Iraqis died in June in shootings, bombings and assassinations, 68 of
them members of the security forces. That's the highest number since
July 2008, when 465 Iraqis died violently, and includes the tolls from
a series of deadly bombings such as the one near Kirkuk last week that
killed more than 70 people. It's also 2 2/3 times the figure for May,
when 165 people died, the lowest monthly toll of the war.Those following the oil industry can refer to Tamsin Carlisle's " Iraq seeks plan B after auction" ( The National): Iraq
said yesterday its state oil companies would manage and exploit two
gasfields and possibly one oilfield that failed to attract acceptable
bids from foreign companies in the country's first post-war oil and gas
licensing round.Baghdad
also rejected further offers it received after the close on Tuesday of
a televised auction of service contracts for work on six of the
country’s biggest oilfields and the two gasfields."The
offers from the foreign companies were rejected by the government,"
said Ali al Dabbagh, a government spokesman. "If they want the
oilfields they have to match the prices offered by the ministry of oil."Reporters
who are handmaidens to Big Oil have repeatedly attempted to play the
events as a failure. Iraq doesn't need foreigners to reap millions on
oil. If they're not happy with the bidding, they don't have to award
contracts. There's a Western attitude of "you must" that Iraq fails to
respond to (no surprise, that's been the case for Iraq historically).
"Emboldened by what Iraqi oil officials are calling a successful first
oil-licensing round this week," Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) reports,
"the oil ministry is to move up a second auction that was to be held at
the end of this year for 11 oil and natural-gas fields." As Chon
explains, Big Oil was the one who "balked" in the auction. AFP quotes
Nouri al-Maliki declaring, ""Some companies succeeded, others did not.
The oil ministry will think about how to exploit the oil resources of
Iraq." Repeating: Big Oil removed itself from the process (kind of the
way Barack took his name off the Michigan ballot -- maybe Big Oil
thought the DNC 'Rules' Committee would award it contracts
regardless?). Big Oil's Pimp Sheila McNulty (Financial Times of London) spins
it as a win for Chevron: "The US oil company did not even bid for one
of the highly touted contracts. While Chevron is not saying anything
about what kept it out of the race, an industry source says the world's
third biggest oil company decided the terms being offered were too
unfavorable for the company to make money." Finally, from ETAN: The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras) Joint Statement on Accountability in the Run-up to the Indonesian Presidential Elections
As Indonesia
prepares for its second direct presidential election on July 8th, the
East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the Commission for
the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras) together urge the
Indonesian government, its citizens, and the international community to
highlight past human rights violations and to push the next Indonesian administration to end impunity for human rights violators. We are especially concerned about the well-documented human rights records of some of the candidates, including vice presidential candidates Prabowo Subianto and Wiranto. Prabowo, vice-presidential candidate for Megawati Sukarnoputri, was commander of Indonesia's special forces unit
Kopassus from 1995 to 1998. Under his command, Kopassus kidnapped and
disappeared a group of student activists during the last part of the
dictator Suharto's rule. For this, he was later forced to retire by a
military court. He also presided over brutal actions by Kopassus in
occupied East Timor, including the torture, kidnapping and killings of
independence supporters. Wiranto, vice-presidential candidate for Jusuf Kalla,
was commander of Indonesia's military during the tumultuous period of
1998 and 1999, when Suharto was pushed from power by widespread
demonstrations and elite disillusionment with his rule. The military
and its militias wreaked havoc in East Timor during its vote for
independence. For his role, Wiranto was indicted for crimes against humanity by the UN-backed serious crimes process.
Kontras and ETAN are concerned that should either of these candidates
assume office, their past crimes will impede the next president's
ability to satisfactorily resolve outstanding cases of human rights
violations by Indonesia's security forces and hinder the critical
movement toward military reform and accountability. Almost certainly
Wiranto and Prabowo's own impunity would continue for human rights and war crimes. Under the current Yudhoyono administration, progress in the major human rights cases
has been halting at best and military reform efforts have stalled. Also
a former general, he has shown only a limited commitment to expanding
human rights. Human rights violations have escalated in Papua. The
involvement of the highest levels of the government's intelligence
agency in the assassination of human rights activist Munir, who was
murdered just prior to Yudhoyono taking office, has yet to be
satisfactorily resolved. President Yudhoyono once declared the Munir
case a "test case for whether Indonesia has changed."
As the legal process has stalled in a number of important cases, the
installation of a presidential team which respects human rights and can
inject new momentum into these cases is critical. The international
community can greatly assist efforts for genuine accountability and
military reform by restricting military assistance
to Indonesia. Together Indonesia's government, its citizens, and the
international community must push for human rights accountability no
matter who assumes office.
Contact:
Usman Hamid (Indonesia) +62 811 812 149 John M. Miller (United States) +1-718-596-7668; +1-917-690-4391 Komisi Untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan (KontraS) East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
Pernyataan bersama tentang akuntabilitas dalam pemilihan presiden Indonesia
Seiring
dengan persiapan Indonesia menghadapi pemilihan presiden langsung
keduanya pada 8 Juli 2009, the East Timor and Indonesia Action Network
(ETAN) dan Komisi untuk orang hilang dan korban tindak kekerasan
(KontraS), bersama mendorong pemerintah Indonesia, warganya, dan komunitas internasional untuk mengingat pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) di masa lampau dan untuk mendorong pemerintah Indonesia agar mengakhiri impunitas pelanggaran HAM.
Kami sangat prihatin dengan catatan HAM- yang terdokumentasikan dengan
baik- dari beberapa kandidat, termasuk kandidat Wakil Presiden Prabowo Subianto dan Wiranto. Prabowo, kandidat Wakil Presiden untuk Megawati Sukarnoputri,
adalah komandan komando pasukan khusus (Kopassus) dari tahun 1995-1998.
Dibawah pimpinannya, Kopassus menculik dan menghilangkan sekelompok
aktivis mahasiswa pada masa akhir kepemimpinan diktator Suharto. Karena
ini, ia dipaksa untuk pensiun oleh pengadilan militer. Ia juga terlibat
dalam tindakan brutal Kopassus di wilayah okupasi Timor Timur, termasuk
penyiksaan, penculikan dan pembunuhan terhadap pendukung kemerdekaan.
Wiranto, kandidat Wakil Presiden untuk Jusuf Kalla, adalah Panglima
Angkatan Bersenjata pada masa bergejolak 1998-1999, ketika Suharto
dijatuhkan dari kekuasaan oleh demonstrasi yang meluas dan disilusi
elit pada kekuasaannya. Militer dan milisinya melancarkan kekacauan di
Timor Timur pada masa referendum kemerdekaan. Untuk perannya ini,
Wiranto dituduh kejahatan atas HAM melalui proses peradilan kejahatan
serius yang disokong oleh PBB.
Kontras dan ETAN prihatin bila salah satu kandidat ini berhasil menang,
maka kejahatan masa lalu mereka akan menghalangi kemampuan presiden
selanjutnya untuk menyelesaikan kasus kasus besar pelanggaran HAM masa
lalu yang dilakukan oleh angkatan bersenjata Indonesia, serta
menghalangi gerakan kritis terhadap reformasi militer dan
akuntabilitas. Hampir dipastikan impunitas Wiranto dan Prabowo akan
terus berlangsung dalam pelanggaran HAM dan kejahatan perang.
Dibawah pemerintahan Yudhoyono yang sedang berjalan, perkembangan
kasus-kasus HAM besar terhambat dan upaya reformasi militer tersendat.
Sebagai mantan Jendral, ia menunjukkan komitmen terbatas dalam
penegakkan HAM. Pelanggaran HAM meningkat di Papua. Keterlibatan
pejabat tinggi badan intelijen pemerintah dalam pembunuhan aktivis HAM,
Munir, yang terbunuh beberapa saat setelah Yudhoyono memangku jabatan,
belum terselesaikan secara memuaskan. Presiden Yudhoyono pernah
mengatakan “kasus Munir adalah suatu batu ujian seberapa besar
Indonesia telah berubah.”
Seiring terhentinya proses hukum beberapa kasus penting, pembentukan
pasangan presiden yang menghargai HAM dan bisa menyuntikan momentum
baru pada kasus ini adalah kritis. Komunitas internasional dapat
membantu upaya upaya menegakkan akuntabilitas sejati dan reformasi
militer dengan membatasi bantuan militer ke Indonesia. Bersama-sama, pemerintah Indonesia, warganya, dan komunitas internasional harus mendorong akuntabilitas HAM, terlepas siapapun yang memangku jabatan. etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan John M. Miller fbp@igc.org National Coordinator East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) PO Box 21873, Brooklyn, NY 11202-1873 USA Phone: (718)596-7668 Mobile phone: (917)690-4391 Skype: john.m.miller Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org to find out how to learn more about East Timor on the Internet The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqaseel kamimichael christiecharles dickpatrick quinnpbsthe newshourjudy woodruffthe new york timescampbell robertsonmarie coccocbs newsthe cbs evening news with katie courickatie couricliz slythe los angeles timestamsin carlislethe wall street journalgina chonetan
Posted at 06:56 am by thecommonills
Permalink
'Toys will melt in cars. That is the heat.'
The
problem is this government needs to gain the confidence of the people.
It needs to give them something that they can hold onto. It needs to
look at their very difficult lives. They didn't have electricity when
the -- you know, outside this building, if I walk out now, it is so
hot, toys will melt in cars. To just to give you an idea, toys will
melt in cars. That is the heat. And people don't have electricity.
After six years, they don't have water in their homes.
I spoke to a
person yesterday in Beya'a neighborhood, when we were touring the city
for reactions. And she said, "How can I be happy with sovereignty, if
sovereignty has not brought me enough water to bathe, I can't wash my
clothes, if I don't have electricity so I can sleep at night? What kind
of sovereignty is this?"The above is McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa speaking on Democracy Now! yesterday for the segment " How Can We Have Sovereignty When We Don’t Have Electricity or Water to Bathe? Iraqi Reporter on US Troop Pullback." Sahar Issa is one of the Iraqi correspondents McClatchy has covering the war. She and other Iraqi correspondent's blog at the paper chain's Inside Iraq. Saturday Sam Dagher and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) reported
that, following two huge bombings last week involving motorcycles,
Nouri al-Maliki had banned motorcycles from Baghdad streets. Yesterday an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy explained what that means on the ground where communication is poor and the police are corrupt: Sami hadn't heard of this decision. There was no great effort made to inform people of this decision.So
out he went, happy to bypass all the poor car drivers waiting in long
queues at checkpoints. Then a traffic police patrol arrested him with
his son in the Karrada neighborhood.It
turns out he wasn't the only one arrested. A lot of people had hit the
streets with their motorbikes. They didn't know either.Sami
spent more than two hours trying to convince the officers that he
hadn’t heard of the ban. Finally, the top-ranking officer came in and
asked his men "Did they grease your palm?" ... "No, not yet" the
policeman answered with a smile.Sami
paid the wages from his job as a bribe to save his motorcycle. And his
family went to bed without supper because the police took all his
money..As usual, it is the
poor Iraqis who pay the cost for the on-the-spur-of-the-minute
decisions made by the Iraqi government. Innocent Iraqis are the quiet
victims of corrupt officials.In yesterday's snapshot, we noted Josh Drobnyk's " Iraq war veteran will lead effort to reverse 'don't ask, don't tell'" ( Los Angeles Times) but we'll return to it to note this: With
Murphy, 35, the Democratic leadership has an aggressive two-term
lawmaker who in 2006 was the first Iraq war veteran elected to
Congress. A former prosecutor and West Point professor, Murphy was a
captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.He
said he anticipated a struggle to rally enough support to bring the
bill to the floor. "This is going to take months and months, but change
is going to happen."The
legislation's prospects are similarly uncertain in the Senate, where
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who is suffering from a brain tumor,
is expected to take the lead.Opponents are readying their own fight, arguing that gays' open service would hurt national security.It goes on to quote hag, you know who we mean. Monday's snapshot
noted Senator Roland Burris' commitment to work with Kennedy on
repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. While that's wonderful that Burris has
shown the courage to step up on this issue, Kennedy's not only
suffering from a tumor, he's also got his hands on the health care.
Burris needs a senior senator to work with and it's past time someone
stepped up to the plate. This can't wait for Ted Kennedy to finish
working on health care, it needs to be addressed now. Iraq War veteran Anthony Woods is running for Congress, he was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Kel Munger (Sacramento News & Review) spoke with him (and I've added their names before they speak to make it easier to follow): Kel Munger: So you were discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Did they ask or did you tell?Anthony
Woods: I told. I reached the point where I had fully accepted who I
was, and the more I thought about it, the more I understood that it was
not right at all to lie about who I was. I was on the honor committee
at West Point. I was raised with regular American values and taught
that it's not right to lie in any context. As I started to think about
it more and more, it baffled me that we had a policy in place that was
the law of the land that required every member of the GLBT community
who served to lie.Kel Munger: There's something fundamentally wrong with that, especially in our country. It's unacceptable.Anthony
Woods: That compelled me to be honest with my commander. And because of
the law, she was required -- whether she wanted to or not -- to launch
an investigation into my background to confirm the truth of the matter.
I had to provide her with lists of names of people who knew me and knew
I was gay. After a six-month investigation, I was honorably discharged.
I was asked to repay the tuition that the Army had paid for at West
Point, which was about $35,000.Kel Munger: How many years had you given the military? You'd already done two tours in Iraq, right?Anthony
Woods: When I was discharged, I'd served just a little over five years.
After grad school, I was going to do five more years.[. . .]Kel Munger: And what about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is kind of where we started this conversation?Anthony
Woods: Think of all the straight soldiers who are left in the unit now
who are going into battle with one less person on their side, one less
resource for their unit. Look at my friend Dan Choi, for example. He's
an Arab linguist, speaks Arabic fluently. Now his unit has to go to war
without translator. They're less effective at doing their job and
they're more at risk while they try to do it. It simply doesn't make
sense to take talented, competent people who want to do their job and
remove them and send everyone else off to war without them. Or we could
talk about the $400 million it has cost us to implement "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell." That would buy a lot of body armor and a lot of armored
Humvees. Instead, we’ve got a net benefit of zero.Dan Choi is fighting for his military career. Tuesday an army board recommended he be dischared. Catherine Philip (Times of London) reports: An
Iraq war veteran has been ordered out of the US military after publicly
announcing his homosexuality in a direct challenge to the army's
controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.Lieutenant
Dan Choi, who speaks fluent Arabic, outed himself in March in the
military journal Army Times and on national television at the launch of
Knights Out, an association representing gay and lesbian graduates of
West Point military academy.He
said that his declaration was a protest against a policy that forced
soldiers to lie in order to serve their country. "It's an immoral code
that goes against every single thing we were ever taught at West Point
with our honour code," he said.For those keeping track, the New York Times? Still not interested in the story. The NGO Minority Rights Group International: Peoples Under Threat has issued " Peoples Under Threat 2009"
which finds Iraq ranked second (behind Somalia) with the groups at risk
listed in this order: Shia, Sunni, Kurds, Turkomans, Chrisians,
Mandaens, Yezidis, Shabak, Fali Kurds, Bah'is, Palestinians. Overview
of the report: Despite recent
changes in US policy towards the Islamic world, the latest annual
global listing of Peoples Under Threat has seen the threat level rise
further for communities in Muslim countries affected by international
and civil conflicts.Every year Minority Rights Group International publishes Peoples Under Threat,
identifying those groups or peoples around the world most at risk of
genocide, mass killing or other systematic violent repression. 2009 is
the fourth year that MRG has compiled the list, which is based on
current indicators from authoritative sources (see How is Peoples Under Threat calculated?). In
the latest listing, published July 2009, minorities in Pakistan,
Ethiopia, Eritrea and Yemen are all assessed as under greater danger
than a year ago, their governments’ involvement in regional conflicts
compounding the risk of repression at home. Pakistan joins states
including Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan at the top of the list, as does
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Violent extremism and identity conflictsIn
both his Ankara and Cairo speeches in 2009, US President Barack Obama
emphasized that ‘America is not – and never will be – at war with
Islam’. He went on to seek common cause with the Islamic world: ‘The
enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the
narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating
violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.’ But he
also expressed his determination to continue using military means to
confront extremism: ‘...despite the costs involved, America’s
commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these
extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people
of different faiths – but more than any other, they have killed
Muslims.' However, the military
response to violent extremism in recent years has resulted in a new
generation of identity conflicts that have placed whole communities in
peril. Since 2001, when after 9/11 the US pursued the Afghanistan
Taleban and the al-Qaeda unit led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al
Zawahiri, the ‘violent extremists’ to which Obama referred have
proliferated. They now operate in many countries in South Asia, the
Middle East and North Africa, many under the al-Qaeda label. For the
civilian populations in such countries – mainly but not exclusively
Muslim – the risks do not end there. In those states most affected,
including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Somalia, the civilian
population faces the combined threat of terrorist attacks by armed
opposition groups, military operations by national armed forces or by
the US or its allies and, most dangerous of all, the wider armed
struggle for power that has developed based on sectarian or ethnic
identities. It is this combination of factors, created and sustained by
armed conflict, that makes the situation so deadly for both Muslim and
non-Muslim minorities. Communities
perceived to share an identity with violent extremists, such as the
Pashtun in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or Sunni Arabs in Iraq, are caught
between armed opposition groups and the military operations launched to
defeat them. Members of smaller sects or non-Muslim minorities, such as
Yezidis, Shabak or Chaldo-Assyrians in Iraq, or Sikhs and Hindus in
Pakistan, are targeted by Islamic extremists because their beliefs are
considered to be un-Islamic. Historically poor or marginalized
minorities with no militias to defend them, including the Bantu and
Gaboye in Somalia, are particularly vulnerable where there is
generalized insecurity. A state of war has also enabled governments to
undertake the violent repression of other minorities, such as Baluchis
in Pakistan. Once such identity
conflicts have taken hold, the cycles of community mobilization and
revenge killings make them difficult to dislodge, and conflict
resolution and reconciliation become messy and lengthy processes. As
President Obama himself remarked in his Cairo speech, ‘It is easier to
start wars than to end them’. The top twentyThe
highest five states in the Peoples Under Threat table in 2009 are
unchanged in position from last year: Somalia, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan
and Burma/Myanmar. In each of them violence against minorities of a
widespread or systematic character is ongoing, as it is in a number of
other states near the top of the list, including the Democratic
Republic of Congo. The most significant risers in the top ten are
Pakistan, Ethiopia, and Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(see Major risers in 2009).The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmcclatchy newspaperssahar issademocracy nowthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsam dagherthe los angeles timesjosh drobnykkel mungercatherine philiplike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great manthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:53 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Wednesday,
July 1, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, Kenneth Pollack Laments,
Patrick Murphy tackles Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and more. Today
US House Rep Patrick Murphy spoke about the need to repeal Don't Ask,
Don't Tell. The Clinton era compromise came about when Colin Powell and
others flaunted their homophobia and refused to allow gays and lesbians
to serve openly in the military, a pledge Bill Clinton campaigned
upon. The compromise was that you couldn't be asked about your
sexuality and you couldn't talk about it. Unless you were straight.
It was a compromise and, for that time period, a step forward. Today
is out of date and out of step. Josh Drobnyk (Pennslyvania Ave. Blog) reports
that with Ellen Tauscher's departure from Congress (she's now
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security),
Murphy will now take the lead on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act
which would not only repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it would also allow
everyone to serve regardless of their sexuality and with no requirement
that they hide who they are. Iraq War veteran Murphy states, "This is
going to take months and months, but change is going to happen." Yesterday Lt Dan Choi learned that a US Army board was recommending he be discharged because he is gay and refuses to hide in a closet. Martin Wisckol (Orange County Register) quotes Choi, "I'm a leader. A setback is an opportunity to keep fighting, and I'm going to do that through my actions." Yesterday Jasmyn Belcher (WRVO -- audio and text) spoke with Choi who explained,
"My job is to be here and to continue being an officer everything I was
trained to do regardless of the discomfort, regardless of the emotions
that are going on, you still do your duty. I believe this is my duty
to stand up and to fight to stay in." Choi is not done fighting and
hopefully he will be successful at a higher level but if he's not he
will be, as Stan noted last night,
the 266th US service member to be discharged for being gay since Barack
Obama was sworn in as president. If Barack wanted to, all he need do
is issue an executive order for a stop-loss on discharges under Don't
Ask, Don't Tell. That would stop it right away. Congress could then
address it but all the people (over 200 under Obama already) being
discharged would no longer be drummed out of the military as a result
of that executive order. CNN notes
this citing Knights Out's Sue Fulton: "Fulton said that while Obama
can't change the law himself, he could sign an executive order halting
discharges while the policy is under review." Barry O likes to play
helpless but he's not. One executive order is all it would take. The Syracuse Post-Standard editorializes
for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to be eliminated and observes that
"enforcing the policy has cost taxpayers more than $400 million since
1994." Joe Garofoli (San Francisco Chronicle) adds,
"Still, some analysts say Choi's case is another example of how
Washington leaders aren't showing much urgency -- or leadership -- in
overturning 'don't ask, don't tell.' Obama has said he wants Congress
to overturn the law; congressional laders say they are waiting for the
president to take the lead; and military leaders say they won't change
the policy unless directed by Congress." Mike McAndrew and Mark Weiner (Syracuse Post-Standard) report
Choi "said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship
with another man. Choi said the relationship has made him a better
person, a better Christian and a better officer." Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) quotes Choi explaining, "All I did was tell the truth. I refused to lie about my boyfriend. His name is Matthew, not Martha." Sahar
Issa: National Sovereignty Day, of course, is a day that is celebrated
by the hearts of all Iraqis, you must know that Iraqi's pride -- is a
proud country -- Iraqis are proud people. It is difficult for them not
to be happy at the action of foreign troops leaving their cities and
streets. At the same time that they are happy to gain control over
their streets and cities there is doubt in their hearts whether the
Iraqi security forces are actually adequate to the task that is in
front of them in the coming days and weeks and months of keeping the
peace and keeping the population secure. This is as the bottom of the
doubts that you see: Is the Iraqi force actually adequate to the task?
Are the Iraqi forces infiltrated by many? The Iraqi force has been
formed upon somewhat sectarian lines. The Iraqi force also because of
the administrative corruption -- has many people who have brought in
their relatives, their friends, their neighbors, people who are not
professional. And after six years, perhaps it would be a legitimate
question to ask and to forward to the American forces: after six years
of training they have understaken to present Iraq with a new force
after dismantling the old one, why isn't the Iraqi force actually
adequate to the task? The people of Iraq ask this question. It is the
first question they ask. They are still not confident that the Iraqi
forces are capable. Those observations jibe with those of Alissa J. Rubin's (New York Times),
"The excitement however, has run hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that
their country's security forces are not ready to stand alone and who
see the government's claims of independence as overblown." Back to
the Democracy Now! segment: JUAN
GONZALEZ: And, Sahar Issa, what about the ability of the Iraqi
government to provide basic services to the population? There's
obviously many reports of corruption within the government and
continued infighting among the various factions. How has the public
seen the ability of the government to administer the society?
SAHAR
ISSA: To tell you the truth, if you look back a little bit, you will
find that with the height of violence that only started coming down in
the beginning of 2008, and while human life was at stake, violence was
like a blanket, cutting off a cross-section of what is really happening
inside the Iraqi government, because everything was so clouded, people
were hurt, they couldn't look further than their lot. But
when the violence ebbed after the beginning of 2008, people started
picking up the reins of their lives, looking around to see what was
going on. And they found, horrendously, that the government is totally
riddled with corruption. It is totally built on tribal and sectarian
bases, where people have their relatives in very sensitive places
simply to make the profit. And the confidence in Iraqis that they had
at first when they went to elect their government, they lost this
confidence. They said, "Then what is the difference, if it is going to
be tribal again? What is the difference between this government and the
past, even if it is elected, if it is going to use the same lines?" And
that is, of course, part of the problem, is that it is not a matter of
just putting the government out there. The problem is this government
needs to gain the confidence of the people. It needs to give them
something that they can hold onto. It needs to look at their very
difficult lives. They didn't have electricity when the -- you know,
outside this building, if I walk out now, it is so hot, toys will melt
in cars. To just to give you an idea, toys will melt in cars. That is
the heat. And people don't have electricity. After six years, they
don't have water in their homes. I spoke
to a person yesterday in Beya'a neighborhood, when we were touring the
city for reactions. And she said, "How can I be happy with sovereignty,
if sovereignty has not brought me enough water to bathe, I can't wash
my clothes, if I don't have electricity so I can sleep at night? What
kind of sovereignty is this?"
We are struggling, my dear friend. We are struggling so hard to reach square one. And so far, we haven't achieved it yet.
AMY GOODMAN: Sahar Issa, are you afraid of having your image known, of being identified as a reporter?
SAHAR
ISSA: Oh, certainly, certainly, certainly. Working for a foreign --
never mind a US, American -- news agency will have me very clearly
titled as the pastor's pie or working for the occupation. People -- the
simpler people, let us say -- can't differentiate between a person who
is picking up information and lighting things and making things public
for -- to, how do you say, to extend a hand to other people to know
what is actually going on inside our country. They can't tell the
difference between this person and the person who's gathering
information perhaps for intelligence preferences. And therefore, yes,
of course, I am afraid. No one knows. Only my parents and my children
and the people working with me know. And even the people who are
working with me, not all of them know where I live. That's how bad it
is. JEREMY
SCAHILL: Right. I mean, this is a very contrived sort of Hallmark
holiday here. I doubt that decades from now many Iraqis are going to
be, you know, telling their grandchildren where they were on National
Sovereignty Day. I mean, remember the whole stumbling of President
Bush: when he declared Iraqi sovereignty, he talked about the
definition of sovereignty as a sovereign entity. Paul Bremer already
officially handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis five years ago, and
yet we have 130,000 US troops that remain in the country. This really
is George Bush's Iraq plan that Barack Obama is now implementing and
taking the political risk of implementing, because if the violence
blows up, then of course it looks very much like Barack Obama has been
a failure in Iraq, and not George Bush. So Obama, in many ways, has
played into the Bush administration's hand.
But we
can see the clearest endgame of the US occupation in the fact that the
Iraqi government, on a day when they declare their own sovereignty and
you have the US military commander handing over the keys to the Defense
Ministry, the Iraqi Oil Ministry opens up the country for bidding now
on its oil resources, and you had eight of the ten top oil companies in
the world that are not part of a nationalized state apparatus. In other
words, eight of the ten most powerful private oil corporations in the
world are now bidding for large shares of the Iraqi oil supply. I mean,
to me, this is a grotesque symbol of what exactly is happening in Iraq. And
let me just say, Juan, that while we're seeing the sort of contrived
celebrations, where ordinary Iraqis, for the most part, are not
permitted to go into these big celebrations -- it's largely off-duty
police officers, Iraqi soldiers and dignitaries -- the reality is that
US soldiers are simply going to the outskirts of the cities and could
easily go in to strike at them. General Ray Odierno, the top US
military commander there, would not be clear on how many US soldiers
are going to remain in the region. At the end of the day, the US has a
massive eighty-football-field-size embassy. They have thousands upon
thousands of contractors, 130,000 troops still in the country. And
they're going to keep a force of 35,000 to 50,000 residual US forces
when Obama is officially done withdrawing from Iraq.
So, in
reality, we see Barack Obama implementing, almost to the letter, George
Bush's and the neocons' plan for Iraq, while putting a Democratic stamp
on it and essentially downsizing and rebranding what remains a US
occupation. So, no, this is Hallmark holiday stuff. And I think it's
clear for anyone who's been following this that this is the same
situation as when Bush tried to declare Iraqi sovereignty, when Paul
Bremer snuck out of Baghdad in June of 2004. While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported,
U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq
presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of
Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of
contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded.
The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives
the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to
continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27
of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other
measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or
internal threat or aggression against Iraq." As
the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi
sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of
history. Five years ago -- almost to the day -- President Bush put on
an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over
sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of
Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq
from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and
proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real
sovereignty was non-existent. Meanwhile CNN reports
that Moqtada al-Sadr has released a call for all US forces to leave
Iraq and stated their presence "shows that the (Iraqi) government and
the occupation are not serious about the withdrawal". Noting the
silence on Iraq in the US, Dan Baltz asks " Have We Forgotten Iraq?" ( Washington Post)
in which he wonders, "If they [the White House] are wrong [about Iraq
being able to stand up], there may be questions about what kind of
country Americans are preparing to leave behind. Obama could find
himself under pressure to adjust the withdrawal timetable." Or he
could realize that it was a mistake to delay withdrawal because there
is nothing else the US military can do (even the war hawks should agree
with that) and allowing them to remain in the country as babysitters
really turns them into sitting ducks of the continued occupation. And
let's stop pretending the White House doesn't have plans. As we noted
in Third's " Editorial: Save us from the panty sniffers" Sunday, US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill gave a press conference in the US June 18th: What
should have bothered Americans was Hill's refusal to discuss
"contingency plans" for Iraq should the (partial) pull-back from cities
(June 30th) result in increased violence. "Well, again," he repeated,
"I don't want to discuss contingency plans." Why not?
And why aren't these contingency plans known to the American public? While Thomas E. Ricks (Foreign Policy) ignored Hill's press conference, he feels
something important is missed from the press conference Gen Ray Odierno
held yesterday in Baghdad: "We'll be operating in the belts around
Baghdad." Ricks takes that to mean "that the U.S. strategy in the
coming months will be to try to protect Baghdad by cutting off
insurgents and militias operating in the fields, towns and palm groves
that surround much of the capital. And that was where some of the
heaviest fighting took place during the spring and summer of 2007, as
'the surge' began." So that may be, that may be, as Cass Elliot
once sang ("California Earthquake") but equally true, and reporters
know this, when a person loses it at a scheduled press conference,
that's also known as "very telling." Translation, Reuters shouldn't have been the only outlet to report on Odierno Earthquake yesterday. And, no, Ricks hasn't written of that. Here's some of the exchange from the DoD transcript: Q
General, it's Andrew Gray from Reuters. You talked about a small number
of U.S. forces remaining in the cities to train and advise. Can you put
a figure? How many U.S. forces will remain? GEN.
ODIERNO: Yeah, people have been trying to get me to say a figure now
for about a month. And the reason I won't do it is because it's going
to be different every single day, and it'll be based on how much
training, how much advising, how much coordination is required. That
will change each and every day. So I won't put a number on it. It
is a smaller number, a significantly smaller number than what we've had
in the cities now. But it has very specific missions: train the Iraqi
security forces, advise them as we continue to move forward, enable
them in order to -- potentially if they need some help with aviation,
logistics, et cetera. But more -- almost as important, coordinate and
help us to continue our situational awareness of all situations within
Iraq. And that will help us to better support the Iraqi security
forces. Q
General, just to follow up briefly, I am disappointed you didn't give
us the scoop after a month of holding out, but I wonder if you could at
least give us a -- you know, is it an -- a few thousand? If you could
give us a kind of ballpark -- are we talking about several thousand?
Would that be a reasonable ballpark to use?
GEN.
ODIERNO: Again -- again, there's hundreds of cities around, and we have
hundreds of -- you know, and I've let the local commanders work this
out. So for me to give a number would frankly be inaccurate, and I just
don't want to do it. There'll be trainers, advisers, helping throughout
all of the Iraqi cities where we continue to support and advise Iraqi
security forces.
Q
Whatever the number is, how are you going to convince them basically,
the U.S. forces remaining, not to jump in and be helpful, where perhaps
you would prefer that the Iraqis take the lead? What
will be different about what they're told to do, in a situation where
they might think, their first instinct is, gosh, we can do that better.
GEN.
ODIERNO: Well, again this is -- I call it -- we are working on changing
our mindsets in the city. And I equate it to when we first started the
surge, where we had to change our mindset. So
pushing our soldiers back out, getting back into the communities,
really partnering with the Iraqi security forces and today, it's the
same kind of thing. We have to change our mindset. When
we're in the cities, there's very specific things that we'll do.
Actually we've been out of the cities, a large majority of the cities
now, for the last eight months. So it's really only Mosul and the last
remnants that we've had, in Baghdad, that have pulled out over the last
few weeks. So we've actually been
implementing this in many parts of Baghdad for a long time. And they
understand what their mission is. They understand what we expect them
to do. And you know, we have worked this very closely with all of the
leaders in Iraq. We've worked
-- I've worked very closely with the minister of defense, the minister
of interior, the operations commanders, the operational commanders in
order to work this out. And I feel very comfortable with where we're
at. Q General, it's Tom Bowman with NPR. I
mean, you're reluctant to talk about how many trainers and mentors are
in the cities. And it raises a question about whether or not this is
just a show or not whether, you know, this is just semantics. There
are essentially U.S. soldiers with guns in the cities. You can call
them trainers or mentors. But how different is it from what we saw
maybe two-three weeks ago? And if you have U.S. soldiers just outside
the cities, I mean, what is this? Is this just a show for the American people? GEN.
ODIERNO: Well, I would say, you probably didn't listen to what I just
said. Because what I just said was, having battalions and brigades
inside a city is significantly different than having trainers, advisers
and MiTT teams. And I said, we'll be operating in the belts around
Baghdad. I've been very clear about
this, just like we did in the surge. We had -- the reason we had to
surge forces is, we had to get people in the cities. And then we had to
eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries in the belts around Baghdad. It's
the same thing, except the Iraqis will take responsibility for security
in the cities. We will continue to do full-spectrum operations, outside
of the cities, to work the safe havens and sanctuaries around the
cities. And we will continue to do that. And it's legitimate,
legitimate operations that we'll continue to conduct outside of the
cities. If you're here in Baghdad, you would know. There is a significant change inside of the cities. There
are thousands among thousands of soldiers that have pulled out of
Baghdad. There -- and there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in
southern Iraq, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Ramadi,
there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Fallujah for months
now. And we've been executing this very well. So again, if you're here in Iraq, you would see it for yourself there is a significant change. As we noted yesterday,
he apologized for his outburst (and referred to it as his "temper").
But that's a key moment of the press conference and not just because
some reporters are now talking of starting a pool to see how quickly
they can get Odierno to explode in the next press briefing, but also
because that's not normal behavior from him. He's under huge pressure
from the White House to walk their line and stick to their script and
his feelings are rather well known about that at this late date. The
troops haven't left Mosul and are not leaving Baghdad and no one knows
what else and no one knows how many. Except Ray Odierno. He knows
exactly what is going on with US troops in Iraq. And he's not allowed
to reveal that. That's where his frustration comes in. He felt like
the biggest idiot in the world because he couldn't answer the question
that he knew the answer to but which the White House won't let him
speak on. That, Thomas E. Ricks, is an important detail. Now
let's sit down at the piano, it's time for "Miss Kenneth Laments" --
the lost Cole Porter song. "Sure, well, first, of course," hemmed and
hawed War Hawk and Cheerleader Kenny Pollack, "as listeners of your
show are aware, 'cause I've been on the show any number of times to
talk about, this, I did believe that an, uh, invasion would be
necessary but not the invasion that we got. Not in the time that we
did it, not in the way that we did it, not how we did it or with whom
we did it. As for what have we accomplished? I think the jury is
still out." Brookings Boy Kenny sure was nervous and, please note, his
'answer' was to a question about whether or not the Iraq War was worth
it. Monday on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show,
Diane explained, "And here's a question for you, Ken Pollack, you were
among those who favored US invasion of Iraq. What do you believe we
have gained if anything?" The question wasn't did he support the
illegal war before it started. And yet, he
nervously stated, before getting to the question he'd been asked,
""Sure, well, first, of course, as listeners of your show are aware,
'cause I've been on the show any number of times to talk about, this, I
did believe that an, uh, invasion would be necessary but not the
invasion that we got. Not in the time that we did it, not in the way
that we did it, not how we did it or with whom we did it." First,
let's again note, this is the talking point and War Hawks pushed it
after Vietnam as well. It goes like this: "The problem wasn't the war
and its illegality, the problem was the way it was fought." No, the
problem was the war. As for what he advocated for? His 2002 book
Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq made it pretty clear in
the title but in it he argues for the US "to mount a full-scale
invasion of Iraq to smash the Iraqi armed forces, depose Saddam's
regime, and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction." Saddam
had no WMDs. Kenny boy forgot to include that on NPR Monday. He
forgot to admit that or own any of his mistakes. Instead, he wanted to
complain that the war he dreamed of arrived in the wrong size and
color. The Wall St. Journal's Gina Chon appears briefly at the start of the program, reporting from Iraq, but technical difficulties sideline her. Diane Rehm: Okay, let's talk about what the Iraqi people can and cannot do. Paul
Pillar: As part of the bargaining that Prime Minister Maliki had to get
agreement with his cabinet and Parliament for the security agreement,
he agreed that there would be a referendum to approve or disapprove the
agreement. Your caller is correct that July 30th was the date that
had been previously set but it appears that it is most likely going to
be delayed until January to coincide with the Parliamentary election.
So that will be an important outcome -- whether or not the Iraqi people
approve it. If they disapprove it, then what -- as I understand the
agreement -- what comes into play is the withdrawal clause which
basically says 'either party has a year to terminate the agreement'
which means that would move up the deadline for all US forces to -- to
get out by almost a year -- to 2010 rather than 2011. But, again, that
does not preclude some new agreement being negotiated between the
governments of the day in Baghdad and Washington. Kenneth
Pollack: This is a really important point because what you're seeing
now is the Iraqis using the politics to deal with the security
situation in potentially very difficult ways, dangerous ways. We
talked a lot about how the Iraqis, the Iraqi people, are ambivalent
about the agreement. We haven't talked about Prime Minister Maliki and
his own ambivalence. At one level, he knows that he can't allow the
country to fall apart and he's nervous that his own security forces
can't hold it together. By the same token though, he sees the United
States as an impediment to his consolidation of power and I think that
there's a lot of evidence to suggest that he's moving it to January in
hope that it will either discredit all of his political adversaries or
cause a termination of the agreement prematurely exactly as Paul was
suggesting. [. . .] Diane
Rehm: Just before the break, one of our callers, Lily in Syracuse, New
York, had asked about the referendum that's going to take place -- the
decision of the Iraqi [. . .] [people] to stay or not to stay. That's
a really important point, Paul. Paul:
It's very important and I'm glad we got the call, that raised the issue
but I would simply agree with what we heard from Ken before the break.
It's partly Maliki continuing to play a political game. But if -- if
the referendum, it's voted down, uh, in January, uh, there are going to
be extremely difficult decisions for the Obama administration to make
about its policy and posture in Iraq over the course of the next year.
To some extent, it might be seen as a political blessing for much of
his constituency, it means getting out earlier, but he is going to have
to sit down with his commanders, with General Petraeus, General
Odeireno, or who ever is occupying their jobs at that time and have
some very hard talk about the security situation in Iraq as of the end,
not of 2011, but of 2010. Diane: Elise? Elise
Labott: And let's not forget that President Obama won, in part, the
presidency on his campaign to withdraw US forces from Iraq. He said
that the war in Afghanistan was the more important war, the war that
was the greater threat to US national security with the emergent --
the reemergence of the Taliban and al Qaeda and he wanted to pay more
attention to that war and by all accounts you can't do that with
130,000 troops in Iraq. But the question is if the sectarian violence
gets worse, if Iraq continues to spiral, the question is: Does Barack
Obama have blood on his hands if -- if he withdraws all of his troops
from Iraq and a lot of people -- it's a moral dilemma for him. Diane Rehm: Ken Pollack? Kenneth
Pollack: Well I think that there's also a strategic consideration which
is that the truth is that Iraq is ultimately of far greater strategic
consequence to the United States than Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a
problem because of the terrorism problem and because of relationship to
Pakistan but you can't solve the problem of Afghanistan through
Pakistan. That last Pollack 'gem' is
included to dissuade his cult from e-mailing and saying, "His 2002 book
said!" Don't give me that crap. Don't spit out the Slate
book review claiming Kenny's 2002 book said Afghanistan was more
important. Kenny's all over the map, always has been, there's never
been a cohesive argument from him. Only baseless charges followed by
meaningless laments. The full hour was devoted to Iraq ( here for that segment itself)
for those who missed it. (I did. An NPR friend passed it on.) The
guests were (very briefly) Gina Chon, CNN's Elise Labott, Brookings
Kenneth Pollack and Georgetown's Paul Pilar. Earlier
mid-June US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill claimed that fatalies were
down in the month of June. Silly Chris and silly reporters who fell
for that garbage. Reuters reports
that there was a spike and that the official numbers from the Iraqi
Health Ministry is 373 for the month of June. Those are the Iraqi
government figures. The actual figures are likely far higher. In some
of today's violence, Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi forces shot dead a man in Mosul (a 'suspect') and that a Mosul roadside bombing injured a police officer. The
recruiting system leaves out the second part of this. Recruiters talk
about travel, adventure, skill-training, and getting your college
education paid for. They don't mention that the travel and adventure
may involve being in 110 degree+ temperatures, loaded up with gear,
sleeping in tents, having your life threatened on a daily basis, and
maybe not even having enough clean water to drink. They don't mention
that the skill-training is usually not transferable to a civilian job,
or that some of the skills taught include how to be a prejudiced,
hate-filled, bigot, who can be capable of killing another human being
without feeling. They don't explain that the military will teach a
person to hate when he or she enlists, but doesn't teach love when the
soldier returns. And they certainly don't mention that only 14 percent
of soldiers who sign up for the GI Bill use the benefit. The
lies of omission often go further. A recruiter may promise a job as a
pilot, knowing the soldier won't qualify and will possibly end up as a
truck driver in Iraq – one of the most dangerous jobs. A prospective
Navy medic may not understand that he or she may end up in a combat
zone since they are the ones who take care of Marines. Or the biggest
lie of all – they convince the soldier he or she is signing up for
three years, and don't point out that these days, with the stop-loss
program in place, the enlistment agreement (note I don't use the word
"contract") currently commits the soldier potentially to a life
sentence. But
you know what, these are only a few of the lies involved in keeping a
war machine going. The bigger ones come from society itself. That war
is a good thing. That movies and video games represent reality. You
get killed in a video game, press a button, and start over. You don't
lose a friend, body parts, or your mind. Nobel
Peace Prize Nominee, Human Rights' Activist and Gold Star Mother, Cindy
Sheehan, calls on the Israeli government to immediately release the
members and crew of the boat The Spirit of Humanity that was attempting
to deliver humanitarian aid to the devastated peoples of Gaza.
Speaking
from Newton, Mass, Ms. Sheehan commented: "The detention of the crew
and human rights' workers on The Spirit of Humanity is a clear
violation of international law, as the blockade of Gaza is a clear
violation of not only international law but the human rights of the
people of Gaza. Not only must the Israeli government immediately
release and recompense the captives, but it must allow the humanitarian
aid to penetrate the blockade." She
continued: "I not only call on the Israeli government to do the right
thing, but I call on our own President, who has claimed that he is an
advocate for human rights, to condemn this act of international piracy
by the rogue state of Israel and also demand the release of the
kidnapped aid workers. This condemnation must be as strong and clear as
the condemnation for the Somali 'pirates' was. A very courageous and
dear friend of mine, Cynthia McKinney, was on that boat and the
captives must all be treated with dignity and respect and speedily
released."
Cindy Sheehan's Myth America Tour continues this month. The dates for the start of the month include: July 8th Wednesday 2 to 4 p.m. Cleveland Book Signing Mac Bac's Books 1820 Coventry Road Cleveland Hts. OH Akron Main Public Library July 8th 7 to 9 p.m. 60 S. High St. Akron, OH 44326 Cleveland Community pot luck with Cindy July 9th four to six p.m. 10220 Clifton Ave. Lakewood, OH St. Coleman's Parish Hall July 9th seven to nine p.m. West 65th and Madison Drum Circle July 10th noon to two p.m. National Assembly to End the War July 11th to 12th Pittsburgh Al
Franken in a US Senator. See, the US can do recounts and can be
patient. Al Franken and Norm Coleman (his Republican opponent who
lost) proved (probably not intentionally on Coleman's part) that the
Supreme Court did not need to stop the process in Bush v. Gore. The
votes could have been counted. And would have been easily before
Christmas 2000. Al Franken is interviewed by former US Senator Fred Thompson here. The only one put out by the long drawn out process was Senator Amy Klobuchar and even she and her staff managed. The US can do recounts, no matter what the Supreme Court thinks.
Posted at 03:12 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
While a lot of the media hype today focuses on the U.S. "withdrawal," that is hardly the reality. As previously reported,
U.S. military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq
presence for another 15-20 years, the U.S. embassy is the size of
Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of
contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded.
The Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) between the U.S. and Iraq gives
the U.S. the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to
continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. Article 27
of the SoFA allows the U.S. to undertake military action, "or any other
measure," inside Iraq's borders "In the event of any external or
internal threat or aggression against Iraq."As
the airwaves and internet are flooded with reports of this new Iraqi
sovereignty and U.S. withdrawal, it is important to remember a bit of
history. Five years ago -- almost to the day -- President Bush put on
an almost identical show. His proconsul L. Paul Bremer "handed over
sovereignty" to the Iraqi government just before he skulked out of
Baghdad on a secret flight (right after he issued an order banning Iraq
from prosecuting contractors). Despite the pronouncements and
proclamations and media hype, the occupation continued and real
sovereignty was non-existent.It
is very doubtful that -- decades from now -- Iraqis will tell their
grandchildren about where they were on June 30, 2009, "National
Sovereignty Day." At the end of the day, this is U.S.-style Hallmark
hype and will remain so until every last occupation soldier leaves
Iraqi soil.The above is from Jeremy Scahill's " Iraq's 'National Sovereignty Day' is U.S.-Style Hallmark Hype" ( Information Clearing House). Dan Baltz asks " Have We Forgotten Iraq?" ( Washington Post): The
fact that yesterday's deadline passed with so little public comment
does not negate the fact that it represents the first big test for
Obama's policy. In the days leading up to the deadline, there were a
series of bombings and attacks, leaving more than 250 people dead. And
yesterday, a car bomb in Kirkuk killed more than two dozen people. On
Monday, four American soldiers were killed in combat. Iraq is not fully
secure.Administration
officials have insisted, and the president reiterated yesterday, that
the spike in violence was expected as the handoff took place and
insurgents attempted to exploit the transition. Gen. Ray Odierno, the
top U.S. commander in Iraq, has publicly expressed his confidence that
Iraqi forces can keep their cities secure. Other military leaders have
done the same in private to the White House. If they are wrong, there
may be questions about what kind of country Americans are preparing to
leave behind. Obama could find himself under pressure to adjust the
withdrawal timetable. It's an article that accepts too
many conventional wisdoms and fails to ask the key question: What
happens next? Not what is George W. Bush's plan (the Status Of Forces
Agreement is Bush's plan) but if violence spikes, what does the
adminstration plan to do? US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill publicly
declared that contingency plans were not for public consumption.
Amazingly the press refused to call him out or even note that. Alissa J. Rubin's " Iraq Celebrates U.S. Withdrawal From Its Cities" runs on the front page of the New York Times
(and, drive-bys, that's the headline in the print edition, don't e-mail
to 'correct' me) which is a pretty in-depth article and a strong one by
Rubin. The excitement, however,
has rung hollow for many Iraqis, who fear that their country's security
forces are not ready to stand alone and who see the government’s claims
of independence as overblown.From Basra in the south to Mosul in the north, Iraqis expressed skepticism about the proclamation of "independence.""They
will not withdraw to their homes; they will stay here and there so that
they can return in emergencies," said Samir Alwan, 28, the owner of a
mini-market in Basra. "So it is not sovereignty, according to my point
of view, and I think that the Iraqi Army is only able to secure the
south of the country and unable to secure Baghdad and Mosul."Balz and Rubin both avoid mentioning Odierno's news worthy moment. From yesterday's snapshot: So
if it was a historic day, let's go to the numbers, let's go to the
stats. Woops. Reporters tried to do that during a Baghdad briefining
with top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno and it wasn't not
pretty. Reuters quotes
him exclaiming, "Because it would be inaccurate! Because I don't know
exactly how many [US service members] are in the cities. It varies
day-to-day based on the mission. [. . . .] How many times you want me
to say that? I don't know." They note he apologized for his outburst
("temper" was his term) and it must be stressful to be the one who has
attempted to avoid the spin but have it shoved off on you. Here's some of the exchange from the DoD transcript: Q
General, it's Andrew Gray from Reuters. You talked about a small number
of U.S. forces remaining in the cities to train and advise. Can you put
a figure? How many U.S. forces will remain? GEN.
ODIERNO: Yeah, people have been trying to get me to say a figure now
for about a month. And the reason I won't do it is because it's going
to be different every single day, and it'll be based on how much
training, how much advising, how much coordination is required. That
will change each and every day. So I won't put a number on it. It
is a smaller number, a significantly smaller number than what we've had
in the cities now. But it has very specific missions: train the Iraqi
security forces, advise them as we continue to move forward, enable
them in order to -- potentially if they need some help with aviation,
logistics, et cetera. But more -- almost as important, coordinate and
help us to continue our situational awareness of all situations within
Iraq. And that will help us to better support the Iraqi security
forces. Q
General, just to follow up briefly, I am disappointed you didn't give
us the scoop after a month of holding out, but I wonder if you could at
least give us a -- you know, is it an -- a few thousand? If you could
give us a kind of ballpark -- are we talking about several thousand?
Would that be a reasonable ballpark to use? GEN.
ODIERNO: Again -- again, there's hundreds of cities around, and we have
hundreds of -- you know, and I've let the local commanders work this
out. So for me to give a number would frankly be inaccurate, and I just
don't want to do it. There'll be trainers, advisers, helping throughout
all of the Iraqi cities where we continue to support and advise Iraqi
security forces. Q
Whatever the number is, how are you going to convince them basically,
the U.S. forces remaining, not to jump in and be helpful, where perhaps
you would prefer that the Iraqis take the lead? What
will be different about what they're told to do, in a situation where
they might think, their first instinct is, gosh, we can do that better.
GEN. ODIERNO:
Well, again this is -- I call it -- we are working on changing our
mindsets in the city. And I equate it to when we first started the
surge, where we had to change our mindset. So
pushing our soldiers back out, getting back into the communities,
really partnering with the Iraqi security forces and today, it's the
same kind of thing. We have to change our mindset. When
we're in the cities, there's very specific things that we'll do.
Actually we've been out of the cities, a large majority of the cities
now, for the last eight months. So it's really only Mosul and the last
remnants that we've had, in Baghdad, that have pulled out over the last
few weeks. So we've
actually been implementing this in many parts of Baghdad for a long
time. And they understand what their mission is. They understand what
we expect them to do. And you know, we have worked this very closely
with all of the leaders in Iraq. We've
worked -- I've worked very closely with the minister of defense, the
minister of interior, the operations commanders, the operational
commanders in order to work this out. And I feel very comfortable with
where we're at. Q General, it's Tom Bowman with NPR. I
mean, you're reluctant to talk about how many trainers and mentors are
in the cities. And it raises a question about whether or not this is
just a show or not whether, you know, this is just semantics. There
are essentially U.S. soldiers with guns in the cities. You can call
them trainers or mentors. But how different is it from what we saw
maybe two-three weeks ago? And if you have U.S. soldiers just outside
the cities, I mean, what is this? Is this just a show for the American people? GEN.
ODIERNO: Well, I would say, you probably didn't listen to what I just
said. Because what I just said was, having battalions and brigades
inside a city is significantly different than having trainers, advisers
and MiTT teams. And I said, we'll be operating in the belts around
Baghdad. I've been very
clear about this, just like we did in the surge. We had -- the reason
we had to surge forces is, we had to get people in the cities. And then
we had to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries in the belts around
Baghdad. It's the same
thing, except the Iraqis will take responsibility for security in the
cities. We will continue to do full-spectrum operations, outside of the
cities, to work the safe havens and sanctuaries around the cities. And
we will continue to do that. And it's legitimate, legitimate operations
that we'll continue to conduct outside of the cities. If you're here in Baghdad, you would know. There is a significant change inside of the cities. There
are thousands among thousands of soldiers that have pulled out of
Baghdad. There -- and there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in
southern Iraq, there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Ramadi,
there hasn't been any soldiers in the cities in Fallujah for months
now. And we've been executing this very well. So again, if you're here in Iraq, you would see it for yourself there is a significant change. Q
(Off mike) -- to be transparent, if you're going to be so transparent,
why can't you tell us how many trainers and mentors are in the cities? GEN.
ODIERNO: Because it would be inaccurate. Because I don't know exactly
how many are in the cities. We -- it varies day to day, based on the
mission. Q You must have a ballpark. GEN.
ODIERNO: I don't know how many times you want -- how many times you
want me to say that? I don't know. What I'm telling you is, it's
training and advising teams that remain in Baghdad. And it'll be
different every single day, and we've worked very closely locally with
the commanders to figure this out. And it'll be different tomorrow than
it is today. And that's why I don't want to say a number, because it'll
be inaccurate. (Off mike) -- get to second-guess what I say. If I say a
number today, it'll be different tomorrow, and it'll be different the
next day. What I'm telling you is, it's significantly lower than it has
been so far. What he was telling was nothing concrete.
His outburst is not the end the world, it is, however, news, and should
be treated as such. He was asked a basic question about a point he
raised and he flew off the handle. Jeremy Scahill's on Democracy Now! today as is McClatchy Newspapers' Sahar Issa. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqjeremy scahillthe washington postdan balzthe new york timesalissa j. rubinsahar issamcclatchy newspapersdemocracy nowiraqiraq
Posted at 06:14 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Lt.
Dan Choi vowed Tuesday evening to fight to stay in the military after
an Army board in Syracuse recommended he be the first person discharged
from the New York National Guard for violating the "don't ask, don't
tell" policy.A four-officer
panel meeting at Hancock Air Base notified Choi at about 5 p.m. that it
would recommend he be discharged because he has publicly said he is gay.The
recommendation now goes to Lt. Gen. Thomas Miller of the First Army
Division, and Gen. Craig McKinley, the chief of the National Guard
Bureau, who will make the final decision."Today was a setback for me," Choi said at a 6:10 p.m. news conference. "I got in trouble for saying three words. 'I am gay.'"But
he said he refuses to lie about being involved in a relationship with
another man. Choi said the relationship has made him a better person, a
better Christian and a better officer.The above is from Mike McAndrew and Mark Weiner's " Military board in Syracuse recommends discharge for Lt. Dan Choi" ( Syracuse Post-Standard). Iraq War veteran Dan Choi's 'crime' was being unwilling to lie. The Syracuse Post-Standard offers "' Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy must be changed:" If,
as is likely, he loses his appeals, he'll join more than 12,500 service
members who have met the same fate since 1994, including at least 59
Arabic linguists discharged over the past five years. This is occurring
at a time when the military desperately needs to maintain and recruit
troops.There are some
65,000 gay and lesbian service members active today, according to a
letter written to President Barack Obama last week by 77 members of
Congress, who called for a swift end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Countless more are discouraged from entering the military because of
the discriminatory policy.On top of all that, enforcing the policy has cost taxpayers more than $400 million since 1994.The New York Times
ignores the story. Even on the op-ed pages where Thomas Friedman offers
a column of garbage that wouldn't make it in a high school newspaper
("Just Do It") and Maureen Dowd offers her usual smut -- this time the
never-married Dowd has taken to advising married women about their
husbands. Well, nuns taught MoDo about sex. The editorials are the
usual jokes with " Firefighters and Race" being the most embarrassing. The Times
really needs to improve their writing skills, no question, but they
also need to start offering a little brains as well. It has been
appalling to read one editorial after another attempting to turn the
census into a partisan issue. Just as appalling is "Firefighters and
Race." Not because of their opinion of the verdict but because they
think they understand so much more than do. "Judicial activist" and
"judicial restraint" refer to charges of either creating new law or
observing existing law. They're terms we're not really interested in
because the truth is most judges veer back and forth between both. But
the paper's interested enough to toss the terms around in an editorial
. . . while demonstrating that it has no idea what they mean. The
editorial argues that Sotomayor practiced "judicial restraint." For her
to have done that, she would have cited law. (I'm not arguing that she
did, I'm not arguing that she didn't. Other than her heritage, which
I've said is a moment for pride, I've offered no endorsement or slam of
her.) The editorial instead argues that she practiced "judicial
restraint" because she sided with an elected body. That isn't "judicial
restraint." Following established law, not an elected body, is what
proponents of "judicial restraint" believe in. The paper doesn't know
what the hell it's talking about and should probably hire a tutor
before writing another editorial. (Repeating, I'm not making a judgment
on Sotomayor and I haven't read the Court's opinions so I'm also not
making any statement on the decision. I'm referring solely to the
paper's inability to grasp theories that they want to toss around to
make themselves sound more learned.) Juan Gonzalez is too kind on Democracy Now! today,
Change to Win is dead. It's dead because it sold out labor and it's
been dead for some time. The SEIU is a joke and existed solely for
Barry O. In the real world, the economy's gotten worse and labor's
getting leaner and leaner on a diet of pretty words. Sidebar: Stop the Presses! k.d. lange impersonator and professional jerk Brooks Barnes remains immensely unpopular. I didn't watch or hear DN! yesterday. If it was as awful as everyone says, Ava and I will grab it Sunday at Third. Dan Choi and the ridiculous efforts to force him out of the military is the topic of Joe Garofloi's " Panel wants openly gay guardsman discharged" ( San Francisco Chronicle): Still,
some analysts say Choi's case is another example of how Washington
leaders aren't showing much urgency - or leadership - in overturning
"don't ask, don't tell."Obama
has said he wants Congress to overturn the law; congressional leaders
have said that they are waiting for the president to take the lead; and
military leaders say they won't change the policy unless directed by
Congress."It's a hot-potato
party," said Nathaniel Frank, a research fellow at the Palm Center, a
UC Santa Barbara think tank. "Democrats have the mistaken impression
that if they lead on something that smells like a culture war issue -
or if they go against the military - they will get pounded. But that's
not true. Public opinion is with them."If Barack wanted
to, all he need do is issue an executive order for a stop-loss on
discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That would stop it right away.
Congress could then address it but all the people (over 200 under Obama
already) being discharged would no longer be drummed out of the
military as a result of that executive order. Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) offers: Choi,
28, of New York City, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 2003
and joined the 10th mountain Division at Fort Drum. He spent 15 months
in Iraq as an Arabic interpreter and joined the Guard in June 2007.This
spring, Choi came out as a gay man and helped found a West Point alumni
group called Knights Out (West Point's mascot is the Black Knight) to
advocate for equal rights among strait, homosexual and transgender
troops.After Tuesday's
hearing, he defended his military career. "I understand the Army
values," Choi said. "A soldier must have integrity. I learned that from
day one at West Point.""All I did was tell the truth," he said. "I refused to lie about my boyfriend. His name is Matthew, not Martha."The
panel's decision heads next to the commanding general of the First U.S.
Army, then on to the chief of the National Guard Bureau. If all agree
with the board, the chief will decide the terms of Choi's discharge.
That process could take weeks or years.Again, Barack just has to issue an executive order. But refuses to do so. CNN notes
this citing Knights Out's Sue Fulton: "Fulton said that while Obama
can't change the law himself, he could sign an executive order halting
discharges while the policy is under review." Barry O likes to play
helpless but he's not. One executive order is all it would take. The following community sites updated last night: The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqmike mcandrewmark weinerjoe garofolithe san francisco chroniclealexa jameslike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:11 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces mulitple deaths, Lt. Dan Choi fights for his career, bombings grip Iraq, Barack Obama has another routine day while Ralph Nader speaks out and Cynthia McKinney gets active, and more.
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- Four Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldiers died June 29 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldiers' names are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." The announcement today took the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4321, with 15 for the month upsetting Operation Happy Talk plans for billing June as the second lowest month for US service member deaths since the start of the illegal war.
June 30th. The for-show play-day of pretend 'pull-out'. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The American and Iraqi militaries had different notions of when the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from major cities would start. The Americans thought that "after June 30," as written in the status of forces agreement, meant 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, July 1. The Iraqis -- whose timeline ultimately prevailed -- interpreted the dawn of their new authority as when the clock ticked past midnight to Tuesday, June 30. That's one reason that so many Iraqis celebrated the handoff of authority Monday night with singing, dancing and parties in their streets and parks. In the end, once both sides realized the communications breakdown, the Americans simply told their forces to start abiding by the new rules 23 hours and 59 minutes earlier than they'd planned." So if it was a historic day, let's go to the numbers, let's go to the stats. Woops. Reporters tried to do that during a Baghdad briefining with top US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno and it wasn't not pretty. Reuters quotes him exclaiming, "Because it would be inaccurate! Because I don't know exactly how many [US service members] are in the cities. It varies day-to-day based on the mission. [. . . .] How many times you want me to say that? I don't know." They note he apologized for his outburst ("temper" was his term) and it must be stressful to be the one who has attempted to avoid the spin but have it shoved off on you. CBS and AP cite CBS News' Lara Loogan quoting al-Maliki declaring, "Those who think Iraqis are unable to defend their country are committing a fatal mistake" and making that declaration from "a makeshift stand -- as much due to security concerns as by designs." Free Speech Radio News interviewed Iraqi Baswa Alkhateeb, an Iraqi mother of two in Baghdad ( here for the segment). Manuel Rueda noted, "She says that nothing will change on a daily basis because US soldiers have already decreased their presence in Baghdad."
Baswa Alkhateeb: We don't see them around much like before so they've already shrinked their activites in the cities. They've already done that for the past four or five months. [. . . . On why she's not celebrating today.] We have a lawless state The alligance of the security forces that are taking over is not for the country or for the state it's for the Islamic groups for the clerics who are in the Parliament who ruling now so it's not really a blessing or something to be happy about. Add to that the whole institutions were dismantled. So the way that it was rearranged after 2003, 2004, it's not about the state, it's about allegiance to their sects, to the cultural, political cultural, that put them there. [. . .] What's happening now is no employment, no educational system, no health care, nothing. IDPs [Internally Displaced Persons] all over. We have graduates from university who do not have a place to be employed unless they're part of this political culture which is following the clerics and the Islamic extreme parties ruling the country. It's something new and deformed actually. Our elites are outside, they've all left. We need experts, we need professional people here. So it will take time I don't know and all these political groups, the extremist Islamists have militias. And more were enrolled in the armies -- in the security forces.
But don't believe her, Marc Santora (New York Times) stuck his big toe out of the Green Zone and declares, "Schools are open, including one where a teacher had been strung up by her feet and her face cut off by extremists." Santora whores it so well he probably forgets that most readers of the paper may be thinking, "Why the hell didn't we ever hear about that story?" You didn't hear it because they didn't want you to. They looked the other way during the slaughter on Haditha Street, they looked the other way as thugs were installed, they looked the other way as Nouri and his thugs threatened the press (though they did pull the reporter whom Iraqi forces 'jokingly' shot at), they ignored so very much and now you're left with the choice of believeing Marc Santora who is paid by the paper that sold the illegal war or an Iraqi mother in Baghdad with children who damn well knows what the situation on the ground in her city is. While Santora worked himself into a frenzy trying to make it appear today was historic, the US government was less busy. At the State Dept's press briefing today, Iraq wasn't a topic Ian Kelly or the press bothered to bring up. At the White House, on this 'historic' day, tubby Robert Gibbs opened the press briefing laughing about his foul mouth being caught on (and edited from) video tape. Forced to address Barry O's lackadaisical attitude towards Iraq, Gibbs began insisting that wasn't the case and then dropped back to making jokes about the previous administration because when you have no plans yourself, let alone accomplishments, better to keep pointing the previous screw-up.
The 'pull-out' is not the 'drawn-down' or, heaven forbid, a withdrawal. Though he repeatedly lied to voters during the primary and presidential campaigns, Barack Obama's not done a damn thing he promised and BBC News explains that "131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected tro drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election in January." Even then we wouldn't see withdrawal and the January elections were supposed to take place in December. Violence or other options might push them back again.
Violence? Kirkuk was the site of mass deaths from a car bombing. Tim Cocks and Muhanad Mohammed (Reuters) count at least 32 dead with over one hundred injured Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) notes that the bombing also destroyed 30 shops in a market. Ali Windawi and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) explain, "The attack came barely a week after nearly 80 people were killed in a suicide truck bomb in Taza Khurmatu, a Shiite Turkmen town just south of the city. Both blasts pointed to a deliberate effort to fan the ethnic tensions in an oil-rich area that Kurds with to claim as part of their self-governing region in northern Iraq and Arabas want tied to the central government in Baghdad. The blast marred a day that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had hailed as a historic victory". Daniel Williams (Bloomberg News) notes the death toll has risen to "at least 41 people and wounded 120 others."
Kirkuk was the subject of the Christian Science Monitor's editorial " Iraq's next milestone: the Kurdish question" this morning -- excerpt: Tension between Mr. Maliki – an Arab – and the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in the north has escalated significantly in the last year. It touches issues of fundamental importance -- national unity, oil wealth, and the balance of power between the central government and the regions. Left unaddressed -- or worse, provoked -- the Kurd-Arab divide could split the Iraqi state.
A wide swath of disputed territory lies at the heart of the problem. Last August, only direct negotiation between Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and Maliki was able to head off a military showdown between Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the Kurdish-administered town of Khanaqin.
Nothing is more central to the territorial tug of war than the province of Kirkuk, which lies next to an oil field that contains 20 percent of the country's proven oil reserves. The Kurds consider Kirkuk historically theirs, but it is now populated by a mix of Kurds, Turkmens, Christians, and Arabs -- the latter group was sent by Saddam Hussein to flood the area. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution calls for Kirkuk's status to be set by referendum, but the vote keeps being delayed.
In other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Shootings?
Corpses?
Reuters notes 3 corpses ("alcohol dealers" remember fundamentalists thugs rule in Iraq) were discovered in Tikrit.
While the for-show 'pull-out' captures the bulk of the attention today, many other telling moments took place. In Iraq?
The tag-sale on Iraqi oil had a . . . Well, Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) calls it a disappointment: "Iraq was seeking bids from firms to develop eight of its existing oil and gas fields, but only one contract was awarded to work one oil field at a public auction televised live from Baghdad's Rashid Hotel inside the heavily fortified Green Zone." But it wasn't disappointing for everyone. This morning Keith Bradsher (New York Times) reported on what he saw as a surprise move on the part of Chinese oil companies to enter into the bidding. Surprising or not, a partnership between China National Petroleum Corporation and British Petroleum proved to be a winning combo. Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) reports they won "access to Iraq's biggest oilfield" in the auction. It needs to be noted that there were other winners, they just didn't like what they wong. Pagnamenta reports that "all other foreign companies involved in bidding for a total of eight fields, including Royal Dutch Shell, rejected what were considered to be punitive terms on offer fromt he Iraqi Government. In total, nearly 30 overseas companies withdrew."
In the US?
Yesterday, as Marcia and Stan noted, Barack Obama invited LGBT 'leaders' to the White House and tried to use his oily charm and pretty words to pretend he might someday -- not any time soon, understand -- do something. Someday. Maybe. In the real world, Lt. Daniel Choic fights for his career and does it with no help from the alleged 'fierce advocate' for the LGBT community. Alexa James (Times Herald-Record) reports that closed-door deliberations continue by a US Army board over what to do about the New York National Guard member who's 'crime' was being honest about who he was. James notes, "Choi graduated from West Point in 2003 as an Arabic major and served as an interpreter in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. He left active duty and joined the Guard last June." Daniel Nasaw (Brisbane Times) explains, "In one of the last instances of government-sanctioned discrimination, the military allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military only if they keep quiet about their sexuality. For more than a year after meeting his boyfriend and falling in love, Lieutenant Choi was forced to lie or risk joining a list of almost 13,000 gay and lesbian personnel discarged in the past 16 years under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy'." Mike McAndrew (Syracuse Post-Standard) notes the hearing began this morning at eight o'clock. Scott Horsley (NPR's All Things Considered) files a report featuring noted homophobe and hag Elaine Donnelly, apparently taking a break from writing for the National Review and taking ugly lessons, who weighs in against any changes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell declaring, "We don't make policy based on popular culture or marching in the streets or party favors." Party favors? The last time Donnelly was invited to a party, Howdy Doody was still on the airwaves, thereby explaining her bitter bitchiness. Bitchy? Oh, we're back to Barack who wanted to talk about how he was committed to changing people's minds when all the lazy ass needs to do is sign an executive order putting a stop-loss on discharges under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's all it takes. If he'd do that, Dan Choi would not be fighting for his career, no one would be at risk. It would cost him nothing and he wouldn't even have to go through Congress. Barry O loves to mingle with his fellow celebrities posing as 'leaders'. But Barry just doesn't like to do anything. June 19th on Democracy Now!, it was explained how simple it was for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be stopped immediately:
AMY GOODMAN: And what is the significance of it being passed by Congress, rather than just a policy of the Pentagon?
NATHANIEL FRANK: Well, a couple things. First of all, because it's now a matter of federal law for the first time, because before that it was just a Pentagon policy and regulation, it's now that much more difficult for the policy to be repealed, because as a law passed by Congress, Congress would need to repeal it.
I do want to correct one thing that Secretary Alexander said, that President Obama does have the power to stop the firings. He can act unilaterally to use his powers of stop-loss through a statute, 12305 from 1983, in which Congress itself gives the President the power to stop separations in the military for a variety of reasons. And so, he has said that he wants to stop the firings, and he actually has the power to stop the firings. And so, it's really been very unclear to many of us why he's unwilling to take that step. The White House has been --
AMY GOODMAN: You mean it would be an executive order?
NATHANIEL FRANK: It would be an executive order halting all separations while we are under a national emergency, which the statute defines as being -- having the National Guard mobilized, as it currently is. And then he could go to Congress some months down the line and say, "Look, we've had openly gay service officially" -- incidentally, we already have openly gay service; thousands of people are serving openly, notwithstanding the policy. But he could turn to this situation officially and say, "We have openly gay service because of this executive order. The sky hasn't fallen. Now, Congress, let's move to get this off the books permanently." So it would be a one-two punch. And that is an option that Obama has. And he's been asked about it, the White House has been asked about it, and they haven't given a good reason why, given what he said about wanting to stop the firings, he's continuing to let the firings go, when he has the power to do otherwise.
But he chooses not to do a damn thing. And the board has reached a decision to recommend that Lt Dan Choi be discharged. For the 'crime' of being gay and being honest about it. Mike McAnder (Syracuse Post-Standard) reports Choi was informed of the decision at five this evening and that "he plans to appeal to higher ranking officers" because, "I refuse to lie about my love relationship."
The reality is that Barack could have stepped in at any point and put a stop to this witch hunt but he chose not to. And eality is that Barry O will be judged him not by his pretty words and empty promises but by his actions. Related, Chris Hedges' " The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free" ( Information Clearing House): All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.
Hedges supported Ralph Nader in 2008 and Ralph Nader's sent out an e-mail today entitled "Obama Betrayal Syndrome" which opens with:
"I want my money back, President Obama!"
That's the title of Marie Marchand's column in Common Dreams this week.
Marie Marchand says she gave $20 a week for seven months to the Obama campaign -- plus $60 every once in a while for a t-shirt and sticker.
"I gave of my modest purse joyfully," she writes. "I thought I was supporting change I could believe in, not more of the same bloodshed and war!" She now feels betrayed.
Millions of Americans are feeling betrayed.
They thought Obama as President meant change we can believe in.
They thought Obama as President meant withdrawal from Iraq.
"Well they were wrong then, weren't they?" as Marty Feldman says in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. Nader's e-mail is promoting Single Payer Action TV, so check that out. Cynthia McKinney also ran for the US presidency in 2008. And Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) passes on this news release:
ISRAEL ATTACKS JUSTICE BOAT; KIDNAPS HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS; CONFISCATES MEDICINE, TOYS AND OLIVE TREES
For more information contact:
Greta Berlin (English)
tel: +357 99 081 767 / friends@freegaza.org
Caoimhe Butterly (Arabic/English/Spanish):
tel: +357 99 077 820 / sahara78@hotmail.co.uk
www.FreeGaza.org [23 miles off the coast of Gaza , 15:30pm] - Today Israeli Occupation Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT OF
HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries, including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (see below for a complete list of passengers). The passengers
and crew are being forcibly dragged toward Israel .
"This is an outrageous violation of international law against us. Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights mission to the Gaza
Strip," said Cynthia McKinney, a former U.S. Congresswoman and presidential candidate. "President Obama just told Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and that's exactly what we tried to do. We're
asking the international community to demand our release so we can resume our journey."
According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are "trapped in despair." Thousands
of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier during Israel 's December/January massacre are still without shelter despite pledges of
almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet the needs of their patients due to Israel 's disruption of medical supplies.
"The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of Gaza , hope
that the sea route would open for them, and they would be able to
transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the schools, hospitals
and thousands of homes destroyed during the onslaught of "Cast Lead". Our mission is a gesture to the people of Gaza that we stand by them and that
they are not alone" said fellow passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her work in Northern Ireland .
Just before being kidnapped by Israel , Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage, stated that: "No
one could possibly believe that our small boat constitutes any sort of threat
to Israel . We carry medical and reconstruction supplies, and children's toys. Our passengers include a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our boat was searched and received a security clearance
by Cypriot Port Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach Israeli waters."
Arraf continued, " Israel 's deliberate and premeditated attack on our unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand our immediate and unconditional release." One of the last labor reporters left in the United States is independent journalist David Bacon -- whose latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). At Immigration Prof Blog, Bacon's photos of a Mixtec migrant Margarito Salvador's family who work in the strwaberry fields of Watsonville, Calif.
|
Posted at 06:05 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
US military announces 4 more deaths
Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD -- Four Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldiers died June 29 as the result of combat related injuries. The Soldiers’ names are being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member’s primary next of kin. MND-B will not release any additional details prior to notification of next of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently under investigation." It all seemed so easy for the 'press' last week. They were prepping (and being fed) their "Lowest month since the start of the war for US military deaths in Iraq." Flacks had already begun issuing statements for those end-of-the-month pieces which would be published July 1st and trumpet the 'pull-out'. They'd open something like: As the US military honored the SOFA and returned soveriegnty to Iraq, the death toll for US forces reached an all time low -- the lowest since the start of the war. Asked of the death toll, Col Gen Maj military spokesperson (because you need a lot of bars on your shoulders to be a glorified press flack) declared, "The lowered death toll is an indication that we have turned a corner and that the Iraqi people are embracing the lower profile for US forces." It wasn't all going to be pretty, mind you. They still had to deal with the increased violence targeting Iraqis. They'd put out data before the half-way point of the month insisting that violence -- in June! -- was down. Chris Hill jetted over to the States and bungled it in his presentation. Appearing on CNN and Fox, Sunday, Gen Ray Odierno finessed it so well most watching probably didn't grasp what exactly he was saying and just heard 'violence down.' But violence wasn't down and you can't claim 'If you leave out the last two weeks of the month, June wasn't a violenct month' and be taken seriously. But they had their low death toll for US forces to pimp. And they were pretty sure they could maintain it. The need for the low death toll was what prompted the orders for the night time moves. Like thieves in the night, the US military was supposed to move their equipment, rushing back and forth while other people hopefully slept. Not since the British were run off the base in 2006 had a more embarrassing order taken place. But despite all the brass planning, didn't work out quite the way they planned. It never does. You'd think they'd have learned that by now. The announcement today took the number of US service members killed in the Iraq War to 4321, with 15 for the month. So far. So far because the month's not over. So far because M-NF has a tendency to hold back a death or two until after the start of the next month. Some of the more dense and foolish among the press are being targeted with a campaign pimping "second lowest death toll of the year thus far." You'll see shortly who are the ones who'll swallow (and spit back) anything. Today the Christian Science Monitor offers the editorial " Iraq's next milestone: the Kurdish question" -- excerpt: Tension between Mr. Maliki – an Arab – and the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government in the north has escalated significantly in the last year. It touches issues of fundamental importance -- national unity, oil wealth, and the balance of power between the central government and the regions. Left unaddressed -- or worse, provoked -- the Kurd-Arab divide could split the Iraqi state.
A wide swath of disputed territory lies at the heart of the problem. Last August, only direct negotiation between Kurdish President Masoud Barzani and Maliki was able to head off a military showdown between Iraqi and Kurdish forces in the Kurdish-administered town of Khanaqin.
Nothing is more central to the territorial tug of war than the province of Kirkuk, which lies next to an oil field that contains 20 percent of the country's proven oil reserves. The Kurds consider Kirkuk historically theirs, but it is now populated by a mix of Kurds, Turkmens, Christians, and Arabs -- the latter group was sent by Saddam Hussein to flood the area. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution calls for Kirkuk's status to be set by referendum, but the vote keeps being delayed.
Turning to the 'pull-out,' in this morning's New York Times, Marc Santora offers " In Baghdad, A U.S. Exit Where Anger Still Lingers." It's a bunch of happy talk about decreased violence and blah and blah. And blah. BBC News offers: BBC defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says that while the pullback is significant, the actual withdrawal of US combat troops in 2010 will pose a greater challenge.
The success of that depends on Iraq's political leaders and their ability to tackle the country's many outstanding problems and tensions, he says.
Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election in January. We'll add more to the 'pull-out' in the snapshot today (which may run later than usual) but that's all I can stomach this morning. As an antidote, we'll close with this from Chris Hedges' " The Truth Alone Will Not Set You Free" ( Information Clearing House): All periods of profound change occur in a crisis. It was a crisis that brought us the New Deal, now largely dismantled by the corporate state. It was also a crisis that gave the world Adolf Hitler and Slobodan Milosevic. We can go in either direction. Events move at the speed of light when societies and cultural assumptions break down. There are powerful forces, which have no commitment to the open society, ready to seize the moment to snuff out the last vestiges of democratic egalitarianism. Our bankrupt liberalism, which naively believes that Barack Obama is the antidote to our permanent war economy and Wall Street fraud, will either rise from its coma or be rolled over by an organized corporate elite and their right-wing lap dogs. The corporate domination of the airwaves, of most print publications and an increasing number of Internet sites means we will have to search, and search quickly, for alternative forms of communication to thwart the rise of totalitarian capitalism.
Stuart Ewen, whose books "Captains of Consciousness: Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture" and "PR: A Social History of Spin" chronicle how corporate propaganda deformed American culture and pushed populism to the margins of American society, argues that we have a fleeting chance to save the country. I fervently hope he is right. He attacks the ideology of "objectivity and balance" that has corrupted news, saying that it falsely evokes the scales of justice. He describes the curriculum at most journalism schools as "poison."
"'Balance and objectivity' creates an idea where both sides are balanced," he said when I spoke to him by phone. "In certain ways it mirrors the two-party system, the notion that if you are going to have a Democrat speak you need to have a Republican speak. It offers the phantom of objectivity. It creates the notion that the universe of discourse is limited to two positions. Issues become black or white. They are not seen as complex with a multitude of factors."
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqthe chistian science monitorbbc newsthe new york timesmarc santorachris hedges
Posted at 06:35 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Abu Ghraib and Lynndie are back in the news
"The Central Intelligence Agency crucified a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, according to a report published in The New Yorker magazine.
"A forensic examiner found that he (the prisoner) had essentially been crucified; he died from asphyxiation after having been hung by his arms, in a hood, and suffering broken ribs," the magazine's Jane Mayer writes in the magazine's June 22nd issue. "Military pathologists classified the case a homicide." The date of the murder was not given.
"No criminal charges have ever been brought against any C.I.A. officer involved in the torture program, despite the fact that at least three prisoners interrogated by agency personnel died as a result of mistreatment," Mayer notes.
An earlier report, by John Hendren in The Los Angeles Times indicted other torture killings. And Human Rights First says nearly 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hendren reported that one Manadel Jamadi died "of blunt-force injuries" complicated by "compromised respiration" at Abu Ghraib prison "while he was with Navy SEALs and other special operations troops." Another victim, Abdul Jaleel, "died while gagged and shackled to a cell door with his hands over his head." Yet another prisoner, Maj. Gen. Abid Mowhosh, former commander of Iraq’s air defenses, "died of asphyxiation due to smothering and chest compression" in Qaim, Iraq.
"There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths," says Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal." At least scores of detainees in U.S. custody have died and homicide is suspected. As far back as May, 2004, the Pentagon conceded at least 37 deaths of prisoners in its custody in Iraq and Afghanistan had prompted investigations.The above is from Sherwood Ross' " CIA Crucified Captive in Abu Ghraib Prison" (Information Clearing House). What? You thought we were going to open with the play-day, for-show 'pull-out'? That's actually the place to open since AP published a piece of nonsense interview with Charles in Charge look-alike Lynndie England. It's garbage but, hey, when you're profiling garbage they may be all you can come up with. P.J. Dickersched and Vicki Smith wrote the article (Smith also took photos). Lynndie, for those who forgot, was featured in several torture photos at Abu Ghraib. She's minimizing her actions so that she declares, "People don't realize I was just in a photo for a split second in time." A photo? A photo? Lynddie's the criminal who didn't just torture, she thought you went to Iraq to sleep around. That's how she got pregnant. She wasn't 18. She wasn't under 18. She was an adult who knew what she was doing. She knew the man and she knew his wife. The man of course was the ringleader of the abuse. Yes, orders came from higher up and yes, Charles Graner was selected because of his past history. The guilt doesn't end with Lynndie and Charles. It goes all the way up. But that doesn't absolve them of guilt either. And I don't have any sympathy for liars. Lynndie wants the world to believe she's harmed by her involvement in torture. Really? She's tortued by what she did? No. She can't escape her infamy. Boo-hoo. She tells you she tried dying her hair (she did) and that she tried gaining weight (false, she gained it because she ate too much and she was no longer living a physically active life). It's so awful, she insists, because she's recognized. But she didn't try to change her name. She claims her face is so famous that it wouldn't make any difference. Lynndie's confusing scandal with fame. And if she really wanted to start over, she'd have changed her name and then gone on to reply, "I get that a lot," if anyone did say, "You look like that criminal." Lynndie didn't change her name because she wants the shame she mistakes for fame. That's why she's doing the interview now and prepping for, yes, her book tour. AP tells you that Lynnide "said she's paid her dues and repeatedly apologized." Did you hear that apology? Not only is it not in the article but anyone who's followed her press (including while she was in prison) is damn well aware that she never apologized and always pushed responsibility for her own actions off on others. There is no question in my mind that the torture publicly revealed in 2004 was authorized by the White House. Even believeing that doesn't allow me to excuse the involvement of Lynndie and her co-workers. They made a decision to participate and Lynndie -- as the photos demonstrate -- gleefully demonstrated. She has never, NEVER, apologized for the shame, humiliation and pain (mental and physical) she and the others brought to Iraqis that they were supposed to be protecting. Protecting. They were prison guards not to toture, but to ensure the safety of those prisoners. Lynndie didn't give a damn about her job, that's why she was able to get pregnant. She was sleeping around with Charles while she was on duty. She was sleeping with the married Charles Graner while the US tax payers were paying her to do some work. (Charles was sleeping around on the tax payer dime as well. He's not absolved. But he's also not the one giving an interview to AP. When he shows his ass in public, we'll call him out too.) "We were just pawns," whines Lynndie. "People were just playing us." No, the pawns were the Iraqis. You went along with it. You damn well knew better and you chose to go along with torture. You could be a whistle blower, you could have said no. You chose to go along and those were War Crimes. Are others guilty as well? Absolutely. But don't think you can whine and play poor little victim after what you put Iraqi prisoners too or, for that matter, after the shame you brought to your own country. Her shamelessness is appalling, her desperation to make a buck disgusting. Her inability to take accountability proof that she's learned nothing from her experience. The following community sites updated last night: Thomas Friedman is a Great ManWe need to grow the hell up9 hours ago Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitudegordo the wounded shark9 hours ago SICKOFITRADLZBarack is full of s**t9 hours ago Trina's KitchenGrilled cheese in the Kitchen9 hours ago Ruth's ReportSummer cold9 hours ago Oh Boy It Never EndsBarry tries to pretty-word his way out of it9 hours ago Like Maria Said PazIsaiah, Murat Kurnaz, Ava and C.I.9 hours ago Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)Links9 hours ago Mikey Likes It!Isaiah, Michael Ratner, Third10 hours ago Cedric's Big MixFalse gods and idols? Better check yourself.13 hours ago The Daily JotTHIS JUST IN! IDOLATRY IS NOT CHRISTIANITY!13 hours ago The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqsherwood rossthe new yorkerjane mayerthe los angeles timesjohn hendrenlike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudethomas friedman is a great mantrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itruths reportsickofitradlzoh boy it never ends
Posted at 06:33 am by thecommonills
Permalink
Monday, June 29, 2009
Monday,
June 29, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, one media outlet prepares to offer indepth coverage of
the targeting of Iraq's LGBT community, June 30th play day frenzy
builds, uh-oh-Gordo, he's in trouble again, and more. In a week when Iraq 'dates' will be discussed non-stop, we'll start with an important one: July 5th. That's when BBC Radio 5 airs Gay Life After Saddam
(7 to 8 p.m. in England -- that will be eleven to noon PST). Ashley
Byrne and Gail Champion produce the special for Made in Manchester. James Chaperlard (Crain's Manchester Business) reports: In Gay Life After Saddam,
presenter Aasmah Mir finds out how life for the country's gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered community (LGBT), has got worse since the
fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
Human rights
campaigners claim hundreds of LGBT people have been killed or tortured
while others have fled the country fearing for their safety since
Saddam was toppled from power six years ago. Not
noted in the article but among the people interviewed for the special
is Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, and his remarks should be
of especial interest since he's done nothing to prevent the continued
assault on Iraq's LGBT community. Note that this special is being
commissioned and aired by the BBC. Did Joan Kroc's McMillions to NPR
come with a codicil barring NPR from reporting on the gay community?
NPR has never covered the ongoing assault on Iraq's LGBT community.
June 1st, the assault was addressed on KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett between Garrett and LA City Council member Bill Rosendahl and that's day's snapshot included the following rundown -- and this is a partial rundown: As noted May 15th, "Ruben Vives (Los Angeles Times) reports
that the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted Wednesday to
approve Council Rep Bill Rosendahl's 'resolution calling for federal
legislation urging the Iraqi government to prevent the persecution of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people'." Lila noted that the
segment was taped ahead of time so, for perspective, the resolution
passed May 15th. This year, the targeting's been noted here first in
more on the issue, you can see this snapshot, this entry and the roundtable Friday night ["Roundtable on Iraq," "Roundtabling Iraq," "the roundtable," "Iraq," "Iraq in the Kitchen," "Roundtable on Iraq," "Talking Iraq," "Iraq," "Talking Iraq roundtable" and "Iraq roundtable"]
That's going back to the start of April and it is not true that the MSM
has ignored it. They could do a lot more but they have covered it and
where there has been no amplification is in Panhandle Media which appears to feel it's a 'niche' story to be left to the LGBT media. In April, Wisam Mohammed and Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN), the Dallas Morning News, UPI and AFP reported on it. Michael Riley (Denver Post) covered the story and covered US House Rep Jared Polis' work on the issue (which included visiting Iraq), PDF format warning, click here for his letter to Patricia A. Butenis. Polis is quoted at his website stating,
"The United States should not tolerate human rights violations of nay
kind, especially by a government that Americans spend billions of
taxpayer dollars each year supporting. Hopefully my trip and letters
to US and Iraqi officials will help bring international attention and
investigation to this terrible situation and bring an end to any such
offenses." For the New York Times, Timothy Williams and Tareq Maher's "Iraq's Newly Open Gays Face Scorn and Murder" covered the topic. BBC News offered "Fears over Iraq gay killing spate." The Denver Post offered an editorial entitled "Killing
of gay Iraqis shouldn't be ignored: We applaud Rep. Jared Polis for his
efforts last week to shine the spotlight on the killings of homosexuals
in Iraq," Nigel Morris offered "Iraqi leaders attacked over spate of homophobic murders" (Independent of London), the Telegraph of London covers the issue here. Neal Broverman (The Advocate), Jessica Green (UK's Pink News), and Doug Ireland Though it's a partial list, NPR's not omitted. No major outlet is. ABC News, BBC, CNN, Denver Post, Dallas Morning News (a news roundup), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, UPI and AFP
are major outlets. So is NPR but it had other things to do. Now BBC's
commissioned and will be airing (July 5th -- and it will stream
live online) and NPR's still playing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Matthew S. Bajko (The Edge) notes that this is being termed the "Summer of Obummer" and reviews Barack Obama's stumbles and fumbles on LGBT issues including: " In
court papers the Obama administration has defended the policy, and it
has also refused to issue an executive order ending discharges of LGBT
service members as it determines what course of action to take." Jean Stanula (Examiner) points out that hideous policy creates many victims, including the service members' partners: " There
is another group of people who are devastatingly affected by this
policy as well, a group of people who are not even members of the
military -- the partners of these LGBT soldiers who struggle with the
same trials as military spouses, yet receive none of the support from
the government, who must, in fact, remain invisible for the protection
of their military partners. The
husbands and wives of American soldiers receive special benefits from
the government, in addition to the love and support they recieve from
their communities. Some of these benefits include: receiving
compensation if their husband or wife is injured or killed in the line
of duty, disabled veterans who are married receive extra compensation
to support their spouse, veteran's pensions, military support networks, next-of-kin notifications
and more. Partners of LGBT service members are denied these benefits,
even the simple benefit of expressing pride openly of their love ones." Last week, 77 members of the US House of Representatives wrote Barack about ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy: Although
we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to
end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our LGBT service members and our country's
national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed
until 2010 or 2011. We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion
legally possible in administering Don't Ask, Don't Tell until Congress
repeals the law. To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed
Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to
determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to
disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose
that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third
parties who tell. Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and
replace Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a policy of inclusion and
non-discrimination. This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay
and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and
demonstrate our nation's lasting commitment to justice and equality for
all. As
the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War
in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance
our country's military competence and readiness. Despite the great
strain on our military's human resources, the Armed Forces have
discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic
and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last five
years. This is indefensible. The financial cost alone of implementing
Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8
million. Our nation's military has always held itself to the highest
standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our
best and brightest. To do anything less only hurts our country's
military readiness and our service members. We
also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the
failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in action. New York National Guard
First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor
Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their
lives to defending our country and protecting the American people.
Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they
face impending discharge under Don't Ask, Don't
Tell. First
Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of
the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic
language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation
for refusing to lie about his identity. Lieutenant
Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th
Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho,
has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He
has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the
2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over
Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11,
2001. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in
Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to
serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves
forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air
Force. Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to
lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of
his life if discharged. The
American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly
support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. According to a national
Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including
58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian
women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops
who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the
Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara
revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and
lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired
admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human
Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights
Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First
Lieutenant Choi. That's an excerpt. The letter (in full) can be found at US House Rep Alcee L. Hasting's website
and "was authored by Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney
Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA),
Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY),
Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL),
José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor
Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna
Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice
Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA),
Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC),
Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane
Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana
DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI),
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad
Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley
Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush
Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan
Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy
Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum
(D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ),
Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen
Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN),
Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD),
Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie
K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki
Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis
(D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)." While
there has been action in the US House of Representatives calling for
the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this month, the only US Senator
publicly raising the issue is Roland Burris. As his office notes: Last
week, Senator Burris met with Equality Illinois and a number of GLBT
leaders in Chicago to discuss the current military policy of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell." Burris, a member of both the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs voiced his
strong opposition to the current discriminatory policy. During a June
22nd press conference at Equality Illinois, Senator Burris vowed to
work alongside Senator Ted Kennedy to bring an end to the military's
ban on gay servicemen and women, and to make the United States Armed
Services more inclusive and accepting of all the brave individuals who
wear our nation's uniform. "When
we dismiss the sacrifices made by those with a different sexual
orientation, we undermind the strength of our fighting forces. When we
fail to recognize the brave contributions that gay and lesbian service
members continue to make every single day, we diminish ourselves as
much as we diminish their service," Senator Burris said. "We should
end this offensive and discriminatory policy, so they can be the best
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines they can be, while living their
lives openly and honestly." This Sunday, Senator Burris will march alongside members of the GLBT community in Chicago's Pride Parade. Turning to England where Rupert Hamer (Daily Mirror) informs,
"A secret report by Army bosses to be presented to the Iraq war inquiry
blames Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for the botched occupation of the
country. The dossier -- prepared for ex-military chief General Sir
Mike Jackson -- criticize then Chancellor Mr Brown for withholding fuds
to rebuild Basra for FIVE months after our troops went in. And the
100-page document attacks Mr Blair for 'uncritically' accepting flawed
US plans for the March 2003 invasion, which led to tens of thousands of
deaths, including those of 179 British troops." Daniel Martin (Daily Mail) adds,
"In a memo to the Iraq war inquiry, they say Mr Brown's refusal as
Chancellor to release vital funds for the Army played into the hands of
insurgents. Its criticisms are the latest in a line of attacks from
senior Army figures on Mr Brown, who was Chancellor when U.S. and
British troops attacked Iraq in March 2003." Nicholas Watt (Mail & Guardian) reminds
that last week was when a debate in the House of Commons forced Gordon
Brown and his cabinet to back off of the inquiry being held completely
in private and notes that the chance "that Blair and Brown will be
cross-examined on their roles in the Iraq war during the build-up to
the general election that is expected to take place next year." The
debate also forced Brown and his cabinet to back off the claim that the
inquiry would not apportion blame. Scottish National Party leader Angus Robertson states,
"This leaked document would appear to be a damning critique of the two
most senior members of the Labour government at the time -- Tony Blair
and Gordon Brown. It also suggests that there may be great unease
about Gordon Brown's decision to allow the inquiry to be held in secret
when it wished. The whole point of this inquiry was to get to the
truth about the Iraq war. People wanted an open and honest inquiry,
not some establishment stich-up. This leak would appear to support the
fact that by every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest
foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it
have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were
led into this mess." Meanwhile the Yorkshire Post reports,
"Families of soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan
are suing the Ministry of Defence, claiming that the lightly-armoured
Snatch Land Rovers in which they died should never have been used on
the frontline. Over the past four years, dozens of our troops have
been killed in this way." Today the US military announced:
"A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier died June 28 as the result
of combat related injuries. The Soldier's name is being withheld
pending notification of next of kin. The names of the service members
are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Website
at http://www.defenselink.mil/
. The announcements are made on the Website no earlier than 24 hours
after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. MND-B
will not release any additional details prior to notification of next
of kin and official release by the DoD. The incident is currently
under investigation." The announcement brings to 4317 the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war. In other reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Mosul bombing today which claimed the lives of 2 police officers and
a Mosul car bombing claimed the lives of 9 police officers and left
eleven people injured. Reuters notes
a Kirkuk roadside bombing left one person injured and, dropping back to
Sunday, Ramadi roadside bombing which claimed the life of 1 "member of
the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and wounded his son". Shootings? Corpses? Turning to the issue of the June 30th 'pull-out' and starting with this from Alice Fordham (Times of London),
"The June 30 deadline was made in a status of forces agreement between
the US and Iraq at the start of the year. A national holiday has been
declared for that day, although a curfew may be imposed." That's noted
in Thursday's snapshot and we're noting it again because on Friday an outlet ( NYT)
reported on the holiday for the first time and has since gotten credit
(unearned) for being the outlet to break that news. Alice Fordahm had
already reported it. Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) quotes
wary Iraqi Jbory stating, "I will celebrate when I see my country
living in peace. I will celebrate when there is electricity and clean
water, when people go to the park and feel safe. I'll celebrate when
kids on the street look clean and are wearing new clothes. I will
celebrate when people can earn a living." Hala Jaber, Ali Rifat Amman and Tony Allen-Mills (Times of London) quoted
Sheiak Harith al-Dhari stating, "The resistance will not subside. I
expect the insurgency to increase in both strength and ferocity, at
least until the total withdrawal of the occupiers. Logic dictates that
as long as there is fire under the pot, then the pot will continue to
boil." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported,
"The guys with the guns and bombs and best-laid plans may think the
U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from major Iraqi cities will work.
But some ordinary Iraqis habor another idea." Meanwhile Thomas E.
Ricks debates himself. First he argues,
"Will the Iraqi be able to keep the population relatively secure? To
be honest, I don't know, and no one else does." Less than 20 minutes
later he offers,
"Iraq is probably going to be violent for many years to come, and
likely will be a closer ally of Iran than of the United States". While
I would personally guess that his second argument is the likely outcome
for the foreseeable future, I can say 100%, I don't know. What is
known? Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers
some reality on the pull-out: "But the Status of Forces Agreement
setting the June 30 deadline leaves a lot of discretionary decisions to
the Americans. Lieut. Col. Drake Johnson, 39, a liaison officer with
the Iraqi police, could have termed the patrol a 'force protection'
mission, not a 'combined patrol.' In that case, only Americans would've
been walking the route. That's one reason on Tuesday, when Iraqis wake
up, they will still see U.S. soldiers and Marines on patrol and in
convoys. That's why some Iraqis -- like the one who yelled at the
patrol, 'Hey, it's too bad you guys will be leaving soon!' -- may be
disappointed with the profile, the footprint, that the Americans will
still display in Iraq." Alice Fordham (Times of London) describes
the current scene in Baghdad: "Lurid artificial flowers and tinsel
decorated the police cars and balloons and streamers adorned the
concrete security checkpoints of South Baghdad". Derrick Henry (New York Times) reports
that Iraqi MP ("and a former national security adviser") Qassim Daoud
is calling for the Status Of Forces Agreement to "be extended to 2020
or 2025." On the 'pull-out' of US forces from some cities, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained
this morning, "In most cases, they'll be shifted to areas encircling
the places they leave. American forces will also remain in the town of
Mosul for an indefinite time." And they will remain in Baghdad where
their bases sprawl in and out of the city. On the encircling, we'll
fall back to Friday's snapshot: As for the pull-out from Iraqi cities, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reveals,
that instead of being in the cities, US forces will "encircle them,"
"put in place in the belts around those cities and in areas that are
potential flashpoints of Kurdish-Arab tension. . . . The plan keeps US
advisers within the cities, and in Mosul redeploys battalions that had
been within the city to the surrounding areas." Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports
that while "[t]housands of U.S. combat troops will remain at a handful
of bases in Baghdad and on the outskirts of other restive cities, such
as Mosul and Kirkuk, in nothern Iraq, past the June 30 deadline" and
that this has US military officials worried that US service members as
well as Iraqis will be put at risk in the new holding pattern Barack's
created. Stop the holding pattern, just bring the troops home.
Posted at 02:35 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
|
|
|
|
|
