I Hate The War

Iraq snapshot

July 9, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, Nouri al-Maliki launches a verbal attack on the KRG (while setting himself up as a law-abiding-martyr), 5 Iranians are finally freed, Thomas E. Ricks pimps 'miracle cures' and more.   Yesterday violence made a strong impression in Iraq even if the press wasn't paying attention.  (See Timothy Williams' article in today's New York Times which reduces the deaths to an aside saved for the final paragraph of the article and note that Williams was one of the few reporting on Iraq that you could find in a US paper today.)  If the ongoing, never-ending illegal war has demonstrated anything over the last six years and counting, it's that reality always crashes into the latest wave of Operation Happy Talk.  Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) counts 50 dead in Iraq today from bombings in northern Iraq and Baghdad.  Ned Parker and Usama Redha (Los Angeles Times) report on two suicide bombers in Tal Afar where one bomber detonated outside the home of a police officer causing a crowd to gather, at which point, the second bomber detonated. Nada Bakri (Washington Post) adds that the police chief states the bombers wore police uniforms and, "The first suicide bomber managed to sneak inside the house of a counter-terrorism officer and blew himself up, causing the home to collapse. The attack took place in a neighborhood called al-Qala, inhabited by mostly Shiites. When neighbors gathered to help the family trapped inside, a second suicide bomber struck, increasing the bloodshed." Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) explains, "Tal Afar, a mostly Turkmen town about 30 miles (48 kilometers) west of Mosul, has been targeted by militans before.  In March 2007, it was hit by one of the deadliest single attacks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 when a suicide truck bomb killed more than 150 people." Jomana Karadsheh and CNN count 35 dead and sixty-five injured from the two bombings.  The two Tal Afar bombings were not the only reported violence today . . .   Bombings?   Laith Hammoudi and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) report a Baghdad market bombing which claimed 7 lives and left twenty injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured two people, a Baghdad bicycle bombing which left four people injured, two Baghdad bombings which claimed 9 lives and left thirty-five people wounded and a Ramadi car bombing which claimed the life of the bomber and left four police officers wounded.  Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing which injured one person and a Kirkuk roadside bombing which claimed 1 life and left three injured.   Shootings? Reuters notes one woman and one man were wounded in a Mosul attack by unknown assailants and 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk.   Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died July 8 after being found unresponsive at a Coalition forces facility. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site 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 and cause of death are currently under investigation." It's the first US service member announced death in Iraq for the month and it brings the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war to 4322.     "I don't know the exact percentage but I'm sure it's well over 70% that want the US out as soon as possible," explains Mike Tharp in a video posted at McClatchy.  He's speaking with Paul Jay for The Real News Network (click here for the clip at TRNN).  Tharp states, "They've seen the last six years as an occupation, not as a liberation, not as bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq but instead the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives as well as over 4300 American troop losses, a trillion dollars spent by the US, I don't know what estimates are put on the damage done to the Iraqi society and economy but it's incalcuable."  On the topic of the physical damage done to Iraq . . .   Today the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has issued [PDF format warning] "FINAL REPORT on Damage Assessment in Babylon."  The twenty page report prepared by the International Coordination Committee for the Saveguarding of the Cultural Heritage of Iraq explores the damage done by the US' decision to install a military base on an archaeological site in Babylon after the issue was raised by Iraq's Minister of Culture.  The report explains the historical context:   Babylon is unquestionably one of the most important archaelogical sites in the world.  It was the capital city of two of the most famous kings of antiquity, Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) who introduced one of the world's first law codes, and Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 BC) who built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World.  Alexander the Great chose Babylon as his new capital but died before he could implement this plan.  The existence of Babylon is first mentioned in cuneiform texts of the Akkadian period (2371-2230 BC), but the city did not become significant until the time of Hammurabi.  It was substantially enlarged in the Neo-Babylonian period (626-539 BC) when it became the largest city of the contemporary world.  Although its location was forgotten for centuries the fame of Babylon survived through a number of historical and religious texts.  In view of the historical and archaelogical significance of Babylon, recent allegations of damage to the site during its occupation as a military camp are particularly serious.   Since 1935, Bablyon has been listed as an archaeological site. In 2003, the US invaded and the Iraq War started, the Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar museums were looted ("Fortunately, the objects in the two museums were plaster replicas rather than the origianls").  April 21, 2003, the US military created Camp Alpha -- a US base that continued through December 22, 2004 during which time the US military and contractors such as KBR "directly caused major damage to the city by digging, cutting, scraping, and leveling." Nine trenches and two pits were dug including on areas that had not been excavated. This was true of cuts, scrapings and leveling efforts by the US military and contractors as well. In addition the report notes:   The Ishtar Gate serves as a ritual gate leading into the northern part of the inner city.  The damage to the gate includes smashed bricks on nine of the bodies of the animals adorning the gate.  These animals depcit the legendary dragon-snake, the symbol of Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon.  [. . .] Major damage can be observed in the southern part of the Proecessional Way, which was rediscovered during the Babylon Revival Project excavations in 1979.  Starting from the Nabu-sha-Hare Temple, the effects of heavy vehicle wheels are clear, breaking the paving of the street.  Three rows of 2-ton concrete blocks were placed in the middle of the Processional Way on top the paving by heavy vehicles, which is itself an encroachment.  These blocks were removed by helicopter on November 29, 2004 to prevent further damage to the Processional Way.  In addition, a row of HESCO containers with soil taken from the eastern wall of the sacred precinct were placed on the way, and barbed wire was attached by steel stakes to the wall itself and in the middle of Processional Way.  There is also a cut in the wall itself with a length of 2.5 m, a depth of 50 cm, and a height of 1.5 m.   UNESCO's director of the Office for Iraq Moahmed Djelid states, "In view of Babylong's historical and archaeological significance, recent allegations of damage to the site during its military use were particularly serious.  The report is key because it establishes a description of damages on which there is international agreement.  Without pointing fingers, we now have a clear picture of the situation.  It provides the starting-point for the major challenge of restoration and conservation."   In related news, CBC reports nearly seventy stolen Iraqi artificats were recovered and returned by the Dutch government.  Mike Corder (AP) adds, "Dutch Education, Culture and Science Minister Ronald Plasterk said the ancient artifacts were surrendered by Dutch art traders after police informed them they were stolen. U.S. customs authorities and Interpol had alerted Dutch officials that the items were being sold here."    In other diplomatic news, five Iranian diplomats were rounded up by US forces in Iraq in January of 2007 and have been held ever since in indefinite detention/imprisonment. BBC News reports they have been released.  Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) goes with the number four (four diplomats) and reports they were not released to Tehran but to Iraqi officials and then they met with Nouri al-Maliki. Philippe Naughton (Times of London) quotes Hassan Ghashghavi, spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, stating, "They called their families from there.  They are in good health. They will be handed over to our embassy within hours.  They were innocent and arrested against all international regulations under the Vienna convention."  They are: Mohsen Bagheri, Majid Dagheri, Mahmoud Farhadi, Majid Ghami and Abbas Jami.  Liz Sly and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) quote Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, stating the five are "happy and safe."  At the US State Dept today, spokesperon Ian Kelly continued the pattern of the Bush administration by insisting they were not diplomats, stating they were connected to Iranian paramilitary forces (Iranian Revolutionary Guard) and declaring that, along with turning the five over to the Iraqi government, they passed on "our concerns".  Kelly stated the hand-off took place after Iraq requested it and that it went "to our obligations under the US - Iraq Security Agreement."   Yesterday's snapshot included: " Alsumaria reports that despite claims that a vote on Kirkuk might be able to take place before the elections now scheduled for January, no suche elections will be happening.  AP adds, 'On Wednesday, Iraqi officials said the Kurdish-run north of the country could not vote this month on a draft constitution, a document perceived by Iraqi Arabs as an effort to expand Kurdish authority at the expense of the central government'."  The most recent [PDF format warning] US State Dept status report on Iraq (July 1st) explained that the constitution passed the Kurdish Parliament June 24th with 96 members voting for it and that the members of the Iraqi Parliament immediately objected to the planned July 25th vote (same time the KRG holds their elections) and to the Constitution itself.  Gina Chon (Wall St. Journal) interviews Nouri al-Maliki and quotes him stating the KRG is guilty of "provocations" and then declaring, "I am struggling for the unity of Iraq, and Iraq cannot be divided into two."  Chon doesn't note it, but that is a "provocation" from Nouri because the KRG already considers itself independent of the central government in Baghdad.  Chon reveals that US forces are currently sending drones all over Kurdistan in an attempt to spy (she doesn't use the word "spy") on the region and how Iraqi and Kurdish forces interact.  Chon quotes al-Maliki on the non-progress between the KRG and the central government in Baghdad stating, "We are upset, but we are not worried because there is a constitution and we can tell (the KRG) they are violating it."  Again, that's a "provocation."  The KRG does not feel they are violating it with regards to land disputes or anything else.  In terms of the oil rich Kirkuk, the KRG isn't violating anything because the Constitution said that an election was to take place to determine Kirkuk's fate.  That's 2005.  It's now 2009.  The election has never taken place and al-Maliki just this week refused to allow it again.  Who is violating the Constitution of Iraq?   And who's played the Quiet Game?  As noted last week, former US House Rep and 2008 US presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney was imprisoned by the Israeli government.  Margaret Kimberly (Black Agenda Report) notes what some focused on while ignoring McKinney:   While Cynthia McKinney languished in an Israeli jail, black leaders mobilized to say and do absolutely nothing. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were busy advising Michael Jackson's family, too busy apparently to deal with any other issues. Perhaps that explains their silence on the subject of McKinney and Maguire. McKinney's former colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus must have also been similarly occupied. They too went out of their way to say and do nothing about the illegal and immoral treatment of someone they should have defended very publicly.            The silence from the corporate media is, sadly, not at all surprising. The complete surrender of black American leadership is also sad and also not surprising, but is nonetheless disgraceful, and should not pass without comment. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first victims of the corporate takeover of the Congressional Black Caucus. She was targeted for defeat in 2002 by Zionists and other powerful forces determined to get rid of one of the few truly progressive members of congress.           The silence from the corporate media is, sadly, not at all surprising. The complete surrender of black American leadership is also sad and also not surprising, but is nonetheless disgraceful, and should not pass without comment. Cynthia McKinney was one of the first victims of the corporate takeover of the Congressional Black Caucus. She was targeted for defeat in 2002 by Zionists and other powerful forces determined to get rid of one of the few truly progressive members of congress.                 The black caucus could have responded in any number of ways to prevent falling prey to McKinney's fate. They might have insured electoral success by mobilizing their supporters, resurrecting movement politics and exposing the forces who would seek to undermine popular will. Instead they chose to capitulate, to go along to get along. They decided not to put up a fight for themselves or for their constituents, who were left without the representation they thought they were getting when they made their choices on Election Day.                      As always, the result of capitulation is more capitulation, and it now spreads beyond the hallowed halls of Congress. The only national action requested by the president of the National Action Network, was a demand for a Michael Jackson postage stamp and a national day of mourning.    Back in the US now, Cynthia McKinney appeared on Democracy Now! yesterday:   CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, clearly, we just had a visit to Gaza by President Carter, Former President Carter. Basically, he acknowledged that with the complete and utter devastation that the people of Gaza experienced at the hands of weapons that were supplied to Israel by the United States, he said that unfortunately the Palestinians are treated worse than human beings. I challenge the Israelis to respond to what President Carter had to say.   AMY GOODMAN: Former Congress member McKinney, tell us about the jail. Were you able to reach the Obama administration while you were there?   CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, the jail was very interesting. In fact, the first most interesting thing I witnessed was the seemingly endless stream of people of color who are being processed as we were being processed. And on my cell block, there were women from Africa and Asia who thought they were going to Israel because Israel was the Holy Land. And many of them, not all of them, but many of them had United Nations refugee status. They have been certified by UNHCR as refugees, but what they were told as they faced the threats and intimidation from the police is that the United Nations is not in Israel.   [. . .]   AMY GOODMAN: Former Congress member McKinney, we only have ten seconds. But, you've just been deported. What are your plans right now?   CYNTHIA McKINNEY: Well, I would like to see the children of Gaza have the coloring books and crayons that we had on board with us. I would like to see the houses that have been destroyed rebuilt. I would like to see the lives rebuilt for the people of Gaza and I would like to see the people of Palestine have, and enjoy their human rights.   AMY GOODMAN: Do you think president Obama is headed in that direction?   CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I think you can probably answer that as well as we can, because while we were in detention, the Foreign Ministry of Ireland made protests and asked the government of Israel to release its nationals, several Members of Parliament --   AMY GOODMAN: We have 5 seconds.     CYNTHIA McKINNEY: from the United Kingdom --   AMY GOODMAN:  -- 5 seconds --   CYNTHIA McKINNEY: -- also wanted to censure Israel. Nothing from the United States.     Turning to the world of JUNK SCIENCE. Thomas E. Ricks is a journalist.  He forgets that a lot lately.  He forgets it in blog posts where he writes about "we" when referring to the US military, for example.  He forgets it today with one of the dumbest and most disgusting things he could do -- and, yes, I am aware of his highly unprofessional tendency to post cheesecake photos which is surely the middle aged male blogger equivalent of purchasing a sports car.  Thomas E. Ricks is a journalist.  He's not a doctor.  He's not trained in helping anyone.  His training is supposed to be in ferreting out information and attempting to determine whether information is reliable or not.  If so, he's supposed to promote it.  Today he promotes some unnamed marine's anger passed off as 'medical counseling.'  Unlike "Doctor" Thomas E. Ricks, I showed the crap he posted to medical professionals who work with veterans.  The consensus?  The unnamed marine has a problem with what he sees as 'weakness' (any illness) and Thomas E. Ricks didn't even grasp that or what he posted.  After including the lay 'diagnosis,' Tom's babbling about this and that but the guy's already argued -- telling Tom to ask Nate Flick -- that "it should mean he's cured, not that it's always just around the corner".  There's not a cure.  If Thomas E. Ricks had offered the same nonsense on the topic of alcoholism, he'd be the joke of the net today but because there's such a strong desire in this culture to deny sickness, crap like this will be embraced.  PTSD is a diagnosis.  Neither Thomas E. Ricks nor his unnamed marine are experts on science or even the diagnosis they claim to be weighing in on.  Sometimes people just makes asses out of themselves and today it's Thomas Ricks and his unnamed friend.  And shame on him, at a time when veterans' health care is so woefullly underfunded, for promoting the notion that an illness that can be treated but not cured is 'curable' and apparently the fault of the person with PTSD.  And question for Thomas E. Ricks, should the marine kill himself or someone else while Ricks is alive, how much blame will Tom grab?  He should have a huge portion of it because he's encouraged the marine's delusion that he's 'cured'.  Lastly, what kind of an ass prints a medical 'diagnosis' that calls the mind a "bone"?  What kind of a journalist endorses that?  Tom, I know you can't do math for s**t but are you telling me you failed science as well?  The brain's an organ.  Not a bone.  If I recorded a workout video tomorrow, I'd have to include a heads up at the start that people should check with their doctors first but Tom is so sure of himself and he's buddy that he fails to do even that.  It's irresponsible.  Ethically and journalistically.  We may return to this topic tonight.  I've still got calls coming in from people who work with PTSD patients and it's not pretty.  Again, it was irresponsible for Thomas E. Ricks to pimp that Quack Science -- ethically irresponsible and journalistically irresponsible.  As dumb decisions go, it ranks alongside the refusal to allow Dr. David Orgen to testify at Trevor Loope's mental assessment hearing at Fort Drum.  Next up for Thomas E. Ricks: Restoring missing limbs via leeches.   Finally, in snapshot yesterday we noted the Voices of Honor press conference.  The press conference didn't receive the attention it deserved so we'll note US House Rep Patrick Murphy's remarks again and some of the press it did receive. US House Rep Patrick Murphy: My name is Patrick Murphy, I'm a Democrat from the eighth district of Pennsylvania which is Bucks County and far north east Philadelphia. I am now a United States Congressman in my second term but prior to that I was in the military since 1993. I rose up to through the ranks to become a professor at West Point. And then when 9-11 happened, I served on two deployments. My first one with General [David] Petraeus and my second one as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad from 2003 to 2004. That's why every day I wear the 82nd Airborne pin on my lapel, I don't wear the Congressional pin because 19 of my fellow paratroopers never made it home. I am proud to be the lead sponsor today of the Military Enhancement Readiness Act -- a bill that will finally repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and are stretched dangerously thin. These men and women in our military understand what it takes to serve our country and the values that our military and our nation hold dear. They take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when it took effect in 1993 has discharged over 13,000 troops -- honorable men and women. That is the equivalent of three and a half combat brigades. They have been discharged not for any type of sexual misconduct but because of their sexual orientation. The policy is not working for armed services and it hurts national security. Attitudes on Don't Ask, Don't Tell have changed -- have changed in our military and have changed in the public at large. Up to 75% of Americans support repeal and the number is even higher in the age bracket of those we are recruiting from 18 years of age to 29. Former senior military leaders agree that it is time to re-evaluate and to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Opponents of lifting the ban arguing that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will be detremental to unit cohesion and morale. As a former Army officers and West Point professor, that is an insult to me and to all the troops serving in uniform. In Iraq, my men did not care what race, color, creed or sexual orientation their fellow paratroopers were. They cared, whether they could get the job done. We cared about serving with honor and coming home alive. Over 20 nations, include our two strongest allies, Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly without any determental impact on unit cohesion or morale. Believe me, our heroes serving in the US military are the best fighting forces in the entire world. We are second to none. And we are just as good as those who serve in Great Britain and Israel. Our president, President Barack Obama, has stated that if Congress will get a bill to his desk repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he will sign it into law. It is now our job, and my job specifically, to quarterback this through the Congress of the United States to do just that. I cannot tell you today how long it is going to take. All I can tell you is that paratroopers don't quit and paratroopers get the job done. To remove honorable, talented and committed Americans from serving in our military is contrary to the values that our military life holds dear. My time in Iraq and at West Point teaching the next generation of military leaders taught me that our military deserves and expects the best and the brightest that are willing to serve. I stand here today with these honorable and noble veterans. Together we will continue the fight to make our nation and our military stronger. The Voices of Honor website has posted videos from the press conference. Those who are better served by or prefer audio can refer to Free Speech Radio News yesterday (click here for the segment reported by Matt Pearson). Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports, "The event was a kickoff to the 'Voices Of Honor' national tour sponsored by gay rights groups the Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers United that features members of the military who oppose the Clinton-era compromise that allows gays to serve only if they keep their sexuality a secret. Murphy's office also helped set up a Web site called www.letthemserve.com." Elida S. Perez (Scripps Howard News Service) notes several speakers at the event and we'll excerpt this section: Alex Nicholson, a former U.S. Army human intelligence collector and founder of Servicemembers United was discharged from the military six months after Sept. 11, 2001 when his commanders found out he was gay. "This is the cost of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell: a multilingual human intelligence collector who speaks Arabic and has an advanced degree," Nicholson said, adding that despite everything, he would go back into the military if the law was repealed. Josh Drobnyk covers the conference here for The Morning Call.  Amanda Ruggeri (US News & World Reports) covered it,  Kat covers it at her site and the other NPC event we attended yesterday -- Mullen's speech, Bob Roehr (Windy City Times) covers the issue and Kilian Melloy covers it for Boston's Edge and notes:   One officer, Lt. Dan Choi, who recently was subjected to a recommendation of discharge for publicly declaring his homosexuality, told readers in an email circulated by The Courage Campaign, "At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday.     "It taught me to 'choose the harder right over the easier wrong' and to 'never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.'"   Stan noted Dan Choi's e-mail July 2nd and we'll include it in full:   Dear friend --              I've got some bad news. After 10 years of service to our country--including leading combat patrols, rebuilding schools and translating Arabic in Iraq for 15 months--the Federal Recognition Board issued its recommendation on Tuesday that I be discharged from the Army for "moral and professional dereliction" under the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. The board's decision to fire me is not the end.          Now that this panel of four officers has recommended my discharge, it still must be approved by senior officials in the Army, a process that could take a few weeks to a year. Unless something unexpected happens, it may be just a matter of time before the Army officially fires me. I will not give up, no matter the odds. Because I know that the only way we will win this fight to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is by facing it head on. And I need your help again to keep up the fight. I've made my case to President Obama--supported by more than 140,000 of your signatures. I've made my case to the Army--supported by more than 160,000 of your signatures. And I will continue to make my case until they fire me for good. Now we need to make our case to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Will you join me in asking Speaker Pelosi to strongly support legislation currently in Congress that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?                 Please sign on to our letter before July 4th and I'll personally deliver your signatures to the Speaker ASAP.At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught me to "choose the harder right over the easier wrong" and to "never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won." The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.          That's why I can't give up now. I've got to keep fighting. My fellow    servicemembers--and the 70 fellow West Point graduates who have also come out of the closet to join Knights Out, the organization I co-founded to push for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--would expect nothing less.            The only way we can win this fight for the truth is if the political cost of discrimination eventually becomes too great for the system to operate successfully. We need to raise the political cost in Congress so that Speaker Nancy Pelosi understands that, as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said, "justice too long delayed is justice denied."          Speaker Pelosi needs to make "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a priority now and come out strongly in support of legislative action to repeal this discriminatory law. Will you stand by my side now and sign our letter to the Speaker before July 4th? You have my word that I will deliver your signatures to Speaker Pelosi personally.     As I said a few days ago, national security means many things, but the thing that makes us secure in our nation and homes is love. What makes me a better soldier, leader, Christian and human being is love. And I'm not going to hide my love. Love is worth it.       Thank you for your support.                     Daniel W. Choi 1LT, IN                       New York Army National Guard                            P.S. You can also help by joining the Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell Cause and inviting your friends.                                   iraq mcclatchy newspapers mike tharp the washington post nada bakri the los angeles times ned parker usama redha bbc news the new york times timothy williams caroline alexander bloomberg news sahar issa laith hammoudi liz sly cnn gina chon the wall street journal margaret kimberley democracy now amy goodman  cbs news brian montopoli elida s. perez free speech radio news matt pearson josh drobnyk amanda ruggeri bob roehr kilian melloy

US military announces another death, violence sweeps Iraq

Today the US military announced: "BAGHDAD – A Multi-National Division–Baghdad Soldier died July 8 after being found unresponsive at a Coalition forces facility. The Soldier's name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. The names of deceased service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense Official Web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/ . The announcements are made on the Web site 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 and cause of death are currently under investigation." It's the first US service member announced death in Iraq for the month and it brings the total number of US service members killed in the illegal war to 4322.

Yesterday's snapshot notes the increased violence in Iraq but in this morning's papers, it's either ignored or treated aside. Too bad for them, reality always bites them in the ass and makes them look like fools. Translation, violence so far today in Iraq, today, is in the news cycle. Nada Bakri offers "Bombings Kill Dozens in Iraq" (Washington Post) about the two suicide bombers in Tal Afar who have claimed the lives of at least 34 people with an additional seventy injured. Bakri explains:

The head of Tal Afar hospital, Salih Kaddaw, said that the first suicide bomber blew himself up near the residence of a policeman in the anti-terrorism force, in an attempt to kill him. The attack took place in the northern Shiite neighborhood of al-Qala. When people gathered to help the injured, the second bomber detonated his explosives, furthering the bloodshed.

Ned Parker and Usama Redha offer "Double suicide bomb attack in northern Iraq kills at least 34, wounds 70" (Los Angeles Times) which explains bomber one detonated outside the home of a police officer and a crowd gathered, at which point, bomber two detonated. BBC has a photo essay of the destruction here. Jamal al-Badrani (Reuters) explains that there are least 41 deaths from bombings in Iraq today.

In this morning's New York Times, Timothy Williams' "Nebulous Sunni Insurgent Urges Attacks" runs inside the paper. It notes yesterday's Mosul car bombings in the final paragraph and focuses on the announcement issued by the Islamic State of Iraq instead. CNN notes "at least 19 people" died yesterday in bombings throughout Iraq with fifty-eight injured and they point out, "Despite a drop in violence in Mousl, the city remains a challenging one with daily reports of attacks." The Salem-News notes a statement by the Muslim Brotherhood and here's an excerpt:



Each day passes revealing a number of facts and proving beyond doubt, the invalidity of the allegations of the U.S-Western coalition justified by the invasion of Iraq. They did not apologize for their shameful crimes against humanity.
The Muslim Brotherhood regarded the withdrawal as a mere deployment of the occupation forces assuming that the independence of Iraq will only be accomplished by the withdrawal of the last soldier of the foreign occupation from the Arab Muslim country.
The Muslim Brotherhood calls for the people of Iraq to completely document the magnitude of the devastation caused by the occupation without prejudice as well as recording the numbers of dead, wounded and displaced by the destruction of the United States war machine. This documentation must materially be evaluated on all the countries that participated in the aggression demanded by the international forums and should be registered as a right of Iraqis not a grant or gift.
The Muslim Brotherhood also demands the prosecution of Bush and his administration and all those who contributed in war crimes and genocide committed against humanity and against Iraqi people before international tribunals.
The Muslim Brotherhood calls on Iraqis to uphold with the national unity, stating they should regard Iraqi blood as a red line that cannot be crossed, while maintaining fre noble resistance against the occupation and the continuation in adhering to the political struggle against the injustices committed against the sons of Mesopotamia such as detention, torture and displacement. Iraqis can administer and take charge of their affairs rather than the mercenary troops interfering in Iraqi affairs (And Allah hath full power and control over His affairs; but most among mankind know it not).

Turning to indefinite detention/imprisonment, five Iranians, said to be diplomats by Iran, were rounded up by US forces in Iraq in January of 2007 and have been held ever since. BBC News reports they have been released.

From World Can't Wait, we'll note this press release for Displaced Films:

This year, people will be able to be part of a historic new web-only series that features a behind-the-scenes look at "boots on the ground" testimony from American soldiers and veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am aware the font and size is all off on that. I have no idea why. We'll leave it as is and hope that it catches the eye for a worthy project. Correction, it posts semi-fine. In this screen, however, the letters to the above press release are three times the size of anything else.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
the washington post
nada bakri
the los angeles times
ned parker
usama redha
bbc news
the new york times
timothy williams
cnn
salem-news
world cant wait
sir no sir

Voices of Honor

Rep. Patrick Murphy has two pieces of advice for his fellow congressmen: Do what's right, not just what's political. Oh, and don't cross him. The Pennsylvania Democrat is currently trying to whip up support for H.R. 1283, which would repeal "don't ask, don't tell," and he's working hard on getting the 218 votes it'll need to pass the House. One of the problems he might run into is the backlash back home. "I'm a congressman, but I have some criticisms about Congress. And I think some folks in Congress are afraid of keeping their own seats, and that's affecting the change that we all know needs to happen in our country," says Murphy. He ought to know. Murphy won his seat by just 1,521 votes in 2006. "This is something I don't take lightly, neither," he said, but he's going ahead with pushing for an end to "don't ask" because "we need congressmen and congresswomen and legislators to stand by the courage of their conviction and not worry about the political cycle or when the election is."

That's the opening to Amanda Ruggeri's "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Foe Patrick Murphy Turns Up the Heat" (US News & World Reports) and that's from the press conference yesterday, noted in the snapshot. What's interesting is that press conference had a huge number of reporters attending. Many such events at the National Press Club aren't attended unless food is served. But there was a huge turnout and where are the reports. (Kat covers it at her site and the other NPC event we attended yesterday -- Mullen's speech). We'll note this from Bob Roehr's "Murphy to Lead Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; National Tour Launched for Repeal" (Windy City Times):


The baby-faced Murphy, seemingly not long removed from his altar boy past, served in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne Division and taught constitutional law at West Point. He aggressively took on supporters of DADT at a congressional hearing last year and showed a firm determination to repeal the policy as soon as possible.
[. . .]
Murphy said Congress passed DADT and it is their responsibility to repeal it. He was encouraged by the fact that House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton ( D-Missouri ) recently committed to holding a full committee hearing on repeal later this year. The earlier hearing had been in a subcommittee.
He said when many of his colleagues come to realize that it costs about $60,000 to recruit and put a single soldier through basic training, then they start to see the policy in a different light. Many have told him that while they will not join as one of the current 151 cosponsors, they will vote for repeal.

We'll drop back to the snapshot yesterday to note Murphy's remarks in full:

US House Rep Patrick Murphy: My name is Patrick Murphy, I'm a Democrat from the eighth district of Pennsylvania which is Bucks County and far north east Philadelphia. I am now a United States Congressman in my second term but prior to that I was in the military since 1993. I rose up to through the ranks to become a professor at West Point. And then when 9-11 happened, I served on two deployments. My first one with General [David] Petraeus and my second one as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad from 2003 to 2004. That's why every day I wear the 82nd Airborne pin on my lapel, I don't wear the Congressional pin because 19 of my fellow paratroopers never made it home. I am proud to be the lead sponsor today of the Military Enhancement Readiness Act -- a bill that will finally repeal the discriminatory Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and are stretched dangerously thin. These men and women in our military understand what it takes to serve our country and the values that our military and our nation hold dear. They take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy when it took effect in 1993 has discharged over 13,000 troops -- honorable men and women. That is the equivalent of three and a half combat brigades. They have been discharged not for any type of sexual misconduct but because of their sexual orientation. The policy is not working for armed services and it hurts national security. Attitudes on Don't Ask, Don't Tell have changed -- have changed in our military and have changed in the public at large. Up to 75% of Americans support repeal and the number is even higher in the age bracket of those we are recruiting from 18 years of age to 29. Former senior military leaders agree that it is time to re-evaluate and to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Opponents of lifting the ban arguing that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly will be detremental to unit cohesion and morale. As a former Army officers and West Point professor, that is an insult to me and to all the troops serving in uniform. In Iraq, my men did not care what race, color, creed or sexual orientation their fellow paratroopers were. They cared, whether they could get the job done. We cared about serving with honor and coming home alive. Over 20 nations, include our two strongest allies, Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly without any determental impact on unit cohesion or morale. Believe me, our heroes serving in the US military are the best fighting forces in the entire world. We are second to none. And we are just as good as those who serve in Great Britain and Israel. Our president, President Barack Obama, has stated that if Congress will get a bill to his desk repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, he will sign it into law. It is now our job, and my job specifically, to quarterback this through the Congress of the United States to do just that. I cannot tell you today how long it is going to take. All I can tell you is that paratroopers don't quit and paratroopers get the job done. To remove honorable, talented and committed Americans from serving in our military is contrary to the values that our military life holds dear. My time in Iraq and at West Point teaching the next generation of military leaders taught me that our military deserves and expects the best and the brightest that are willing to serve. I stand here today with these honorable and noble veterans. Together we will continue the fight to make our nation and our military stronger.


We linked to "Rep. Patrick Murphy, Veterans Announce Efforts to Repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" from Murphy's office yesterday and we'll note it in full this morning:

Congressman Takes Lead on H.R. 1283, Military Readiness Enhancement Act, to Overturn Policy
(Washington, DC) -- Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA, 8th District) today joined veterans and policy advocates to announce taking the lead on H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, the Congressional effort to overturn the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at a National Press Club "Newsmakers" event. The law, passed by Congress in 1993, prohibits gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals from serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces. The MREA would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which compromises national security and military readiness at a time when the U.S. is engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rep. Murphy was joined at the event by gay, lesbian and straight veterans, including Eric Alva, the first veteran wounded in the Iraq War, Genevieve Chase, a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom and the founder and executive director of American Women Veterans, Jarrod Chlapowski, a former U.S. Army Korean linguist who opted to not re-enlist because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Joan Darrah, a Navy captain and intelligence officer, and Alex Nicholson, a U.S. Army veteran fluent in Arabic discharged under DADT. Congressman Murphy was also joined at the event by advocates from the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Servicemembers United. This week, HRC and Servicemembers United will begin a national tour to highlight how "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" compromises national security and hurts military readiness.
"'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' clearly isn't working for our military, and it hinders national security and military readiness at a time when America is fighting in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Congressman Patrick Murphy. "My time in Iraq taught me that our military needs and deserves the best and the brightest who are willing to serve- and that means all Americans, regardless of their orientation. Discharging brave and talented servicemembers from our armed forces is contrary to the values that our military fights for and that our nation holds dear."
"We are very fortunate to have Rep. Murphy as the new lead on H.R. 1283," said Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "He brings his unique expertise as an Iraq veteran, his commitment to ending discrimination, and a passion for ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' This change in leadership should be a catalyst to re-dedicate our efforts to get 218 cosponsors so we can pass the bill."
"We applaud Rep. Murphy, a veteran of the Iraq war, for his leadership on repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and his willingness to take on the fight for the LGBT community and our country’s national security," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Rep. Murphy's background as a war veteran makes him uniquely qualified to help lead this effort and work with the Administration to repeal this law. We look forward to ensuring that our military can recruit and retain the best and the brightest troops regardless of their sexual orientation. As this tour will highlight, poll after poll continues to show the vast majority of Americans, including the majority of active service members, support the right of gay and lesbian service members to serve openly and honestly."
Enacted in 1993, over 13,000 men and women in uniform have been discharged from the military under the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", including 800 mission critical servicemembers such as medics, fighter pilots, and nearly 60 Arabic linguists. H.R. 1283, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, would repeal the policy and allow Americans to serve their country openly, regardless of sexual orientation.

Yesterday's press conference also featured Voices of Honor which is a partnership between the Human Rights Campaign and the Servicemembers United. And the Voices of Honor website has posted videos from the press conference. Those who are better served by or prefer audio can refer to Free Speech Radio News yesterday (click here for the segment reported by Matt Pearson).

The photo at the top is from Voices of Honor and we'll note two more speakers from yesterday using photos to put a face to the speaker. This is from my notes during the press conference and the video for at least one, Joan Darrah, should be longer than the comments below. I started taking notes with Darrah when she was speaking about her own involvement (we just summarized her words of praise for US House Rep Murphy).



Joan Darrah: When I first joined the Navy, I didn't realize I was gay. By the time I figured it out, I had about 10-plus years of service. Based on my promotion record and fitness reports it was clear to me that the Navy felt that I was making a difference so I opted to stay. Now that I am retired and out from under Don't Ask, Don't Tell I realize how incredibly stressful and frankfully just plain wrong it is to have to serve in silence. Each day I went to work wondering if that would be the day of my last service. Whenever the admiral would call me to his office 99.9% of me would be certain it was to discuss an operational issue but there was always a small part of me that feared the admiral was calling me into his office to tell me that I had been outed, that I was fired and that my career was over. On September 11th, I was at the Pentagon attending the weekly intelligence briefing when American flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon, I was at the Pentagon bus stop. The office I had been in seven minutes earlier was completely destroyed and seven of my co-workers were killed. The reality is if I had been killed, my partner would have been the last to know because her name was nowhere in my records and I certainly hadn't dared to list her in my emergency contact information. It was the events of September 11th that made me realize that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was taking a much bigger toll than I had ever admitted. On 1 June, 2002, a year earlier than originally planned, I retired. I am incredibly proud of our military and our country. And I know that we will be stronger once Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed. More than 26 countries have already figured this out and now allow gay people to serve openly. What we need now is for Congress to act and they must act now. Every day the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is delayed, more highly qualified, motivated, valuable service members are discharged simply for being gay. Our great country can do better than this.




Eric Alva: Six years ago on March 21, 2003 I was part of a logistical convoy with 3rd Batallion 7th Marines. My unit was part of the first wave of ground troops that entered the country of Iraq from Kuwait to start the ground invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I had been in Iraq no more than three hours when I stepped on a landmine near the city of Basra wuffering life threatening injuries. I had a broken left leg, a broken right arm with severe nerve damage and a badly injured right leg that doctors had to ampute it in order to save my life. I had become the first American injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was not until February 28, 2007 that I announced not only to the people of the United States but to the rest of the world that the first American injured in Operation Iraqi Freedom was a gay marine. I decided to be true to myself and my country by coming forward and announcing who I am. My coming forward was to tell the people of this country that as a patriotic American when I went to fight the war on terrorism it was for the rights and freedoms of every single person in this country not just selected individuals. That means every single individual regardless of who they are. I stand here today on two good legs again with my fellow service members and a courageous Congress member Patrick Murphy to show my support for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. It is time to let people be judged for their merit, professionalism and their leadership. This is a time when we should not be firing anyone from their job in the United States Armed Forces for being gay.

Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports, "The event was a kickoff to the 'Voices Of Honor' national tour sponsored by gay rights groups the Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers United that features members of the military who oppose the Clinton-era compromise that allows gays to serve only if they keep their sexuality a secret. Murphy's office also helped set up a Web site called www.letthemserve.com." Elida S. Perez (Scripps Howard News Service) notes several speakers at the event and we'll excerpt this section:

Alex Nicholson, a former U.S. Army human intelligence collector and founder of Servicemembers United was discharged from the military six months after Sept. 11, 2001 when his commanders found out he was gay.
"This is the cost of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell: a multilingual human intelligence collector who speaks Arabic and has an advanced degree," Nicholson said, adding that despite everything, he would go back into the military if the law was repealed.

Josh Drobnyk covers the conference here for The Morning Call.

The following community sites updated last night:

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  You don't know how lucky you are

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! BOMBING IN BIRSK!

  9 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  Action

  9 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Larry Jones and a film to skip

  9 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  gordo, gordo, anchor drag

  9 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Greenpeace, McNair, more

  9 hours ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  Hawaii

  9 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  October action

  9 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  SEIU corrupt and crooked

  9 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  International Socialist Review

  9 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  National Press Club

  9 hours ago

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
amanda ruggeri
bob roehr
cbs news
brian montopoli
elida s. perez
free speech radio news
matt pearson
josh drobnyk
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Iraq snapshot

The fallen

LANSING - Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today ordered United States flags throughout the state of Michigan and on Michigan waters lowered for one day on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, in honor of Staff Sgt. Timothy A. David of Gladwin, who died June 28 in Sadr City, Iraq, while on active duty supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. Flags should return to full-staff on Thursday, July 9.
Staff Sgt. David, age 28, died from injuries sustained earlier in Baghdad, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
This was Staff Sgt. David's 6th tour of duty, having previously served twice in Afghanistan and was completing his 4th tour of duty in Iraq. Funeral services will be held at Beaverton High School in Beaverton, Michigan, on Wednesday with burial in St. Andrews Cemetery in Saginaw. He was the son of Michael and Linda David of Beaverton.
Under Section 7 of Chapter 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code, 4 USC 7, Governor Granholm, in December 2003, issued a proclamation requiring United States flags lowered to half-staff throughout the state of Michigan and on Michigan waters to honor Michigan servicemen and servicewomen killed in the line of duty. Procedures for flag lowering were detailed by Governor Granholm in Executive Order 2006-10 and included in federal law under the Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-41).
When flown at half-staff or half-mast, the United States flag should be hoisted first to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff or half-mast position. The flag should again be raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day.
When a member of the armed services from Michigan is killed in action, the governor will issue a press release with information about the individual(s) and the day that has been designated for flags to be lowered in his or her honor. The information will also be posted on Governor Granholm's Website at www.michigan.gov/gov in the section titled "Spotlight."

The above is "Flags to be Flown Half-Staff Wednesday for Staff Sgt. Timothy A. David of Gladwin," issued by the Office of (Michigan) Governor Jennifer Granholm. Timothy David was on his fourth tour of duty in Iraq (he'd also served two tours in Afghanistan). The Defense Dept noted last month, "Staff Sgt. Timothy A. David, 28, of Gladwin, Mich., died June 28 in Sadr City, Iraq, of wounds suffered earlier in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas." Edward Kramer, Roger Adams, Juan Baldeosingh and Robert Bittiker were killed in Iraq last week. Kramer is the subject of the Wilmington Star News' "Editorial: Sgt. 1st Class Kramer put service first:"


Kramer, 39, of Wilmington, will be counted among 15 N.C. National Guard members killed since 9/11. He and three other guardsmen were killed in Baghdad on the day that U.S. combat forces were turning over security of Iraqi cities to the Iraqi military.
The day marked a turning point in the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and was a date anticipated by many Americans who either felt that the war was unjustified or that it had accomplished as much as it could. Much of the conflict in Iraq cannot be solved by outside forces, but only by the Iraqi people.
Yet the deaths of Kramer, Spc. Robert L. Bittiker and Sgt. Roger L. Adams Jr., both of Jacksonville, and Juan C. Baldeosingh of Newport are a grim reminder of the dangers that still face our remaining troops in Iraq, and for forces in or headed for Afghanistan.
Kramer leaves behind a wife and two daughters who may be too young to understand the political complexities that lead nations to go to war. They are grieving the loss of their father, whose love no doubt meant more to them than any professional role he played. But they will grow up knowing that their dad gave his life doing a job he felt called to do, in service of his country.

The Raleigh News & Observer editorializes on the deaths in "Four of the brave:"

A war that is said to be "winding down" isn't winding down at all for those who remain in the middle of it. The N.C. Guard knows that well. It has lost 15 troops there since the Iraq war began in 2003. A strong military presence in North Carolina, with multiple bases, brings pride to the state, and in times of war, a keen and painful shared sense of what it takes to fight. (In 2004, the 30th was the first major National Guard unit in the country to be sent to Iraq. It lost five soldiers on that tour. And just this past May, three died because of a suicide bomber.)
For the families of those in action, and all who know them and all who admire them, a war is not gauged merely by victory. It is about wives and children left behind, about all the good times shared, and all those that will never be shared.

Laura Phelps (WNCT) notes that Edward Kramer's funeral is tomorrow, ten in the morning "at St. Mark Catholic Church in Wilmington." Meanwhile Michael Winter (USA Today) notes that Sgt Joseph Bozicevich "stands accused of shooting Staff Sgt. Darris Dawson and Sgt. Wesley Durbin". AP explains he's to be court-martialed. WTOC explains, "After hearing testimony from witnesses, Maj. Gen. Tony Cuculo made the decision to send Sgt. Joseph Bozicevich to general court martial." AP reveals no date has yet been announced for the court-martial. In September of 2008, Cal Perry (CNN) reported:


Darryl Mathis waits in his Pensacola, Florida, home for the body of his 24-year-old son to return home from Iraq. Mathis, a military veteran himself, was seething with anger Thursday as he spoke about the death of Army Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson.
Dawson and Sgt. Wesley Durbin, 26, are said to have been shot and killed by another U.S. soldier on Sunday at a base south of Baghdad.
Darryl and his wife, Maxine (Dawson's stepmother), say the military has told them nothing about the incident: no details on his death, no information at all.
His voice shakes as he says he believes that the military has let him down.
"I'm very disappointed -- very," he said. "If I would get a straight answer, if they would actually tell me what's going on, I would have something to work on; but right now, I have nothing to work on. Everything I'm getting, I'm getting from the media."

Also in September 2008, Gina Cavallaro (Army Times) reported:

The incident took place at a joint security station in Jurf as Sakhr, a town about 15 miles southwest of Baghdad on the Euphrates River, where soldiers with A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, were on duty.
The two soldiers killed were identified as Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson, 24, of Pensacola, Fla., a squad leader, and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin, 26, of Hurst, Texas, a fellow team leader.
The soldier who allegedly shot them was in Dawson's squad. The Army refused to identify him pending the filing of charges.
"As best we can determine at this time, the staff sergeant and sergeant went in to talk to the individual, whose performance was lacking. As the counseling session developed, that's when the shooting happened," division Chief of Staff Col. Terry Ferrell told Army Times on Sept. 19.

Tessa Savoy (NBC15 -- link has text and video) reported on Darris Dawson's funeral service and noted that he was known as "Smoke" by those he played basketball with ("because he was unbeatable") and those he served with. Joe Simnacher (Dallas Morning News) reported last year on Wesley Durbin:

He joined the Marines in June 2001, when he was 18 years old, shortly after graduating from Lutheran High School in Dallas. The honor student turned down a $5,000 academic scholarship that could have been repeated for up to five years at Concordia University in Nebraska. Instead, he chose to serve his country.
[. . .]
"He decided he was a soldier all around, so he went back into the Army," said his wife, Brandi Durbin of Springfield, Ga. "He had wanted to go into the Army and see if it was the same experience for him as the Marines.
"He wanted to take his expertise and give it where it needed to be given," Mrs. Durbin said.


Yesterday's snapshot covered the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing and Kat covered it at her site last night. The best witness was Retired Admiral John D. Hutson and we noted some of his remarks yesterday. His opening statement [PDF format warning] is now posted online by the committee and we'll note it in full:

I am the Dean and President of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. I served as a Judge
Advocate in the United States Navy from 1973‐2000 and as the Judge Advocate
General of the Navy from 1997‐2000. I am very aware of the honor and privilege of
testifying before this Committee on the matter of military commissions. I thank the Committee for this opportunity.
Even greater than democracy itself, the greatest export of all from the United States is Justice. Daniel Webster once said, "Justice, Sir, is the greatest interest of man on earth. It's the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together."
But Justice is fragile and easily disparaged. It must be nurtured and handled with
great care.
I was an early and ardent supporter of military commissions. Initially, I was drawn to their historical precedents and, more importantly, I was confident that the United States Armed Forces could and would conduct fair trials even of reprehensible defendants. My own experience gained during 28 years in the Navy and our long history of providing due process while trying our own military personnel in courtsmartial gave me this confidence.
Unfortunately, as it turned out, the commissions that were created did not live up to the traditions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Predictably, they became a significant distraction for the military. I hasten to add that this was in spite of the stalwart, honorable effort of many, many military personnel themselves. Indeed, that is one of the great tragedies of this saga, and largely makes one of the points that I wish to underline.
The primary role of the military is to fight and win our Nation's wars or, stated more precisely, to provide the time and space necessary for real solutions -- economic, cultural, social, religious -- to take place. Prosecution of miscreants is an occasionally necessary sidebar to that mission but shouldn’t distract from it. We have the UCMJ and the military court‐martial system to expedite the legitimate role of the military, not interfere with it.
If a sailor on a ship is alleged to have committed a crime, we must expeditiously and fairly resolve that problem. Otherwise, it can fester and interfere with unit cohesion and impede an effective fighting force. The UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial serve that purpose alone. They solve problems for the armed forces; not create them. Our recent history with military commissions has been the opposite. I've come to realize that even a perfect commission regime would be a distraction for the military. It's simply not part of its mission. I am very concerned when the military is called upon to perform functions outside of its core mission even when I'm confident that it can do it well. Preserving and ensuring justice in the United States is the primary mission of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense.
If there will be criticism of our prosecution of alleged terrorists—and there will
be -- the Department of Justice and the U. S. Federal Court system are equipped to
deal with that criticism. Indeed, it is part of their responsibility to face it, address it, and resolve it.
Notably, the criticism will come not only critics outside the judicial process such as the media, foreign allies and enemies, and domestic commentators but also from the legitimate appeal process. Some of the criticism may actually be justified or, at least, defensible. There is no reason in law or logic for the military to be the target of that.
Convictions from military commissions will be appealed until Dooms Day just
because of the forum of the conviction. Federal courts are impervious to that.
It is decidedly not the responsibility of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
military to deal with criticism of such prosecutions. It would, in fact, be detrimental to the military mission. There are valid and important reasons why our military is the most highly respected institution in America. One of them certainly is that the military limits itself to its mission and performs that mission very well. Taking on duties outside of that core mission on an ongoing basis will surely undermine the public's confidence in the military…and divert important resources, human and otherwise, from that mission in order to take on the new one.
We already have proof of this. Besides being a distraction to the vital mission of
DoD, military commissions have, to a large extent, become a discredit in spite of the valiant and highly credible efforts of many, many people in uniform. Rather than showcasing the military justice system of which we all are justifiably proud,
commissions represent something else entirely. They have not worked often or
well. "Fixing" them would help, but won't eliminate undeserved but inevitable
criticism.
On the other hand, during the same period, U.S. District Courts have successfully
prosecuted literally hundreds of terrorists who now reside in Federal prisons
around the country, keeping all Americans safer. Federal courts, including judges,
prosecutors, marshals, and other court personnel have decades of experience in
these cases. They have developed a justifiable and universally held reputation for
fairness, and consequently, they are largely immune to criticism.
There is also now a large body of law that has been developed over the years in the
Federal court system. It would take an equal number of cases and decades of trials
for DoD to match the Federal precedent contained in the Federal Reporters.
Military judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel rotate out of one assignment into another every three years or so. Without significant changes to longstanding DoD personnel policy, none of them will ever, ever gain the experience in these cases that is enjoyed by scores of their civilian federal counterparts. We could do that, we could change longstanding DoD personnel policy but again, if we did we would have the tail of terrorist prosecutions wagging the warfighting dog.
It is not only unnecessary, it is inappropriate for DoD to operate a system of justice in parallel to DoJ. The UCMJ and the courts‐martial it creates are absolutely necessary to ensure our effective fighting force. But for some of the same reasons that the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from enforcing laws against U.S. civilians, we should resist the temptation of using the military to prosecute foreign criminals when DoJ can perform that critical function quite well.
Let us not forget, these are not legitimate warfighters. They are common criminals.
They are thugs, cowards who target innocent civilians. We should treat them as
such and not elevate their status to that of legitimate enemies. They don’t belong in the same category as Major Andre or the German saboteurs.
We don't ask DoJ to fight wars. We shouldn't ask DoD to prosecute terrorists.
If the point of this exercise is to create a court system that will ensure convictions of alleged terrorists against whom we don't have sufficient admissible evidence, then we have missed the point. You can’t have a legitimate court unless you are willing to risk an acquittal. If you aren't willing to accept the possibility that a jury will acquit the accused based on the evidence fairly presented, then it isn’t really a court. It's a charade.
The corollary to that is that you can't have a real court if the rules of evidence and procedure are so stacked against the defendant that he has no real chance to
present his case or defend against the government's case. The admissible evidence
against him based on the facts may be so overwhelming that conviction is assured
but that must be the consequence of facts, not rules of evidence tilted in favor of the prosecution.
Over the years, federal courts have displayed remarkable ingenuity, flexibility, and resourcefulness in prosecuting terrorists. The Federal Rules of Evidence and
Procedure are sufficiently adaptable to accommodate the vagaries of trying those
individuals who are captured overseas by military personnel in the midst of
performing military operations. I believe the image of the "strategic corporal"
having to give Miranda warnings after risking his life to break into the bunker is a
red herring.
If you as members of this Committee believe or suspect that the Federal Rule of
Evidence or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure should be amended to
accommodate certain cases and situations, it is preferable to superimpose modest
new rules on an extant, tried and true judicial system than to create a whole new
system -- particularly in light of recent efforts.
It might be wise to set up a task force of experienced judges, prosecutors, and
defense counsel to make recommendations to Congress in this regard.
However, if we create yet another military commission system that "contains all the judicial guarantees considered to be indispensible by all civilized peoples" as
required by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, then we have essentially
duplicated our own Federal courts. There is no logical reason to create a system
that mirrors one already in existence and is functioning so well. We should strive
for the minimum change necessary to accomplish the purpose, not a wholesale
change to an already effectively functioning system.
Clearly and undeniably, the Administration and this Committee are dedicated to
untying this Gordian knot in a way that serves the very best interest of the country.
We are now operating under the Military Commission Act of 2006 which many find
to be badly flawed. I very much respect and admire your effort to improve it. My
recommendation, however, is to repeal it rather than improve it. In the process, I
urge you to express this body's preference to prosecute alleged terrorists in federal court and thereby demonstrate to the world, friend and foe alike, what kind of Justice the United States wishes to export.

The New York Times has nothing from Iraq this morning (again) and nothing but smut and sexism (again). The front page is the best example but you can find it throughout (including in the food section -- Frank Bruni, "polarizing" would be your own paper, not a woman). But especially note the front page of the so-called news section and ask who they're catering to?

Matt Richtel probes the very pressing issue of . . . porno films. The economy means 'less dialogue.' That doesn't even cut it as a humor item, let alone as news. But don't we all feel a little filthier for the garbage? We're not done. David Leonhardt appears on the front page to tell you that proposed health care reform can be measured by . . . how it addresses prostate cancer.

For those not in the know, not a cancer which afflicts women. So women learn from today's front page that the smutty New York Times loves their porn and that the only way to measure health care success is by how it addresses the needs of men. Kind of the way the paper does?

It's smut, it's garbage, it's the New York Times. And wallowing in the cess pool as always (has she mistaken it for a hot tub) is Maureen Dowd with yet another gossip column passed off as commentary on the world we live in. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
michael winter
usa today
cal perry
cnn
tessa savoy
joe simacher
the dallas morning news
the wilmington star news
the raleigh news and observer
laura phelps

Service members' children increase use of mental health care

I can't remember the last time I saw so much media fluff, hype and hoopla. News organizations that have pulled out of Iraq arrived by the convoy to pay homage to the King of Pop.

The above is from Steve Lopez' "Michael Jackson's memorial was not our proudest moment" (Los Angeles Times) and a functioning alternative media, a functioning group of watchdogs, would have been calling this crap out or are we only offended when celebrity trash is passed off as news if it's a woman. I called out the garbage that was the Anna Nicole Smith marathon. I didn't do because she was a woman or a blond. (And more and more, those little media critiques from the first half of this decade about "another missing blonde" reveal some deep seated sexism.) But for two weeks and counting, trash TV has reigned supreme and instead of being called out, it's been amplified online because, hey, we're all consumers of mindless Trash TV, right? That is our culture today, debased and disgusting.

There are funerals going on in the US, of service members killed in Iraq, as Betty pointed out last night. No stadiums are filled for them. The bumper stickers have faded, the flags attached to cars have frayed and been tossed in the trash (even though that's not how you're supposed to dispose of a flag). And who really cares because there's a chance to be a part of trash TV and mindlessly cheer it on.

Kimberly Hefling (AP) reports on the increase in service members' children seeking mental health treatment in 2008, noting that the number has doubled since the start of the illegal war. Hefling notes:

Overall, the number of children and spouses of active duty personnel and Guard and Reserve troops seeking mental health care has been steadily increasing. Last year's increase in child hospitalizations coincided with the "surge" of tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into Iraq to stabilize the country.
However, reasons for the treatment increases are not clear from the documents. Besides the impact of service members' repeated tours in overseas war zones - and the severe economic recession that has affected all American families - the military has been encouraging troops' family members to seek mental health help when needed.

Woo! Hoo! Brooke Shields! Professional virgin and beard! Oh, sorry. That's not the cheer for the coverage above, right? There is real news out there and it's the responsibility of adults to draw a line between reality and gossip. Not to blur the line, to draw the line.

Staying with mental illness, DeeDee Correll's "The story of the Marine who wasn't" (Los Angeles Times) reports on Rick Duncan who was not, in fact, Rick Duncan:


Retired Marine Capt. Rick Duncan carried a list of phone numbers of those in the business of helping veterans. One was for the VA clinic in Colorado Springs, and in 2008 he pressed it upon Mike Flaherty, a young Army veteran struggling with depression.
He understood, Duncan told Flaherty. He'd been to Iraq three times. Attacked in Fallouja, he'd returned home with a metal plate in his head and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Flaherty made the call and saw a counselor; in time his depression lessened. He had his friend Rick Duncan to thank.
He would not learn the truth about Duncan for a year, and when he and other veterans did, it rolled over them with the weight of a tank: Rick Duncan had never served in Iraq, had never been wounded, had never been a Marine at all. He wasn't even Rick Duncan.

As noted before, Ava and I met Rick once. We found him to be a liar immediately. Not based on his war experience which we wouldn't assume we have the skills to evaluate but based on the fact that his self-narrative did not add up on basic details (having nothing to do with Iraq or the military) and, when questioned by us about that, he immediately became flustered and attempted to obviously lie.

Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) files a report on Fort Irwin's National Training Center where US State Dept staff go through simulation training (including 'bombings') to prepare for serving in Iraq:

The diplomats slept on cots and worked out of a tent on a base surrounded by re-created Iraqi villages. Each day, they strapped on flak vests over their business jackets and clambered into armored carriers to meet with local leaders, played by Iraqi immigrants. They confronted insurgent attacks, corrupt officials and sectarian rivalries.
"You can forget at times that you are in California," said Wesley Robertson, a public diplomacy officer who is trading a post in Chennai, India, for Iraq's violent Diyala province.
All four diplomats are joining Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs. These civilian-led teams, which include some military officers and representatives of other government agencies, were conceived in 2005 to help Iraq's local and provincial governments provide services, promote stability and stimulate development.

The following community sites updated last night:

• 
  Cedric's Big Mix

  Little Man On Campus

  9 hours ago
• 
  The Daily Jot

  THIS JUST IN! BAD NEWS FOR BARRY!

  9 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  What gathers a crowd

  10 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  ACLU on state secrets, Third

  10 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  gordo killed the mg?

  10 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Tennesse Guerilla Women: Home to Racists

  10 hours ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  Trina back with you next time

  10 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Back

  10 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Sex-segregation in Alabama and on PBS

  10 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  ACLU, McNamara, Trash TV

  10 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  Senate Armed Service Committee

  10 hours ago

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
deedee correll
steve lopez
the los angeles times
alexandra zavis
kimberly hefling
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
thomas friedman is a great man
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz
oh boy it never ends

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, July 7, 2009.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraqi police become the target of choice, the US Senate Armed Service Committee appears to have no grasp of the US legal system and no respect for it, a War Hawk dies, and more.   Gay Life After Saddam is a documentary the BBC commissioned which was set to air Sunday, July 5th on BBC Radio 5 Live; however, the Wimbledon Men's Final ran late Sunday and the program has been rescheduled to air Sunday July 12th from nine to ten p.m. (1:00 to 2:00 p.m. PST).  Ashley Byrne did the investigative reporting for the documentary and, at the BBC, Byrne explains, "What is clear, and confirmed by separate evidence from various human rights groups, is that some gay men have been subjected to appalling violent abuse. . . . Gay men inside Iraq have been able to seek santuary in safe houses, thanks to the UK-based Iraqi Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) group, which manages them from London.  The documentary team were granted exclusive access to one of the homes on the outskirts of Baghdad".  The people Byrne speaks to maintain it was easier to be a gay Iraqi when Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq.  So much for 'liberation' and 'democracy.'  Again, the specail has been rescheduled for this coming Sunday, July 12th.   Moving over to an Iraq War veteran in Canada, David Solnit, co-author with Aimee Allison of Army Of None, notes the following action (taking place tomorrow):   Kimberly Rivera, mother of three, wife, and soldier of conscience is now living in Canada, but that could all change on July 8th. Join Courage to Resist at a support rally outside of the Canadian Consulate in San Francisco,             July 8, 12 noon - 1pm                  580 California Street at Kearny, San Francisco      (4 blocks up Montgomery from Montgomery BART, left on Calif. St, right side of street just before Kearny)         http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=580%20California%20Street%2C%2014th%20floor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl%20)         We will bring signed petitions to the Consulate General, urging the Canadian politicians to respect the will of the Canadian people, the Canadian parliament, whom have twice voted recommendations to allow war resisters to stay and the basic moral imperative that does not separate children from their loving mother. Kimberly has this to say:           "I want to stay in Canada, with my family, because the Iraq War is immoral, illegal and I couldn't in good conscience go back. The amount of support I'm getting from Canadians is amazing. The parents of my kids' friends, MPs and even strangers on the street keep telling me that they can't believe the votes in Parliament aren't being respected."   Kimberly Rivera is the first outspoken female Iraq War resister to publically and legally seek refuge in Canada. Kimberly, along with her partner Mario, son Christian (7 years old) and daughter Rebecca (4 years old), fled to Canada in January 2007 when Kimberly refused redeployment. In late November 2008 Kimberly gave birth to her Canadian daughter Katie (8 months old). She served in Iraq in 2006 and experienced, firsthand, the reality of this ongoing illegal war and occupation.           On July 8th, Kimberly is going to Canadian federal court, to appeal the decision in her Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. If her appeal fails, she will be asked to leave Canada, or forcibly removed -- and delivered into the custody and jurisdiction of the United States Army where Kimberly will face charges that will carry, at the very least, a 4 year sentence in a military stockade.            Four years or more away from her young children, away from her baby daughter, away from her husband -- she will be kept in an Army prison. She has served in Iraq, she has been to combat; now, because she has decided to exercise her conscience, she faces imprisonment, additional forced separation from her family and eviction from her new home.        Act to help Kimberly on July 8th! Join Courage to Resist in protesting the Canadian governments attempts to violate a loving mother's human rights! Sign the letter online & for more info:                   http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/726/1/             Over the weekend, US Vice President Joe Biden continued his trip to Iraq.  Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reported that his "mission to promote national reconciliation in Iraq was rebuffed Friday by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who told him that the issue was a domestic Iraqi affair and that U.S involvement wouldn't be welcome." US involvement wouldn't be welcome . . . but Nouri's happy to have the involvement of US forces on the ground in Iraq because otherwise he would be overthrown. That involvement he's all for. An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy offers her take here. Sheryl Gay Stolberg (New York Times) added, "One official said the vice president made it clear that if Iraq returned to ethnic violence, the United States would be unlikely to remain engaged, 'because one, the American people would have no interest in doing that, and as he put it, neither would he or the president."  Yesterday, Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) explained that "the Americans helped most leading Iraqi politicians, including Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, come to power -- and stay there -- they can no longer expect the Iraqis to acknowledge the help, because being close to the Americans risks alienating average Iraqis."  Which has never prevented the puppet from biting the hand that continues to feed him and why  Alsumaria reports today, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki refused any foreign interference in Iraqi affairs; two days after the United States cautioned that it might disengage in Iraq if the country fails to reach national reconciliation. In a meeting with tribal sheikhs, security chiefs and local officials in Anbar, Al Maliki reiterated that he won't allow anyone to meddle in Iraqi affairs and oversee the political process and national reconciliation."  Independent journalist Dahr Jamail (MidEast Dispatches) uses Biden's visit to provide the context on the non-departure and non-withdrawal:     On July 4 in Baghdad, Vice President Joe Biden, who campaigned with Barack Obama on a platform of ending the occupation of Iraq, found himself in one of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's lavish buildings, the Al-Faw Palace. While one of Saddam Hussein's thrones sat on the side of the room, Biden presided over a swearing-in ceremony for 237 soldiers, who were becoming US citizens. Speaking of the ceremony, Biden said, "We did it in Saddam's palace, and I can think of nothing better. That S.O.B. is rolling over in his grave right now." Perhaps the irony of both the scene and his statement were lost to Biden. For if Saddam Hussein was rolling in his grave, the reason would have less to do with one of his palaces being used as a naturalization center for US soldiers, and more to do with the fact that the US government has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon.          We have passed the June 30 deadline that, according to a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on November 17, 2008, was the date all US forces were to have been withdrawn from all of Iraq's cities. Today, however, there are at least 134,000 US soldiers in Iraq - a number barely lower than the number that were there in 2003. In addition, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified on June 9 that the United States would maintain an average of at least 100,000 troops in Iraq through fiscal year 2010.               The SOFA is a sieve, and the number of US military personnel in Iraq is remaining largely intact for now. Add to the 134,000 US soldiers almost the exact number of military contractors (132,610 and increasing), 36,061 of which, according to a recent Department of Defense report, are US citizens.   Dahr Jamail's latest book was just released this month and is The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.   The weekend trend in Iraq was attacks on police officers resulting in the deaths of at least 6 police officers with eight more wounded. Though primarily in Mosul, the attacks also took place in Baghdad and Kirkuk. On Saturday, 1 was killed and one wounded and a Mosul bombing targeting a police squad car resulted in one civilian being injured, Sunday's numbers were 3 killed with two wounded while a Mosul car bombing targeted the police but wounded three civilians, and Monday saw 2 killed and five wounded. (And use links in linked day's entries for wounded totals.) Meanwhile 'safe' Iraq still requires police training takes place . . . outside the country. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced Sunday that their ambassador to Canberra, Ghanim Taha al-Shebly, attended graduation ceremonies for Iraqi police officers in . . . Australia: "Ambassador AL-Shebly delivered a speech on the occasion in which he expressed his thanks to the Federal Police and the Australian Government for their initiative in providing development programs to the elite members of the Iraqi National Police, which included training in management and leadership development, administrative and criminal evidence in order to strengthen the Iraqi Police Service." The Ministry also announced Sunday that Mustafa Musa Tawfik, Charge d'affairs in the Iraqi Embassy in Seoul, gave a speech at the "training course for the dvelopment of policies and programs human rights in filed in Iraq" in . . . (South) Korea. The need to continue training outside of Iraq is not surprising considering the ongoing violence; however, it needs to be noted that US government ended the training program which had been taking place in Jordan even though it was cost effective and, according to outsiders, effective period. The claim at the time was that training should take place in Iraq where it would be more cost efficient. And lucky for that cover story, reporters haven't been eager to point out that Iraqis continue to train in foreign countries. The only real difference now is that they are not training in Arab countries.   The targeting of police officers continued in Iraq today.  Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two Iraqi "servicemen and one civilian" were injured in a shooting at a Baghdad checkpoint and 1 police officer was shot dead in Mosul while his father (also a police officer) was left wounded.  In both incidents, silencers were used on the guns and McClatchy was noting (in their daily violence round-ups) over the weekend how common the use of silencers was becoming.  Reuters notes 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead at a Mosul checkpoint with two other people left injured and they note 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul in a drive-by.   From violence to the thing everyone wants to get their hands on: Oil. Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari saying, "We showed the world two things -- that the Iraqi oil industry is open for investment for the first time, and second, that the process was transparent."  The statement comes on the heels of the first auction and as Iraq prepares for the second auction.  Angel K. Yan (Red Net) notes, "China's three major oil companies are thinking of participating in Iraq's second auction of oil and gas fields later this year, in a move to get a better foothold in the country's oil industry."  The first auction was at the end of last month and the big winners were British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corporation who partnered up and won what Robin Pagnamenta (Times of London) described as "access to Iraq's biggest oilfield."  At The Ecologist, Dan Box offers a historical view of England and Iraq.  Vivian Wai-yin Kwok (Forbes) notes China Daily is reporting China National Petroleum Corporation and China Petrochemical Corporation plan to bid in the second auction.  Jane Arraf observes that "factors including lingering security fears and concerns that Iraq's climate for foreign oil investment is still shifting" are weighing on some foreign companies.       "Good morning, everybody," declared US Senator Carl Levin bringing to order the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Military Commission and the trial of Detainees for Violations of the Law of War.  "In its 2006 decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convetions prohibts the trial of detainees for violations of the law of war unless the trial is conducted 'by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.' The Court concluded that 'the regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes' but that a military commission can be regularly constituted by the standards of our military justice system 'if some practical need explains deviations from court-martial practice'.''   His opening remarks set up the hearing so we'll also note this section.   Senator Carl Levin: Of great importance, the provision in our bill would reverse the existing presumption in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that rules and procedures applicable to trials by courts martial would not apply. Our new language says, by contrast, that: "Except as otherwise provided, the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in trials by general courts-martial of the United States shall apply in trials by military commission under this chapter." The exceptions to this rule are, as suggested by the Supreme Court, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the conduct of military and intelligence operations during hostilities. Three years ago, when this Committee considered similar legislation on military commissions, I urged that we apply two tests. First, will we be able to live with the procedures that we establish if the tables are turned and our own troops are subject to similar procedures? Second, is the bill consistent with our American system of justice and will it stand up to scrutiny on judicial review?  I believe that those remain the right questions to consider and that language we have included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 meets both tests. Over the last three years, we have seen the legal advisor to the Convening Authority for military commissions forced to step aside after a military judge found that he had compromised his objectivity by aligning himself with the prosecution. We have had prosecutors resign after making allegations of improper command influence and serious deficiencies in the military commission process. We have had the Chief Defense Counsel raise serious concerns about the adequacy of resources made available to defendants in military commissions cases, writing that: "Regardless of its other procedures, no trial system will be fair unless the serious deficiencies in the current system's approach to defense resources are rectified."  So even if we are able to enact new legislation that successfully addresses the shortcomings in existing law, we will have a long way to go to restore public confidence in military commissions and the justice that they produce. However, we will not be able to restore confidence in military commissions at all unless we first substitute new procedures and language to address the problems with the existing statute.                  The hearing was composed of two panels.  The first panel was composed of the Dept of Defense's Jeh C. Johnson, Dept of Justice's David S. Kris and JAG's Vice Adm Bruce E. MacDonald.  The second panel was composed of Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, Retired Maj Gen John Altenburg Jr. and the American University's Daniel Marcus.   Senator Carl Levin: Let me ask you first, Mr. Johnson, I quoted from the Hamdan case in my opening remarks, saying that the Court in Hamdan said: "The regular military courts in our system are the courts-martial established by congressional statutes."  But they also said that a military commission can be regularly constituted if there's a practical need that explains the ndeviations from court-martial practice.  We have attempted in our language to do exactly that. And my question first of you is, in your view, does our bill conform to the Hamdan standards?   Jeh C. Johnson:  Senator, as you, as you noted, Hamdan uh-uh requires -- and of course Hamdan was at a time that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not exist, as I recall. The holding of Hamdan was that military commissions -- and I'm not going to get this exactly right -- but that military commission should depart from UCMJ courts only in situations of evident practical need.  The proposed legislation, uh, in our view definitely brings us closer to the UCMJ model and the circumstances under which the military commissions, uhm, contemplated by this bill and UCMJ courts differ are, in our judgment, circumstances that are necessary, uhm, given -- given the needs here.  Uh, for example, uh, there is no Miranda requirement imposed by-by this-by this legislation.  Article 31 UCMJ is specifically excluded from application here. Article 31 is what uh calls for Miranda warnings in uh UCMJ circumstances. The legislation also takes what I believe is a very appropriate and practical approach to-to hearsay.  As you noted in your opening remarks, Mr. Chariman, the-the-the burden is no longer on the  opponent to demonstrate uh-uh that hearsay should be excluded. There is a notice requirement in the proposed legislation and if the proponent of the hearsay can demonstrate reliability and materiality and that the declarant is not available as a practical matter given the unqiue circumstances of military operations and intelligence operations, the hearsy could be admitted.   And people make fun of the way Sarah Palin speaks?  The Dept of Defense sends that stammering uh-uh dofus into a hearing?  He's the Dept's General Counsel?     First off, Article 31 is not the military's Miranda.  UCMJ's Article 31 predates Miranda by 16 years.  Don't confuse the two.  Article 32 is not a copy of Miranda.  Miranda can be seen as a civilian copy of Article 32.  What an idiot.  And, no, he has no knowledge of the law.  Admitting hearsay goes against everything the US justice system stands for and that includes the US military justice system.  The Senate should be ashamed of himself for authoring legislation that shreds the US justice system.  Let's not let them off (and I don't) but let's be clear that Johnson's a stammering fool who came off like a drunk barely able to keep his head up at the bar (you really needed to see the way Johnson's head dipped and swung to this side and to that side).  David Kris was just as much of an ass as Levin's being but he could speak.  What he had to say was frightening.  Terrorism, Kris said speaking for the Dept of Justice, should be prosecuted in military courts, not civilian ones and proscuted, pay attention to this, by the Defense Department.  Slippery slope is apparently a concept foreign to the idiots Barack's appointed.  Senator John McCain, the Ranking Member of the Committee, wanted to know if there was a difference in the proceedings based on whether the trials were held in the US or at Guantanamo?  Johnson fretted that "due process" would apply if held in the US and  "that the courts have not determined applies -- applies now" at Guantanamo.  Johnson had a real problem being concise.  Not because he was adding detail but because he was restating the same thing over and over.  He did that with Levin in Levin's first round of questioning (leading the Chair to note that there was only six minutes in the round) and he tried that with McCain who cut him off.   Senator John McCain: So what you're saying is that you believe that there could be some differneces in procedure if the trials were held in Guantanamo or the United States of America?   Jeh Johnson: I'm not sure I would be prepared to say significant difference, Senator.   Senator John McCain: It would be important for this committee to know what your view is?  It might have something to do with the way that we shape legislation.  If they're going to  have all kinds of additional rights if they're tried in the United States of America as opposed to Guantanamo, I think that the committee and the American people should know that.   Jeh Johnson: One of the things that I mentioned in my prepared statement, Senator, is that when it comes to the admissability of statements, the administration believes that a volunatriness standard should apply on account of the reality of military operations and we think that that is something that uh due process may require particularly if military commissions come to the United States, that the courts may impose a voluntariness standard.   Senator John McCain: Well I hope that you and Mr. Kris will provide for the record what you think the difference is and the process would be as to the location of uh those trials.  I think it's very important.  Certainly is to me.   Vice Adm Bruce E. MacDonald made clear to Senator Lindsey Graham that the US has more restrictive use on hearsay than, for example, an international tribunal in Rawanda.  Boo-hoo.  What Constitution did MacDonald swear to uphold and is not coherent enough to grasp what oath he took?  And someone tell the idiot to comb his hair.  That fallen lock wouldn't play on a guy half his age and for a man showing up before Congress in military dress it was flat out embarrassing.  (His hair was comparable to Paul Wolfowitz for any needing a visual.  Only worse.)  Senator Mark Udall praised Lindsey Graham and had nothing to add. Disappointing.  If any Senator did a half-way decent job and seemed to have an understanding of the law it was Senator Jack Reed who did speak up for at least some civilian courts, at least some of the trials needing to take place in civilian courts and he also noted that a number of criminals are being glorified by having their actions, their crimes, inflated into something more than that.  It was a very sad hearing and the first panel lasted about one hour and seventeen minutes.  The second panel moved more quickly.  Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy and Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson made it very clear that he was opposed to the notion of allowing the Defense Dept to begin conducting trials.  He spoke of the US system of justice and it would be wonderful if the senators present had either stood up and applauded or slapped their heads in I-didn't-not-know-that gestures.  Instead, his words appeared to sail over their clueless heads.  We're going to note his remarks at length:   Even greater than democracy itself, the greatest export of all from the United States is justice.  Daniel Webster once said, "Justice, Sir, is the greatest interest of man on earth.  It's the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together."  But justice is fragile and easily disparaged.  It must be nurtured and handled with great care.  I was an early and ardent supporter of military commissions.  Initially, I was drawn to their historical precedents and, more importantly, I was confident that the United States Armed Forces could and would conduct fair trails even of reprehensible defendants.  My own experience gained during 28 years in the Navy and our long history of providing due process while trying our own military personnel in courts-marital gave me this confidence.  Unfortunately, as it turned out, the commissions that were created did not live up to the traditions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Predictably, they became a significant distraction for the military.  I hasten to add that this was in spite of the stalwart, honorable effort of many, many military personnel themselves.  Indeed, that is one of the great tragedies of this saga, and largely makes one of the points that I wish to underline.  The primary role of the military is to fight and win our nation's wars or, stated more precisely, to provide the time and space necessary for real solutions -- economic, cultural, social, religious -- to take place.  Prosecution of miscreants is an occasionally necessary sidebar to that mission but shouldn't distract from it.  We have the UCMJ and the military court-martial system to expedite the legitimate role of the military, not interfere with it.   If a sailor on a ship is alleged to have committeed a crime, we must expeditiously and fairly resolve that problem.  Otherwise it can fester and interfere with unit cohesion and impede an effective fighting force.  The UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial serve that purpose alone.  They solves problems for the armed forces; not create them.  Our recent history with military commissions has been the opposite.  I've come to realize that even a perfect commission regime would be a distraction for the military. It's simply not part of its mission.  I am very concerned when the military is called upon to perform functions outside of its core mission even when I'm confident that it can do it well.  Preserving and ensuring justice in the United States is the primary mission of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense.  If there will be criticism of our prosecution of alleged terrorists -- and there will be -- the Department of Justice and the US Federal Court system are equipped to deal with that criticism.  Indeed, it is part of their responsibility to face it, address it and resolve it.   Monday  Kat reviewed Regina Spektor's latest album.  I should have noted that this morning but was in rush to get to the hearing (see, it's connected) and (still connected), Kat will share her thoughts on the hearing tonight so be sure to visit her site.   Turning to peace and justice news, infamous War Criminal and scourge of the globe Robert McNamara is dead.  In an online discussion at the Washington Post (conducted by Robert G. Kaiser), Promise and Power author Deborah Shapley provided this context:   Washington, D.C.: Hi Bob -- I wrote a biography of McNamara, "Promise and Power," published in 1993. For the record, he told me he did not quit over the grim outlook in Vietnam because he wasn't that sure he was right, and because holding on could force Hanoi's hand politically, in his view. Therefore, the deaths of additional Americans at that time (1965 ff) were not in vain.  My personal opinion is that his 1995 book "In Retrospect" gave the impression he thought the war was 'totally wrong' at the time -- which is not what his record shows -- at all! He went on telling the president they could bring off something-or-other, albeit in more pessimistic terms.  Some people want to seem on the right side of history even when they were on what 'in retrospect' was the wrong side of history. Too bad for the servicemen that he misrepresented (or seemed to misrepresent) his own record.   In this decade, the War Criminal recast himself as a bra-less starlet followed around by professional gadfly Errol Morris for the mockumentary Fog Of War (aka The Bore Never Shuts Up). As with any Morris revisionary opus, the point of the mocumentary was that no one was really guilty.  Alexander Cockburn (CounterPunch) observes:   He faded comfortably away. The last time we saw him vividly was in 2004 as  the star of  Morris's wildly over-praised, documentary The Fog of War, talking comfortably about the millions of people he's helped to kill.        Time and again, McNamara got away with it in that film, cowering in the shadow of baroque monsters like LeMay or LBJ, choking up about his choice of Kennedy's gravesite in Arlington, sniffling at the memory of Johnson giving him the Medal of Freedom, spouting nonsense about how Kennedy would have pulled out of Vietnam, muffling himself in the ever- useful camouflage of the "fog of war."     Danny Schechter (News Dissector) explains, "McNamara returned to his Waterloo (Hanoi) some years back for a conference on the "lessons of the war" with General Giap, the winner, and several American Generals, the losers. He was challenged by the feisty Vietnamese American documentary director, Tiana [Thi Thanh Nga], who made 'From Hollywood to Hanoi' and other films for all the deaths he caused. There is precious footage of him freaking out and arrogantly lecturing her. The Vietnamese government was too diplomatic to express its rage."  On Democracy Now! today, Marilyn Young, Howard Zinn and Johnny Apologist Schell appeared to discuss War Hawk McNamara.  Historian Marilyn Young (author of many books and recently co-editor of Iraq and the Lessons of Vietnam) is worth noting.  She explained of McNamara:   One of the legacies is that there is none, in a sense.  The first clip that you ran, you could have run it now.  About Iraq, several years ago, about Afghanistan today.  It's as if it doesn't go anywhere.  There is knowledge, and then it's erased in between McNamara should be kind of a morality tale.  During his tenure as Secretary of Defense, he initially -- he was responsible really -- for the initial escalation.  In 1964, he and Bundy gave -- '65, I'm sorry -- gave Johnson what's called "The Fork in the Road Memorandum," in which they said, "Now, we have really thought this over and we have two choices.  We could increase military pressure or we could negotiate."  And they strongly urged the increase of military pressure and Johnson went along with that.  Not that he was, you know, I think he was a little unwilling, but that is another subject.  Gradually, by later in 1965, by 1966, and certainly by 1967, he was completely disenchanted with the war.  And he said it in public at the Senate hearings on bombing targets.  And he said, "This bombing is just not going to work."  The next thing he knew, he was out.  And he said later he never knew whether he had quit or Johnson had fired him.  And then, as Howard [Zinn] said, he was absolutely silent.  You can imagine that the silence was expressed in onse sense by his opposition to nuclear weapons, which was very sincere and I'm sure Jonathan can talk about that.  He and Bundy both focused on the dangers of nuclear war as if that attempt to prevent a future war was going to erase the war they had both just conducted.  And then in 1995 he comes out with In Retrospect and everybody quotes, "We were wrong, terribly wrong."  But if you read the full paragraph, what it says is: "We weren't wrong in our values and our intentions, we were wrong about our judgments and capabilities."  And the book as a whole is an excuse.  It's a struggle -- he almost comes to terms and then he runs away from coming to terms.  And he does the same thing, I think, in Fog of War.  And he did the same thing for the rest of his life -- and approach to what he had really been responsible for, and then a bouncing off it, too awful to face.  And it happens over and over again.  He says, for example, he lists all the terrible mistakes that he made -- that "they" made.  He never says "I."  He says "they."  And he says, "We just didn't understand that Vietnam was about nationalism."  He doesn't ask why they didn't understand that.  There were internal critics.  George Ball, Paul Capenburg, but also, he was surrounded, if you read the newspapers, by Lidman, by Morgenthau, by I.F. Stone, who was vigorously writing about the Vietnam war.  By George Cain, a great historian of South East Asia.  So, if he wanted to know what the upsurge, the insurgency in South Vietnam was about, he had lots of sources.  He never comes close to explaining why he didn't pay attention to any of that.  Instead he says, "Oh my God! We just didn't know they were nationalists."  How come?       iraq ashley byrne bbc news aimeee allison david solnit the new york times sheryl gay stolberg alissa j. rubin liz sly the los angeles times   dahr jamail mcclatchy newspapers the washington post robert g. kaiser deborah shapley danny schechter democracy now marilyn young jonathan schell howard zinn kats korner

Iraq's LBGT Community

What is clear, and confirmed by separate evidence from various human rights groups, is that some gay men have been subjected to appalling violent abuse.
One young Iraqi, Amil (not his real name) recalled the death of a friend: "They found out he was gay and they killed him and they chopped him like a lamb, it was awful."
Another man (who wished to remain anonymous) revealed to Scott Long from the New York-based Human Rights Watch, how his partner was kidnapped and killed.
"It was late one night when four armed men came to take my boyfriend from his parents' house.
"They were masked and dressed in black.
"We found his body the next day dumped in the garbage, his throat cut out, his genitals cut off."

The above is from Ashley Byrne's "Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis" (BBC News) and we'll address the topic more in today's snapshot. Meanwhile Alsumaria reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki refused any foreign interference in Iraqi affairs; two days after the United States cautioned that it might disengage in Iraq if the country fails to reach national reconciliation. In a meeting with tribal sheikhs, security chiefs and local officials in Anbar, Al Maliki reiterated that he won’t allow anyone to meddle in Iraqi affairs and oversee the political process and national reconciliation." Yes, it's intended as a slap in the face to US Vice President Joe Biden, even Alsumaria reads it that way.

In England, the Iraq inquiry continues to be in the news. Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) reports that Sir John Chilcot, who will head the inquiry, has declared that Margaret Aldred would be "the secretary to the inquiry -- ie the official who actually runs it."

The Cabinet Office released the following press statement yesterday:

The head of the Secretariat for Sir John Chilcot’s committee of inquiry into Iraq has been named today.
Margaret Aldred CB CBE, who’s currently Director General and Deputy Head of the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, is to become the Secretary to the Inquiry. She will begin her duties shortly.
Ms Aldred joined the Civil Service as a graduate trainee in 1975. She spent 25 years in the Ministry of Defence, where she worked in a wide range of areas, including three years as the Principal Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary. Her last post in the MoD was Director General Management and Organisation. She has also worked in HM Treasury and the Home Office, and took up her current post in the Cabinet Office in November 2004.
Ms Aldred was appointed CBE in the 1991 Gulf Honours list, and CB in the 2009 New Years Honours list.
Note for news editors
On 15th of June 2009 the Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons the establishment of an independent Committee of Inquiry into Iraq. It will consider the period from summer 2001 (before military operations began in March 2003) and the UK’s subsequent involvement in Iraq until the end of July 2009.
Sir John Chilcot is the chair of the Committee. The other members will be Baroness Usha Prashar, Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert and Sir Roderick Lyne.
Sir John Chilcot has asked the Cabinet Office’s chief press officer Rae Stewart to head up the communications team for the Iraq Inquiry. He will be attached to the Secretariat for the duration of the inquiry.
Arrangements for a news conference to introduce the inquiry team and explain its remit will be revealed in due course. Sir John and the other members of the inquiry team will not be available for interview, comment or briefing until then.
For more information contact;
Contacts
NDS Enquiries
ndsenquiries@coi.gsi.gov.uk

Dropping back to Friday's snapshot:

Yesterday the US Defense Dept identified the four soldiers killed in Baghdad June 29th: "They were assigned to the 120th Combined Arms Battalion, Wilmington, N.C. Killed were: Sgt. 1st Class Edward C. Kramer, 39, of Wilmington, N.C. [;] Sgt. Roger L. Adams Jr., 36, of Jacksonville, N.C. [;] Sgt. Juan C. Baldeosingh, 30, of Newport, N.C. [and] Spc. Robert L. Bittiker, 39, of Jacksonville, N.C." Jennifer McLogan (WCBS) speaks with Baldeosingh's sisters Jennyfer and Diana Baldeosingh. Jennyfer states, "At first it's anger. Why did he go? Why him?" Diana states, "Some of them have done two or three tours, they have families and kids, they need to be with them -- not over there. We did our time there. It's time to come home, please." John Valenti and Sophia Chang (Newsday -- link has text and video) also speak with the two sisters and they note: "He also leaves behind his wife, Rebecca, and three young daughters -- Emily, 2, and 5-year-old twins, Isabella and Kylie." ENCToday speaks with Brian Wheat, the stepfather of Robert Bittiker and explains, "Bittiker leaves behind his wife Tami, and two sons Cameron, 14, and Ronnie, 18, who just graduated from Southwest High School". The Salisbury Post notes Edward Kramer's wife Vicki issued a statement explaining, "He loved us very much and he did this for his children [Erica, age nine, and Megan, age seven] so they wouldn't have to". Catherine M. Welch (WHQR) reports a Sunday event to remember Kramer, "A memorial walk is planned for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. It will start at the Wilmington Fire Department Headquarters on Marketstreet in downtown Wilmington and end at the National Guard Armory."


Ashley White (News 14, text and video) reports on Ed Kramer's friends and family gathering to mourn him and quotes his friend Mike Bannon stating, "I am just going to miss a lot of times you could hang out with your buddy." Jannette Pippin (Jacksonville Daily News) reports on Carlos Baldeosingh being remembered at a memorial service held at Carteret General Hospital where he had worked prior to going to Iraq. John Lee ("director of the hospital's Department of Risk Management, Safety and Security") states, "There was just something about him. He was such a positive energetic person and a huge asset to the hospital. He was very passionate about the job and committed to doing the best job that he could." Smitha Rao (News 14, link has text and video) also notes the memorial yesterday at the hospital and also quotes John Lee, this time saying, "He went out of his way to make sure everybody who came into the hospital, if they had any needs, they were met. Anything he could do for them, he would do." And we'll note the opening of Mark Berman's "Fulfilling a Dream of Service: Army Private Killed in Iraq Had Long Wanted to Be in the Military" (Washington Post, ran Sunday):

Thursday was supposed to be Kelly Youngblood's 22nd birthday. Instead, he was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
Army Private First Class Youngblood, of Mesa, Ariz., was killed by sniper fire Feb. 18, 2007, near Ramadi, a central Iraqi city about 60 miles west of Baghdad. He was shot after stepping out of his vehicle. He died a little more than two weeks into his deployment and during one of the deadliest periods in the Iraq War, which began in 2003.
Dozens of mourners accompanied a small box containing Youngblood's remains to Arlington. The service was brief but emotional, punctuated with a folded flag given to his mother, Kristen Chacon, as loved ones snapped digital photos and filmed the moment.

Meanwhile Shannon Delcambre (NBC13) reports that Alabama Air National Guard's 187th Fighter Wing from Montgomery heads to Iraq and that they have a sent off ceremony scheduled for this morning. And idiots like George Berkin want to pretend the Iraq War has ended. It's not over and you can bet the service members and their families are aware of that fact even if a few deluded reporters can't grasp reality.

Today on Democracy Now!, Marilyn Young, Jonathen Schell and Howard Zinn will discuss War Criminal McNamara. Schell lost his credibility years ago and 2008 and early 2009 have been one long embarrassment for Zinn (maybe he'll turn that around today) so that really only leaves Young as anyone you can count on for reality based on their most recent histories. And that's airing right now. Jonathan Schell is an embarrassment and an apologist. Zinn is stronger than expected but Schell is a huge embarrassment. Again, he lost his credibility a long, long time ago. (And it's cute how showing up in Central Park for a nuclear freeze rally makes Barack deeply committed to the idea of a nuclear freeze. I was at that same rally -- millions of people were. It was the event to be at. A college student who went to college in NYC attending that event means nothing, especially when they have nothing else to show for it. Jonathan Schell plays mind reader and he's been pulling that crap forever which is why he's a joke to the mainstream he hails from. He speaks like a raving lunatic and "Mister Peace" has done nothing, NOTHING, on the Iraq War for over six years now. He's a joke. He made himself one.)

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
ashley byrne
bbc news
alsumaria
andrew sparrow
ashley white
janette pippin
smith rao
mark berman
the washington post
shannon delcambre
democracy now
marilyn young
jonathan schell
howard zinn

The targeting of the Iraqi police

The weekend trend in Iraq was attacks on police officers resulting in the deaths of at least 6 police officers with eight more wounded. Though primarily in Mosul, the attacks also took place in Baghdad and Kirkuk.

On Saturday, 1 was killed and one wounded and a Mosul bombing targeting a police squad car resulted in one civilian being injured, Sunday's numbers were 3 killed with two wounded while a Mosul car bombing targeted the police but wounded three civilians, and Monday saw 2 killed and five wounded. (And use links in linked day's entries for wounded totals.)

Meanwhile 'safe' Iraq still requires police training takes place . . . outside the country. Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced Sunday that their ambassador to Canberra, Ghanim Taha al-Shebly, attended graduation ceremonies for Iraqi police officers in . . . Australia: "Ambassador AL-Shebly delivered a speech on the occasion in which he expressed his thanks to the Federal Police and the Australian Government for their initiative in providing development programs to the elite members of the Iraqi National Police, which included training in management and leadership development, administrative and criminal evidence in order to strengthen the Iraqi Police Service." The Ministry also announced Sunday that Mustafa Musa Tawfik, Charge d'affairs in the Iraqi Embassy in Seoul, gave a speech at the "training course for the dvelopment of policies and programs human rights in filed in Iraq" in . . . (South) Korea.

The need to continue training outside of Iraq is not surprising considering the ongoing violence; however, it needs to be noted that US government ended the training program which had been taking place in Jordan even though it was cost effective and, according to outsiders, effective period. The claim at the time was that training should take place in Iraq where it would be more cost efficient. And lucky for that cover story, reporters haven't been eager to point out that Iraqis continue to train in foreign countries. The only real difference now is that they are not training in Arab countries.

As Iran's Press TV observes, "Violence continues to surge in Iraq." The New York Times plays the quiet game -- filing no report from Iraq today.

Meanwhile, how stupid do you have to be to be a reporter in New Jersey? Ask George Berkin who feels the need to offer a false comparison in "Iraq and Vietnam" (New Jersey Star-Ledger) which only demonstrates how out of touch he is:

On the day of the U.S. withdrawal, four American soldiers were killed in combat in Baghdad. The following day, a bomb exploded in an outdoor market in Kirkuk, in the northern part of Iraq, killing more than two dozen people.
But last week's withdrawal was in sharp contrast to another American military withdrawal a generation ago. As the last Americans left Saigon in April 1975, the enduring image is of desperate South Vietnamese clinging to U.S. helicopters rising from our embassy compound.
That withdrawal from Saigon came two years after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in January 1973. Designed to end a war ongoing since 1959, the treaty was signed by the four combatants: North and South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, as well as the U.S.

But US forces didn't withdraw last week. The fall of Saigon is a false comparison, it's so false it's laughable. US helicopters were evacuating embassy staff. Having confused the fall of Saigon (in such a manner that peace activists like myself and pro-war hawks could find common ground in agreeing that Berkin's analogy is not only outrageous but also stupid), Berkin goes on to declare, in an aside, "some American troops will remain temporarily in Iraq". Temporarily? Temporarily is a few weeks. What an idiot. What a fool. New Jersey should be embarrassed to have Berkin as their 'ambassador of good will.'

On the topic of fools, Robert McNamara -- still (and thankfully) dead. Yesterday at the Washington Post, Robert G. Kaiser hosted an online discussion and Deborah Shapley attempted to interject some reality about 'reformed' and 'learned' McNamara:

Washington, D.C.: Hi Bob -- I wrote a biography of McNamara, "Promise and Power," published in 1993. For the record, he told me he did not quit over the grim outlook in Vietnam because he wasn't that sure he was right, and because holding on could force Hanoi's hand politically, in his view. Therefore, the deaths of additional Americans at that time (1965 ff) were not in vain.
My personal opinion is that his 1995 book "In Retrospect" gave the impression he thought the war was 'totally wrong' at the time -- which is not what his record shows -- at all! He went on telling the president they could bring off something-or-other, albeit in more pessimistic terms.
Some people want to seem on the right side of history even when they were on what 'in retrospect' was the wrong side of history. Too bad for the servicemen that he misrepresented (or seemed to misrepresent) his own record.

Robert G. Kaiser: Greetings. Glad to have this opportunity to field comments and questions about one of the most interesting Americans of my time.
This first question is from Deborah Shapley, a fine writer, and it provides a wonderful way to introduce today's chat. Anyone who saw Errol Morris's brilliant The Fog of War documentary about McNamara knows how complicated a fellow he was. Deborah rightly points out that he never had one consistent line on Vietnam, which of course will be the thing, the tragedy, the disaster, for which he will be best remembered. He certainly did want to do penance for the war--I think that is why he went from the Pentagon to running the World Bank, to try to help the world's poor. He also wanted to find a way to say he was sorry, without every saying "I'm sorry." Not an easy thing to do.

There was nothing "brilliant" about Errol Morris' ode to war. At some point, it will be noted that all of Morris' documentaries appear to exist to mitigate the actions of the guilty (as true with Fog of War as with his hideous Abu Ghraib film). Today on Democracy Now!, Marilyn Young, Jonathen Schell and Howard Zinn will discuss War Criminal McNamara. Schell lost his credibility years ago and 2008 and early 2009 have been one long embarrassment for Zinn (maybe he'll turn that around today) so that really only leaves Young as anyone you can count on for reality based on their most recent histories.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


iraq
iraq
the washington post
robert g. kaiser
deborah shapley
democracy now
marilyn young
jonathan schell
howard zinn