AP reports former KBR contractor in Iraq David Charles Breda Jr. is under federal indictment over an alleged sexual assault at Camp Al Asad. Braden Reddall and Anthony Boadle (Reuters) adds, "Breda, 34, appeared before a judge on Friday after his arrest by Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents on Thursday at a Houston-area barber college, the U.S. Attorney's office said. He faces a up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the charge of abusive sexual contact, it added. Richard Connelly (Houston Press) reminds, "This is not the first time the company has faced allegations of employees raping women. The claims by Jamie Leigh Jones became a national story." In other legal news, a US soldier has been sentenced for the shooting death of US soldier Sean McCune. M-NF released the following today:
A Multi-National Division - North Soldier was sentenced July 11, in the shooting death of a fellow Soldier.
Sgt. Miguel A. Vegaquinones was sentenced to three years confinement, reduction in rank to private/E-1 and a dishonorable discharge.
Vegaquinones pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the accidental shooting death of Pfc. Sean McCune, when Vegaquinones negligently discharged one round from his weapon on Jan. 11, in Samarra, Iraq, after completing guard duty.
Pursuant to the terms of a pre-trial agreement, Vegaquinones’ sentence was limited to 30 months confinement. The charge of making a false official statement was dismissed as part of the pre-trial agreement.
Vegaquinones is assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, but was temporarily attached to the brigade's Headquarters and Headquarters Company pending the outcome of the proceedings.
U.S. Army Soldiers sentenced to confinement of more than one year automatically have their cases forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review.
Meanwhile violence continues in Iraq with a Mosul car bombing claiming the lives of at least 4 people and leaving another forty wounded according to BBC which adds, "Correspondents say the Mosul bomb went off in an area with a predominantly Shia population, thought to be from Iraq's Shabak community." Xinhua notes 5 dead. Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy) puts the death toll at 8 and the wounded at fifty. Other violence?
Bombings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombing -- the first apparently used to lure people to the site -- which claimed 1 life and left "11 civilians and nine policemen" wounded, a Baghdad bombing which claimed the life of Zaid Abdul Kareem ("an employee of the Iraqi ministers' cabinet") and left his wife wounded, two Baghdad bombings which damaged a church.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 police officer was shot dead at a Baaj checkpoint.
Tuesday's snapshot included this, "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." Yesterday, Mike Tharp offered "Silencers on Handguns -- a Silver Lining?" (McClatchy's Baghdad Observer):
But there may be one in a little-known but increasingly common part of the insurgent arsenal: the use of silencers on handguns.
Since July 4, the Daily Violence Report compiled by the McClatchy Baghdad bureau from police and hospitals all over the county has contained no fewer than four cases of insurgents and others killing and wounding Iraqi army and national police officers with pistols fitted with silencers. In June there were several others, including shootings at officers' homes, in northern Iraq.
This week two incidents occurred in Mosul and one in Kirkuk--both in northern Iraq--and one in Baghdad. One of the incidents in Mosul was especially gruesome. A father was killed and his son wounded at a police checkpoint by a gunman using a silencer.
With all the homemade bombs, adhesive bombs, hand-thrown bombs and other lethal weapons that've been used in recent weeks, why would the use of handguns with silencers be anything but one more downer?
Alsumaria reports, "Iraqi Parliament is due to sign three agreements with US and British Parliaments as well as the European Union aimed to enhance cooperation and exchange expertise mainly in legislating laws. Iraqi Parliament plans to sign two agreements with the European Union and the United States and seeks to conclude as well another protocol with the British House of Commons, an informed source from Iraqi Speaker’s office said." And they note that the release of the five Iranian diplomats by the US military "is not sufficient to change Iran's policy towards the United States," citing Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chair of Iran's Parliament.
Alice Fordham (Times of London) blogged Thursday about leaving Iraq:
And were they ever glorious. I didn't so much want to buy some of those carpets as marry them. It was as if some magician had spirited the colours out of a peacock's feathers and woven them into the whorls and curlicues of prayer rugs and wall hangings. There was a green one the colour of a slice of agate, and a dove grey one with a silvery geometric pattern. There were silken carpets from Isfahan which would fill a room and napkin-sized ruglets with verses of the Koran worked in wool. They were carpets to conjure with, carpets which deserved to be the subjects of stories about enchantments and genies.
I vowed one day to save up and come back for a whopping, silk number in 1,001 shades of purple, blue and gold, but for this humbler shopping trip, I was very taken by a rug which I was told came from Kurdistan. My next adventure, God willing, will take me to the separatist region in northern Iraq, and it was pleasing to have a carpet which was, I was told, a traditional Kurdish pattern. Its geometric design looked a little like Cubist versions of Paisley swirls and it was in unusually flat, bright shades of yellow, red and blue. It didn't fly me out of Baghdad, but it did come with me on the plane and, until my next trip, will remind me of my adventures in this ancient, modern, troubled and intriguing country.
And we'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "U.S. NEEDS TO LISTEN TO ARIAS ON LATIN AMERICAN ISSUES" (Veterans' Today):
Oscar Arias, the president of Costa Rica and the man who will serve as mediator of the crisis in Honduras, writes in an OpEd piece this morning (July 10th) in the Miami Herald, “This coup demonstrates, once more, that the combination of powerful militaries and fragile democracies creates a terrible risk.”
Arias never once mentions the role of the United States in destabilizing democracy across Latin America but he doesn’t have to. Uncle Sam is the world’s Numero Uno arms dealer. What Arias does say is: “This year alone, the governments of Latin America will spend nearly $50 billion on their armies. That’s nearly double the amount spent five years ago, a ridiculous sum in a region where 200 million people live on fewer than $2 a day and where only Colombia is engaged in an armed conflict.”
The Pentagon’s Latin influence, always powerful, has been gaining steadily for years and few Americans appear either to know, or to care, what’s been going down the tubes South of the Border. In the five years ended in 2003---under both Presidents Clinton and Bush---U.S. military aid to the region more than tripled, Jim Lobe wrote on “Common Dreams.” “While the militarization of U.S. aid in Latin America actually began under former President Bill Clinton….trends established then have become more pronounced under Bush,” Lobe wrote, citing a report by the Latin America Working Group Education Fund. “Despite pervasive problems of poverty in Latin America, the United States’ focus on military rather than economic aid to the region is increasing,” he quoted Lisa Haugaard of LAWGEF as stating.
You can get the Pentagon’s slant on why Latins must be armed to the teeth from Stephen Johnson, installed two years ago by the Bush regime as Assistant Defense Secretary for the Western Hemisphere. Reuters quotes him as saying (May 21, 2007): “Right now funds for security assistance are slim and what programs we can offer are limited by complicated sanctions. That leaves a vacuum for powers like China and Russia to fill.” This statement is fairly hilarious considering that Russia can scarcely defend its borders and the sinister Chinese are keeping the U.S. economy afloat by lending us billions. (And what’s “slim?”)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
richard connelly
braden reddall
anthony boadle
bbc news
sahar issa
mohammed al dulaimy
alsumaria
mcclatchy newspapers
mike tharp
the times of london
alice fordham
sherwood ross
iraq
Saturday, July 11, 2009
US military kills truck driver, Grannies get bitchy
Meeting reporters outside the Veterans Museum and Memorial Center in San Diego, Long said he wished every morning that he could see his son running toward him and hear his voice.
"Instead I woke up to reveille and I saw high fences and razor wire," said Long, from Boise, Idaho. "This punishment was for having a moral opposition to the Iraq war."
Long enlisted in 2003 and was trained as a tank crewman but fled to Canada in 2005 when his unit was on the verge of deploying to Iraq. He said his views about the war had changed since his enlistment.
Long said that, like much of the American public, he began to doubt the wisdom of the war when the U.S. was unable to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Long said he was influenced by a quotation attributed to Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
That's from Tony Perry's "Army deserter tells of his time behind bars" (Los Angeles Times) and the article has a nice photo of Robin taken by Perry. US war resister Robin Long was released from the brig on Thursday and held a press conference Friday morning. John Wilken's "'I had to do what I felt was right,' Army deserter tells news conference" (San Diego Union-Tribune):
He worked in the supply room at Miramar and wrote several open letters calling the war “illegal and immoral.” Anti-war activists rallied around him on the Internet and at the base, where they held monthly vigils. Hundreds of people sent him letters from as far away as South Africa.
With time off for good behavior, he was released Thursday after 371 days in custody. At first, he said, he found freedom an overwhelming swirl of noise, crowds and color.
Now he's busy with plans to start school next month at a holistic institute in San Francisco. He hopes Renée, his common-law wife, and Océan, his son, can visit him there while he studies massage therapy. His goal is to return to Canada.
In today's New York Times, Sam Dagher's "G.I. Kills Iraqi Driver Who Failed To Stop, U.S. Military Says" appears on A5 of the national edition and recounts the death of 1 truckdriver who was shot dead north of Baghdad at two in the morning not a checkpoint, but where the US military had stopped due to a US vehicle breaking down. Dagher notes, "Major [Derrick] Cheng [US military spokesperson] did not immediately respond to questions about what kind of signal the soldiers used."
On the item below, one Granny had a real problem with being bitchy. We've deleted one word from this press release. If she wants to focus on Iraq, try focusing on it. The next time it happens, we won't delete a word, we just won't note them. There's enough sexism in the world already and if I were the Raging Grannies -- apparently now named the Peace Grannies -- if I were a bunch of Reds from Brooklyn who felt it was my obligation to tell the truth, I damn well wouldn't have provided cover for Barry O throughout 2008 which, for the record, Red Grannies did. Now they're red with blood on their hands. Good to know they now remember Iraq. NOW. In real time, in 2008, they were too busy showing how bitchy grannies could be as they worked over time to rip apart Hillary Clinton. Now since they aren't Democrats they never should have butted it in. But they have blood on their hands now -- whether they acknowledge it or not.
And being bitchy about Sarah Palin, doesn't wipe away the blood Grannies. You made yourselves a joke in 2008 -- who ever heard of a bunch of Communists drooling over a Democrat to begin with? (Though they were far from alone.) If they want to get their act and ass together in 2009, we'll note 'em. But one more piece of bitchy from the Grannies and we're done with them. By the way, note that the Red Cowards can get bitchy with Palin but their press release on the Iraq War? They never mention Barry, now do they? Apparently the Iraq War continues all on its own. Without any presidential directives. Or maybe Red Grannies are still just a bunch of fools and cowards? Here's their press release and does do a lot to indicate that elderly Communists in the United States have much bravery or much worth saying:
PRESS ADVISORY
FOR RELEASE ANY TIME
CONTACT: Joan Wile - 917-441-0651
GRANNIES HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN;
WAR STILL NO. 1 ISSUE FOR PEACE GRANNIES
Two Vigil Protests Held Weekly
As most of America focuses on the death of Michael Jackson, Sarah Palin's [. . .] resignation interview and Gov. Sanford's marital straying, New York's peace grandmothers still concentrate on the all-important issue of war and peace. As they have since we invaded Iraq, the women and their supporters feel it is urgent that the troops come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. "There has never been nor can ever be anything to be accomplished by these immoral wars other than death and destruction," said Barbara Walker, one of the peace grandmothers.
They have recently stepped up the momentum of their anti-war actions so that, in addition to maintaining their five-and-a-half plus years Wednesday Grandmothers Against the War vigil at Rockefeller Center, the sister group Granny Peace Brigade now holds a Friday "Costs of War" tableau protest at the Times Square recruitment center (re-named, laughably, the U.S. Military Career Center). In this event, the grannies have a choreographed Q & A routine displaying on posters the answers to such chanted questions as: How much does it cost to keep one soldier deployed in Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians killed? How many soldier suicides? How many starving Iraqi children?
The location at Times Square is very significant for the grannies, inasmuch as 18 of them were arrested and jailed there when they tried to enlist in October 2005 in order to replace America's grandchildren so they could live long lives like the grannies have been privileged to enjoy. They were on trial for 6 days in Manhattan's criminal court and were acquitted after their defense by civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel and his associate, Earl Ward. The story traveled around the world overnight and was instrumental in jump-starting the anti-war movement, which had been largely quiescent before then.
The media is invited to either or both of these events any time. The Rockefeller Center vigil is held religiously every week no matter what the weather. The recruitment center action may be affected by the weather, so it is advisable to call me if it is raining.
ROCKEFELLER CENTER VIGIL
PLACE: West side of 5th Ave. between 49th and 50th Sts.
DAY AND TIME: Wednesday afternoons, 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
TIMES SQUARE RECRUITING CENTER PROTEST
PLACE: Broadway and 43rd St.DAY AND TIME: Fridays, noon to 1:30 p.m.
For the record, we're not interested in any of Red Grannies sex fantasies about female politicians. We weren't in 2008 and we're not interested now. But for those who only know the Grannies from their easy p.r. and don't grasp "bitchy," bitchy is attempting to destroy Hillary via little 'skits' about her bedroom habits. Which honestly say more about Joan Wile's bedroom sadness than they could ever about Hillary Clinton.
And one correction. If they're not calling out Barack, we're not interested. It's not just their continued bitchy, we're not interested period. Elderly Communists better grow the hell up and find the courage to call out a sitting president continuing an illegal war or they better retire to Florida or where ever the elderly Brooklyn contingent of CPUSA goes.
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Cedric's Big Mix
He'll get to work one day
1 hour ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! THE NEVER READY PRESIDENT!
1 hour ago
Mikey Likes It!
Legal abuses by Bush and Barack
21 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
We need answers
22 hours ago
Trina's Kitchen
Baked tuna casserole
22 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
grab bag
23 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
The shameful David Kris
23 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Politco goes down on Huffington Post
23 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Roland Burris announces he won't run in 2010
23 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Snapshot (C.I.)
23 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee
23 hours ago
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the los angeles times
tony perry
the new york times
sam dagher
robin long
john wilken
the san diego union-tribune
iraq
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
"Instead I woke up to reveille and I saw high fences and razor wire," said Long, from Boise, Idaho. "This punishment was for having a moral opposition to the Iraq war."
Long enlisted in 2003 and was trained as a tank crewman but fled to Canada in 2005 when his unit was on the verge of deploying to Iraq. He said his views about the war had changed since his enlistment.
Long said that, like much of the American public, he began to doubt the wisdom of the war when the U.S. was unable to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Long said he was influenced by a quotation attributed to Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
That's from Tony Perry's "Army deserter tells of his time behind bars" (Los Angeles Times) and the article has a nice photo of Robin taken by Perry. US war resister Robin Long was released from the brig on Thursday and held a press conference Friday morning. John Wilken's "'I had to do what I felt was right,' Army deserter tells news conference" (San Diego Union-Tribune):
He worked in the supply room at Miramar and wrote several open letters calling the war “illegal and immoral.” Anti-war activists rallied around him on the Internet and at the base, where they held monthly vigils. Hundreds of people sent him letters from as far away as South Africa.
With time off for good behavior, he was released Thursday after 371 days in custody. At first, he said, he found freedom an overwhelming swirl of noise, crowds and color.
Now he's busy with plans to start school next month at a holistic institute in San Francisco. He hopes Renée, his common-law wife, and Océan, his son, can visit him there while he studies massage therapy. His goal is to return to Canada.
In today's New York Times, Sam Dagher's "G.I. Kills Iraqi Driver Who Failed To Stop, U.S. Military Says" appears on A5 of the national edition and recounts the death of 1 truckdriver who was shot dead north of Baghdad at two in the morning not a checkpoint, but where the US military had stopped due to a US vehicle breaking down. Dagher notes, "Major [Derrick] Cheng [US military spokesperson] did not immediately respond to questions about what kind of signal the soldiers used."
On the item below, one Granny had a real problem with being bitchy. We've deleted one word from this press release. If she wants to focus on Iraq, try focusing on it. The next time it happens, we won't delete a word, we just won't note them. There's enough sexism in the world already and if I were the Raging Grannies -- apparently now named the Peace Grannies -- if I were a bunch of Reds from Brooklyn who felt it was my obligation to tell the truth, I damn well wouldn't have provided cover for Barry O throughout 2008 which, for the record, Red Grannies did. Now they're red with blood on their hands. Good to know they now remember Iraq. NOW. In real time, in 2008, they were too busy showing how bitchy grannies could be as they worked over time to rip apart Hillary Clinton. Now since they aren't Democrats they never should have butted it in. But they have blood on their hands now -- whether they acknowledge it or not.
And being bitchy about Sarah Palin, doesn't wipe away the blood Grannies. You made yourselves a joke in 2008 -- who ever heard of a bunch of Communists drooling over a Democrat to begin with? (Though they were far from alone.) If they want to get their act and ass together in 2009, we'll note 'em. But one more piece of bitchy from the Grannies and we're done with them. By the way, note that the Red Cowards can get bitchy with Palin but their press release on the Iraq War? They never mention Barry, now do they? Apparently the Iraq War continues all on its own. Without any presidential directives. Or maybe Red Grannies are still just a bunch of fools and cowards? Here's their press release and does do a lot to indicate that elderly Communists in the United States have much bravery or much worth saying:
PRESS ADVISORY
FOR RELEASE ANY TIME
CONTACT: Joan Wile - 917-441-0651
GRANNIES HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN;
WAR STILL NO. 1 ISSUE FOR PEACE GRANNIES
Two Vigil Protests Held Weekly
As most of America focuses on the death of Michael Jackson, Sarah Palin's [. . .] resignation interview and Gov. Sanford's marital straying, New York's peace grandmothers still concentrate on the all-important issue of war and peace. As they have since we invaded Iraq, the women and their supporters feel it is urgent that the troops come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. "There has never been nor can ever be anything to be accomplished by these immoral wars other than death and destruction," said Barbara Walker, one of the peace grandmothers.
They have recently stepped up the momentum of their anti-war actions so that, in addition to maintaining their five-and-a-half plus years Wednesday Grandmothers Against the War vigil at Rockefeller Center, the sister group Granny Peace Brigade now holds a Friday "Costs of War" tableau protest at the Times Square recruitment center (re-named, laughably, the U.S. Military Career Center). In this event, the grannies have a choreographed Q & A routine displaying on posters the answers to such chanted questions as: How much does it cost to keep one soldier deployed in Iraq? How many Iraqi civilians killed? How many soldier suicides? How many starving Iraqi children?
The location at Times Square is very significant for the grannies, inasmuch as 18 of them were arrested and jailed there when they tried to enlist in October 2005 in order to replace America's grandchildren so they could live long lives like the grannies have been privileged to enjoy. They were on trial for 6 days in Manhattan's criminal court and were acquitted after their defense by civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel and his associate, Earl Ward. The story traveled around the world overnight and was instrumental in jump-starting the anti-war movement, which had been largely quiescent before then.
The media is invited to either or both of these events any time. The Rockefeller Center vigil is held religiously every week no matter what the weather. The recruitment center action may be affected by the weather, so it is advisable to call me if it is raining.
ROCKEFELLER CENTER VIGIL
PLACE: West side of 5th Ave. between 49th and 50th Sts.
DAY AND TIME: Wednesday afternoons, 4:30 - 5:30 p.m.
TIMES SQUARE RECRUITING CENTER PROTEST
PLACE: Broadway and 43rd St.DAY AND TIME: Fridays, noon to 1:30 p.m.
For the record, we're not interested in any of Red Grannies sex fantasies about female politicians. We weren't in 2008 and we're not interested now. But for those who only know the Grannies from their easy p.r. and don't grasp "bitchy," bitchy is attempting to destroy Hillary via little 'skits' about her bedroom habits. Which honestly say more about Joan Wile's bedroom sadness than they could ever about Hillary Clinton.
And one correction. If they're not calling out Barack, we're not interested. It's not just their continued bitchy, we're not interested period. Elderly Communists better grow the hell up and find the courage to call out a sitting president continuing an illegal war or they better retire to Florida or where ever the elderly Brooklyn contingent of CPUSA goes.
The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:
Cedric's Big Mix
He'll get to work one day
1 hour ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! THE NEVER READY PRESIDENT!
1 hour ago
Mikey Likes It!
Legal abuses by Bush and Barack
21 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
We need answers
22 hours ago
Trina's Kitchen
Baked tuna casserole
22 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
grab bag
23 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
The shameful David Kris
23 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Politco goes down on Huffington Post
23 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Roland Burris announces he won't run in 2010
23 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
Snapshot (C.I.)
23 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee
23 hours ago
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the los angeles times
tony perry
the new york times
sam dagher
robin long
john wilken
the san diego union-tribune
iraq
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
Friday, July 10, 2009
Iraq snapshot
Friday, July 10, 2009. Chaos and violence continues, war resister Robin Long is out of the brig, the New York Times backs Nouri so much they not only attack the Kurds but they also play dumb about a DC meet-up between Iraq and neighbors that the White House is attempting to set up for later this year, a House Armed Services subcommittee questions the budget numbers, and more. Starting with war resistance. Robin Long has no regrets. John Wilkens (San Diego Union-Tribune) quotes him declaring today, "I wouldn't do anything differently." Tony Perry (Los Angeles Times) reports Robin Long was released from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station's brig yesterday "after serving 12 months of a 15-month sentence." Long is a war resister who self-checked out and went to Canada where he attempted to be granted asylum. Not only did that not happen, he was imprisoned and whisked across the border back to the US in violation of his rights and those of his child -- his child is a Canadian citizen. Today Robin held a press conference and Wilkens covers it noting Robin stated he would continue speaking out and that "[. . .] I had to do what I felt was right." The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. is the latest book by independent journalist Dahr Jamail. The US Socialist Worker provides an excerpt from the opening of the new book: The environment in the United States today is not one that can support and sustain a GI resistance movement of significant proportions, giving it enough power to directly affect the foreign policy of the country, as it did so effectively in the Vietnam era. There is much in the military to prohibit a GI resistance movement from growing anywhere near the proportion that helped end the U.S. war in Vietnam. Military discipline is much more repressive than in the past, which makes organizing more difficult. There is less radicalization of the GI movement, as compared to that in the late 1960s and early 1970s; therefore, passive resistance against the command is more common than direct resistance. There is a much lower level of political awareness and analysis among soldiers as compared to that during Vietnam, when there were hundreds of underground newspapers that served to inform troops while criticizing the military apparatus. The all-volunteer military, rather than a draft, is also responsible for stifling broader dissent. Despite these factors, dissent in the ranks is happening on a daily basis. While overall violence in Iraq has dropped, it is escalating dramatically in Afghanistan, as President Obama begins to "surge" 30,000 troops into that occupation. The overstretched military is in a state of disrepair, full of demoralized, bitter soldiers whose reasons for staying in are based on economics and loyalty to their friends rather than nationalism or patriotism. These elements, accompanied by the continuing neglect that soldiers experience upon their return home, are driving larger numbers toward dissent. This is a book about average soldiers and their brave acts of dissent against a system that is betraying them. I decided to focus on the rank-and-file members who actually served in Iraq, rather than those giving the orders from within safe compounds. I believe it is those who have followed the orders who have had to pay the highest price. My main objective in presenting this book is to highlight the reality that oppressed and oppressors alike suffer the dehumanizing effects of military action. For soldiers and war journalists like myself who have lived with this, struggled with PTSD, and reintegrated ourselves into society, a light at the seemingly endless dark tunnel of the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is the possibility of the shifting of these individual acts of resistance into a broader, organized movement toward justice--both in the military and in U.S. foreign policy. In his latest dispatch, Dahr breaks down the realities about Nouri al-Maliki and his attempts to become the new strong-man: Let's be clear - Maliki has been supported by the US as the leader of Iraq since his installation. In January 2005, I was in Baghdad for the elections that formed an Iraqi Parliament, which then elected Iraq's first prime minister under US occupation - that man was Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Jaafari wasn't exactly toeing the US/UK line in Iraq, so it wasn't long until then-US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her UK counterpart Jack Straw rushed to Baghdad to set things straight. Just after their visit, Jaafari was out and Maliki was in. No democracy was involved in this process. In a recent article titled "Iraq's New Death Squad" for The Nation by independent journalist Shane Bauer, we are provided with an inside view of Maliki's iron fist, which has come in the form of the Iraq Special Operations Forces. Bauer writes: "The Iraq Special Operations Forces (ISOF) is probably the largest special forces outfit ever built by the United States, and it is free of many of the controls that most governments employ to rein in such lethal forces. The project started in the deserts of Jordan just after the Americans took Baghdad in April 2003. There, the US Army's Special Forces, or Green Berets, trained mostly 18-year-old Iraqis with no prior military experience. The resulting brigade was a Green Beret's dream come true: a deadly, elite, covert unit, fully fitted with American equipment, that would operate for years under US command and be unaccountable to Iraqi ministries and the normal political process. The ISOF is at least 4,564 operatives strong, making it approximately the size of the US Army's own Special Forces in Iraq. Congressional records indicate that there are plans to double the ISOF over the next 'several years'." According to Bauer, control of the ISOF was slowly transferred by US Special Forces to the Iraqis in 2007, but it wasn't put under the command of the Defense or Interior Ministry. Rather, "the Americans pressured the Iraqi government to create a new minister-level office called the Counter-Terrorism Bureau," Bauer writes, "Established by a directive from Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, the CTB answers directly to him and commands the ISOF independently of the police and army. According to Maliki's directive, the Iraqi Parliament has no influence over the ISOF and knows little about its mission." Untold numbers of politically motivated murders have followed as a result. Regular assassinations and detentions of al-Sahwa (US-created Sunni militia that Maliki had opposed from the beginning) members have been ongoing for years. Last August, the ISOF raided the provincial government compound in Diyala, while backed by US Apache helicopters, and arrested a member of Iraq's main Sunni Arab political party. In December, the ISOF arrested more than 30 Interior Ministry officials who were believed to be opponents of Maliki's Dawa Party. In March, the ISOF arrested a leader of the Sahwa. As he attempts to become the new Saddam, he does so with the apparent approval and endorsement of the New York Times, hence Sam Dagher's article today allegedly about the Kurish region and their events but told from a Nouri point of view. Well into the article, primarily an article carping about the KRG's proposed constitution, Dagher notes, "Iraq's federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court." Though it bothers Nouri, and apparently the paper, the Kurds can do a new constitution, revamp their old one, do whatever they want and it is their right. The unresolved issue of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk is not presented as having anything to do with Nouri. This despite realities including Damien Cave's June 2007 reporting for the paper when he noted, "The future of oil-rich Kirkuk was left in limbo, with Kurds holding out for a referendum scheduled for the end of this year that they hope will grant them control." The issue of Kirkuk was Constitutionally mandated to be resolved by November 2007 (in the 2005 constitution). Not only that but Nouri agreed to the White House's 2007 benchmarks and those benchmarks included resolving the Kirkuk issue. Dahger ignores all of that but does find time to say the Kruds "defended" attempting "to add all of hotly contested and oil-rich Kirkuk Province, as well as other disputed areas in Nineveh and Diyala Provinces." Are they 'adding' Kirkuk if they've long claimed it? Or are they continuing to stake their claim on Kirkuk? Furthermore, the paper is accepting the boundaries set by the central government and those boundaries have always been in dispute, even in Saddam's time. The areas are disputed on both sides. It's not just the Kurds disputing the boundaries. If you're still not getting how one-sided Dagher's article is, please note that in the print edition of the paper, the article is entitled "Kurds Lay Claim To Land and Oil, Defying Baghdad"; however, Australia's The Age re-runs the article and gives it the more appropriate headline "Kurds' new constitution angers US, Iraq." And certainly Dagher's written reflecting something other than Kurdish goals or interests. Apparently those aren't topics to cover . . . even in an article apparently about the Kurdish region. Al Hurriyet notes that some are trying to state that the northern region of Iraq would be better off with Turkey -- please note that 'some' includes those Americans who lied/spun/cheerleaded the US into Vietnam, some of the same losers (including Katty-van-van's deadbeat father) who were part of the "American Friends of Vietnam" -- a front group which, starting in 1955, began openly advocating for US 'intervention' in Vietnam via lies, trickery and deceit. The New York Times is so busy shining on al-Maliki, they forgot to tell you about his flare up with US Vice President Joe Biden. Salah Hemeid (Al-Ahram Weekly) explains the paper only "alluded" and didn't explain but Biden issued a call for bringing the Ba'athist back into the political process. Nouri's response was to issue public statements such as this one through his spokesperson "the government will never talk to those whose hands were stained with blood". Publicly stated. Somehow the paper missed that. Somehow the paper forgot to tell readers that. The US ran, under Paul Bremer, the Ba'athists out of the political process in what is termed "de-Ba'ahtification." Part of the benchmarks established by the US White House in 2007 and signed off on by Nouri al-Maliki was to bring the Ba'athists back in -- a de-de-Ba'athification. That has never happened and when Biden pointed out the need for it to, al-Maliki made it clear it wasn't happening. That's a key moment and it's interesting that the paper of record elected not to cover it or that Biden proposed a DC meeting with segments of Iraq including the Ba'athists and Iraqi neighbors to sort out some issues. An Iraqi official states that the vice president "suggested that Arab countries that will participate in the proposed reconciliation meeting in Washington are ready to guarantee that the Baathists will abandon any kind of armed resistance if they are allowed to function as a legitimate political party." Again, huge news and the paper of record 'missed' it.. Today on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Steve Roberts filled in for Diane Rehm. The second hour (international) featured Andrei Sitov (Itar-Tass), Farah Stockman (Boston Globe) and Tom Gjelten (NPR). And we'll note this section on Iraq which covers some of the themes and topics emerging during the week. Steve Roberts: [. . .] but, Farah, I want to deal with one more development, actually several developments in Iraq, including the more aggressiver assertion of territorial integrity and separateness on the part of the Kurds in northern Iraq. This is not a new story in some ways, it's been a semi-autonomous region for a long time, but some new developments. Farah Stockman: Yeah. I think the Kurds are-are starting to get frustrated with Baghdad. A lot of the disagreements that have been simmering for years over oil, over the share of oil they should get, over whether the state controlled oil companies should make decisions or whether we should have production sharing agreements and the Kurds are -- and disputed territories. And these questions have been left unresolved for a long time and the Kurds are impatient and saying, 'We need to move forward and resolve some of these.' Whereas I think Maliki's government doesn't appreciate those moves by the Kurds and he's also starting to become an Arab -- kind of an Arab nationalist which is, I think, worrisome for the Kurds. Maliki is starting to position himself politically as an Arab nationalist against the Kurds. And, I think, this is worrisome because the Sunnis were always odd-man-out. It was always the Kurds-were-the-voice-of-reason and they were the ones arguing for the greater good of Iraq and even though they wanted their own -- their own semi-autonomous area, they were still speaking of things in terms of unity with the government and now we're seeing a shift. We're seeing the Shias and the Kurds draw farther apart. I think that's worrisome. Steve Roberts: And of course the vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, was the author, co-author of a plan at one time that would provide for what was sometimes called a soft partition of Iraq. Farah Stockman: Well -- right. Some people would say that Biden's plan was simply what was already enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution. It depends upon your interpretation of that document, I guess. I think -- I think the Obama administration had hoped to turn its attention to Afghanistan, get away from Iraq and last week they asked Biden to look more closely at Iraq. I think that's a sign that they see Iraq as continuing to be worrisome and that they can't -- they can't just shut it out. Steve Roberts: In addition, Tom, to the problem of the Kurds, there's the problem of ongoing violence. Tom Gjelten: That's what I was going to say. It's not just the Kurds. What we're seeing is real sectarian strife returning in Iraq. A lot of violence this week, most of it directed against Shites, and it's coming just as the United States has pulled its troops out of major cities. The big question in Iraq is whether the Iraqi security forces are going to be capable of handling security responsibilities in Iraq. Right now with these rising ethnic tensions, whether it's the Kurds in the north or the Sunni and the Shi'ite populations, I think there's some real concerns. Farah Stockman: I -- also just to add -- Steve Roberts: Please. Farah Stockman: I think there's a real danger here for Obama in that we could get stuck with one foot in Iraq and one foot in Afghanistan and not really have the freedom of movement to do any of those two very complicated countries justice. Steve Roberts: Is there any sense that given the pull-back of American troops and the rise in violence that there's any rethinking about this strategy, Tom, or is the Americans completely devoted to this pull-back whatever instability results? Tom Gjelten: Well, I think, Steve, one point to keep in mind is that there's less to this pullback than you might think. I mean, the Bush administration -- sorry, the Obama administration makes a big point of there not being after a certain point combat troops in Iraq but what we've seen with the nature of warfare in Iraq is basically everybody who is in Iraq is in the category of combat troops. And the numbers that we're seeing now, we're down to 130,000 but that's, remember, that's only the number that was there before the surge. We're going to see 130,000 or 120,000 throughout the rest of this year. So there's not a major pull-back here. Unfortunately, not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's happening in "the dark" - beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras - that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and the US military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else - something more unsettling - appears to be going on. And it wasn't just the president's hedging over withdrawing American "combat" troops from Iraq which, in any case, make up as few as one-third of the 130,000 US forces still in the country - now extended from 16 to 19 months. Nor was it the re-labeling of some of them as "advisors" so they could, in fact, stay in the vacated cities, or the redrawing of the boundary lines of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to exclude a couple of key bases the Americans weren't about to give up. After all, there can be no question that the Obama administration's policy is indeed to reduce what the Pentagon might call the US military "footprint" in Iraq. To put it another way, Obama's key officials seem to be opting not for blunt-edged, former president George W Bush-style militarism, but for what might be thought of as an administrative push in Iraq, what Vice President Joe Biden has called "a much more aggressive program vis-a-vis the Iraqi government to push it to political reconciliation". An anonymous senior State Department official described this new "dark of night" policy to Christian Science Monitor reporter Jane Arraf in this way: "One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the US can continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do so." Without being seen to do so. On this General Odierno and the unnamed official are in agreement. And so, it seems, is Washington. As a result, the crucial thing you can say about the Obama administration's military and civilian planning so far is this: ignore the headlines, the fireworks, and the briefly cheering crowds of Iraqis on your TV screen. Put all that talk of withdrawal aside for a moment and - if you take a closer look, letting your eyes adjust to the darkness - what is vaguely visible is the silhouette of a new American posture in Iraq. Think of it as the Obama Doctrine. And what it doesn't look like is the posture of an occupying power preparing to close up shop and head for home. In some of today's reported violence (it's Friday, little gets reported) . . . Bombings? Reuters notes a Baghdad bombing late Thursday which claimed injured a police officer "and three of his family members". Shootings? Moahmmed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Sahwa member ("Awakening" "Sons of Iraq" are other names) shot dead in Baghdad with another injured. Reuters notes another Sahwa member was shot dead in Babil with another left injured. CNN notes two Sawha were killed in the Baghdad attack and they state 75 people have lost their lives in Iraq since Wednesday with two-hundred-and-two left injured. Yesterday the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Joint Readiness, Air and Land Forces and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces met to take testimony from General James Amos with the Marines and General Peter Chiarelli with the Army. Amos' big news is that all the marines equipment will be out of Iraq at the end of 2010 but not all of the marines. The press has maintained otherwise. We will be out of Iraq, the marines will be," declared Amos, "with the exception of just a few, by this time next year, the equipment will be out of Iraq, being repaired and going to the home stations." Repaired? With regards to Chiarelli and the army, the big news appeared to be that money was being wasted because military equipment being reset is not also being repaired. This was referred Roscoe Bartlett: I want to follow up with a question asked by Mr. Forbes, the army's 2010 request for reset is about $11 billion which nearly 8 billion -- 7.9 billion is for operations and maintenance and 3.1 billion for procurement. Now from 2007 to 2010, the O and M portion has been pretty constant at about 8 billion but the procurement portion has dropped to less than fifty percent of what it was in '07. I know '07 was a bit higher than it might have been because we were short in '06. But at just the time when we need more money because of all this reset, now we have less money. And if we're going to justify this on the basis of this new rule that you can't upgrade when you're repairing the equipment than I have a problem with that because what an opportunity we have when it's in there for maintenance repair why can't we upgrade? It seems to me to be very short sighted and I'm wondering why the money wasn't there? Did the army ask for more than 11 billion and 11 billion was all you could get? Peter Chiarelli: My understanding is no, sir, we did not. We understood with the new overseas contingency operations rules were going to be, that amount, that three-billion-plus in procurement can only be used for washouts or vehicles or aircraft that are destroyed. And for the most part -- although like all these rules, they change -- for the most part, the recap -- or adding on -- is not allowed in FY10 and that drove down the amount of money we needed for procurement. Roscoe Bartlett: But sir, why not? Isn't it our goal to have a better and better military? To support our people? Why shouldn't we upgrade? And isn't this a very short sighted program? Peter Chiarelli: Sir, you'd have to ask the folks who wrote the new rules. Uhm. I-I think that it makes a lot of sense to upgrade when we can. It's kind of like paving a road. Uh, you know, it's better to put the sewer system in before you pave the road. It's-it's not a good idea to, in fact, pave the road and then decide to dig it up to put the sewer system in. So when we have equipment in and are able to do that -- that was a plus and allowed us to recap equipment. But the new rules are that we cannot do that. Roscoe Bartlett: Well I think Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the Congress makes the rules. And, Mr. Chairman [Ortez], I think we need to take a look at that. Thank you very much and I yield back. Solomon Ortez: Chairman Abercrombie. Neil Abercrombie: I want to follow up, General, on what Mr. Bartlett just was dealing with when he says the Congress makes the rules. I'm not clear from your answer to Mr. Bartlett. What-what part of what the Congress wants you to do is being thwarted by whomever is making these rules? Who made this rule? Peter Chiarelli: Sir, my understanding is they come out of OMB Neil Abercrombie: I'm sorry? Peter Chiarelli: Sir, my understanding is they come out of OMB. They write -- Neil Abercrombie: So you -- this is very important to me -- you take orders from OMB and not from the Defense Bill? Peter Chiarelli: I, um, I can only tell you what I know now right now, sir, is the rules -- and I don't question who makes rules -- Neil Abercrombie: Well maybe rules is the wrong way. I'm not trying to be argumentative here at all. But this is serious business because the questions I have have to do with inventory and our capacity to do an accurate inventory so that I can make from -- Mr. Bartlett and I, I should say, because we do this together -- make recommendations to our subcommittee members and the committee as a whole. We try to this in a way that reflects your needs and if you're telling me that -- or telling Mr. Bartlett -- that someone in the Office of Management and Budget is able to countermand, I guess, what we're doing, how on earth are we supposed to make an accurate assessment, let alone recommendation, to follow up on, uh, requests that you're making today, let alone what has been made in the past. I'm not quite sure about your answer. Are you saying that your present -- your present course of action, when you make decisions with regard to the context established by Mr. Bartlett, that you're not paying any attention to the Defense Bill? Peter Chiarelli: I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- Neil Abercrombie: Then why -- I really need to know what it is that we're dealing with here. Peter Chiarelli: I can only tell you what the people I trust to put together our request to Congress have indicated to us: In FY10, as a general rule, we are not allowed to recap equipment. And that has brought down the amount of money that we requested for procurement as part of reset. Neil Abercrombie: So you don't need additional funds? Is that right? Peter Chiarelli: I am telling you -- Neil Abercrombie: Because we could reallocate funds. Believe me, I've got requests, Mr. Bartlett has requests right now, if your answer is is that you don't need this money and that which was represented to us -- whether I was in the minority or the majority because we've been on this subcommittee for some period of time now -- so those estimates from before were inaccurate? Peter Chiarelli: Let me be perfectly clear -- Neil Abercrombie: I hope so. Peter Chiarelli: -- this -- Neil Abercrombie: Because believe me I'll make some recommendations for re-allocations. Absolutely, I will. Peter Chiarelli: We are in fact able -- with the budget we have and what we've requested to you to do what you asked me to come here and talk about today and that is reset our equipment. That is bring our equipment up to 1020 standards and 1020 standards meaning that it is fully capable to do its mission with minor deficiencies at best. We do not bring it to a recap situation. We are able to reset our equipment exactly as defined with the money we've been given by Congress. Neil Abercrombie: Okay, if that's the case then, what do -- what system is in place then, whether it's from the OMB or yourself, to accurately asses inventory. The reason that I ask this question, in following up on Mr. Bartlett's observations and inquiry, is that just in shipping containers alone, you read the GAO reports, shipping containers alone, we can't get, our subcommittee staff, is unable to get an accurate answer as to what we need even from containers for equipment because we can't get a handle on your inventory. What inventory process is in place right now? And do you have confidence in it? Peter Chiarelli: I have confidence in our inventory. I have confidence not only that commanders down range like I was twice maintaining inventory of both their TO and E equipment that they bring over with them plus the troop provided equipment. Uh, we have had many looks at our equipment down range to make sure that accountability standards are high. Uh, and they are. Uh and we feel very, very good that we know what we've got down range and what we will in fact be bringing back and what is in troop provided -- theater provided equipment which they issue to units when they arrive in theater Neil Abercrombie: So the GAO reports on the capacity for you to accurately assess inventory is incorrect. Peter Chiarelli: I believe -- Neil Abercrombie: I'll send it to you. Peter Chiarelli: Thank you, sir. Neil Abercrombie: And I would appreciate your response. This is a serious question because, again, this involves numbers, including billions of dollars. Believe me, we are looking right now for billions of dollars possibly for reallocation because of other demands. So-so if you don't need this money and you're sure your inventory assessment is absolutely correct seems to me I'm going to have a hell of a lot more flexibility than I thought I had. Peter Chiarelli: Uh, we too understand the tru-tremendous fiscal re - crisis that our country has gone though. The economic situation. And one of the reasons why there's no question as long as we can reset our equipment we understand because of fiscal requirements it may be in the best interest of our country as a whole to cut back on the amount of recap we're doing so it did not seem odd to me -- Neil Abercrombie: Okay, excuse me. In the fiscal interests, is that the basis? Are you in conversations with these folks at OMB? Peter Chiarelli: I have not, sir. Neil Abercrombie: Who would have had these conversations? Peter Chiarelli: It would have taken place at the Office of Secretary of Defense, OSD. Neil Abercrombie: So the Secretary of Defense is saying that you need -- at least from my calculations here -- approximately 2 billion dollars less than you said you needed previously with regard to reset on the basis of -- what was the phrase you used? Fiscal discipline or fiscal necessity? Peter Chiarelli: We understand that we all have to be very, very careful with the dollars that we spend. And, uhm, people have made a decision that we will not recap equipment in FY10. That seems to me to be understandable. Neil Abercrombie: Okay, it's understandable, yes. Do you think it's good policy? Peter Chiarelli: If-if-if I had the ability to recap equipment, if we had the money to recap equipment I think it would make sense -- Neil Abercrombie: That's not the question I asked. Do you think you need the money to recap? In you professional judgment, that's what we're asking for today, not from a politician appointed in the OMB. I'm asking for your professional judgment today with regard: Do you need money to recap? Peter Chiarelli: If I had the ability to recap, I would recap for all the reasons I have stated. Neil Abercrombie: You think the policy then of not being able to do that which is reflected in your -- in the numbers that are given to us -- is not good policy? Peter Chiarelli: I-I-I can't say that and I won't say that. And I won't say that because I understand that the people who make those rules, make those decisions, have to take many other things into consideration. And that is why -- Neil Abercrombie: Yes, they have to take into consideration what we say is in the Defense Bill because we're reflecting -- we are trying to reflect -- I'm trying to help you here. Because, believe me, if you give me this answer, I want to know, and right now what you're telling me is is that -- is that in your professional judgment the-the rules or the-the policy or the-the-the admonitions that you've been given or the directions that you're operating under reflects your professional judgment of what the necessities for the army are right now. Peter Chiarelli: If I had the authority and the ability to recap, I would. I -- Neil Abercrombie: Okay, thank you. If Congress gives you the authority under the Defense Bill then that would reflect your professional opinion that you could use at least 13 billion dollars a year rather than 11 billion -- Peter Chiarelli: I can't -- I can't give you those numbers. Neil Abercrombie: Well okay. You don't have to -- well, those are the numbers we have been given previously. Peter Chiarelli: Previous years? Neil Abercrombie: Yes. Peter Chiarelli: I'd have to go back and ask the -- we just don't go -- Neil Abercrombie: I won't go further. Mr. Chairman, this is serious business. We're under the gun here in the Defense Bill to make accurate numbers and put them forward for everybody to consider and now we have to make a decision whether OMB does this because, what the hell, we don't need a committee here if-if-if somebody down in OMB, this is a political appointment. It's all political appointments and if we're going to do it on the basis of-of what somebody else decides in the executive is-is a budget number as opposed to what our obligation is which is to provide for you and the people who serve under you and under your command then we have a real dilemma here. I have a real dilemma because I can't accurately, I cannot in good conscience say to Chairman Ortiz or to the other members that we're giving a number that adequately responds to what you believe to be in your professional judgment a necessity. Understand my motivation here? Peter Chiarelli: I hope you understand mine. I-I understand also that you have to take many other things into consideration when putting together our budget. That's all I'm saying to you. That was pulled from yesterday's snapshot because there wasn't room. Monday a bad article about women veterns and the large increase in the number who become homeless appeared, Bryan Bender's "More female veterans are winding up homeless" (Boston Globe) -- an article on how women veterans are falling through the cracks because their specific issues and problems are not known and/or addressed -- an article where all the 'experts' were men. No one apparently noticed that incongruity. Bender was not tackling a just-breaking story. From the June 3rd snapshot, when US House Rep Bob Finer chaired the House Committee on Veterans Affairs committee for the hearing entitled "A National Commitment to End Veterans' Homelessness:" The number of women veterans who are homeless is rising. [Vietnam Veterans of America's Marsha] Four observed, "There certainly is a question of course on the actual number of homeless veterans -- it's been flucuating dramatically in the last few years. When it was reported at 250,000 level, two percent were considered females. This was rougly about 5,000. Today, even if we use the very low number VA is supplying us with -- 131,000 -- the number, the percentage, of women in that population has risen up to four to five percent, and in some areas, it's larger. So that even a conservative method of determinng this has left the number as high as [6,550]. And the VA actually is reporting that they are seeing that this is as high as eleven percent for the new homeless women veterans. This is a very vulnerable population, high incidents of past sexual trauma, rape and domestic violence. They have been used, abused and raped. They trust no one. Some of these women have sold themselves for money, been sold for sex as children, they have given away their own children. And they are encased in this total humiliation and guilt the rest of their lives." About half of her testimony was reading and about half just speaking to the committee directly.\ Marsha Ford is only one of the experts on the issue Bender could have spoken to but didn't. Congress has found many women capable of speaking on the issue in the last two years. Since the press seems unable to (and since the Feminist Wire Daily can't even notice that women aren't 'experts' in Bender's article) perhaps the press could pay attention on July 14th when the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee holds their hearing Women Veterans: Bridging the Gaps in Care? Or possibly July 16th when the House Armed Services Committee holds their hearing Eliminating the Gaps: Examing Women Veterans' Issues? Were they to do so, they might discover that, no surprise, there are many, many women who can speak to issues effecting women veterans and they might realize how insulting -- in a story about how women's own issues are ignored by the VA (including being a single, primary caregiver for a child) -- it is to pen an article on women veterans while bringing in 'expert' males to talk about their problems as if to say: No one can follow the issue when a woman speaks. It's the equivalent, in conversations, of a man interrupting a woman to tell her story 'for her' because he can do it so much better because, apparently, an addition groin weight somehow helps in 'translation.' Turning to film, The Hurt Locker opens today in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. The amazing film directed by Kathryn Bigelow is winning raves all over. Ann Hornaday's "'Locker' Serves as Iraq Tour De Force" (Washington Post): "War is a drug," writes Christopher Hedges in the epigraph that precedes "The Hurt Locker." Someone else described war as "interminable boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror." Director Kathryn Bigelow comprehends both those observations and conveys them in this captivating, completely immersive action thriller. "The Hurt Locker" just happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, but, like the best films, transcends time and place, and in the process attains something universal and enduring. "The Hurt Locker" is about Iraq in the same way that "Paths of Glory" was about World War I or "Full Metal Jacket" was about Vietnam -- which is to say, utterly and not at all. "The Hurt Locker" is a great movie, period. From Mick LaSalle's "'The Hurt Locker' shows Bigelow's skill" (San Francisco Chronicle): She uses handheld cameras in "The Hurt Locker" not to make viewers dizzy or to instill excitement that isn't there but to create a subtle sense of being alongside the characters. Her camera doesn't shake. It breathes. It pulses. The camera becomes the viewer's eyes, not those of a spastic cameraman. Through such intuitive means, Bigelow takes an audience from the opening credits into a state of fierce attention and total empathy within about 60 seconds. Notice how quickly Bigelow conveys the charm and humanity of Guy Pearce, a soldier called upon to neutralize a bomb in the movie's first scene. Notice also how the direction and Mark Boal's screenplay inject a workaday quality into this tense moment. Throughout "The Hurt Locker," the human element is central, so that whenever something happens, it feels personal. Turning to TV, this week on NOW on PBS: This week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and their hopes for the future. To Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue for creating a more stable and secure world." This show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through self-sustaining innovation. Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East. Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East. That begins airing tonight on most PBS stations as does Washington Week which finds Gwen sitting around the table with James Barnes (National Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Kay James and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers: Kill Bin Laden The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports. | Watch Video Eyewitness 60 Minutes, Sunday, July 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. |
The violence and the disputed region in the north
"Negligence by these forces caused this catastrophe," said Jaafer Teafari, 34, an unemployed laborer. "The Qala area is well protected, so how were the terrorists able to enter and strike?"
That's from Nada Bakri's "Explosions Kill 50 in Iraq, Raise Fears of Sectarian Strife" (Washington Post) on yesterday's violence which includes the twin bombings in Tal Afar. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers this context, "Mass bombings continued for a second day Thursday throughout Iraq, killing dozens of people and wounding more than 130 in at least three cities a week after the U.S. military withdrew combat forces from Iraq's major cities." Ned Parker and Usama Redha's "In self-policed Iraq, bombings kill 54" (Los Angeles Times) covers the back and forth blaming:
Provincial council member Yahya Abed Majoub, a member of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party, blamed the attack in Tall Afar on political factions as well as neighboring countries.
"There are groups who want to ignite sectarian and ethnic tensions all over Iraq. Nineveh is just the starting point," Majoub said. "There is a political agenda from inside and outside related to the election."
Kurdish officials blamed the attack on the group Al Qaeda in Iraq. They lashed out at the U.S. military, however, saying it had allowed security to deteriorate by withdrawing. The Kurds have viewed the American forces as a partner and a check on Arab ambitions in the provinces adjoining Iraqi Kurdistan.
In today's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers and Campbell Robertson's "Insurgency Remains Tenacious In North Iraq" whose key characteristic appears to be the continued low-balling of fatalities. For example, going with 12 for Wednesday's bombings in Thursday morning's paper (as happened in NYT) was understandable in that the article could have been filed before the final toll was in. An article appearing in this morning's paper on yesterday's violence, an article written yesterday (Thursday) has no excuse for still not having the death toll from Wednesday correct. But that's the New York Times, always heading the undercount. We'll note this from the article:
The persistent violence in Mosul and Nineveh underscores the broader turmoil afflicting Iraq. But it also reflects the region's unique mixture of insurgency and ethnic tensions between Kurds and Arabs, as well as a proliferation of criminal gangs, that makes the north the most dangerous part of the country.
That was supposed to change last spring, when 4,000 American troops joined more than 25,000 Iraqi security personnel to clean out Mosul's neighborhoods one by one. Just as significantly, a Sunni Arab political bloc won in January’s provincial elections, giving the Arab citizens of the north proportional representation for the first time and, it was hoped, defusing antigovernment sentiment and support for insurgents. It has not turned out that way.
Along with undercounting, the article stands out for suddenly noticing things that others have long been noting. (Including Mosul being the target of violence and the targeting of the police.) And you really have to laugh at this coming from the New York Times: "Much of the death toll in Iraq these days results from large, high-profile attacks that can skew perceptions of day-to-day violence. The attacks in Mosul, though, are just as often small, directed and constant, with a toll that accumulates inexorably even as it draws less attention." If it's not a large high profile attack, the paper ignores it. That's why the violence in Mosul has largely gone uncovered by the paper. The targeting of the police, for example, became the story of the weekend and yet the paper never noted it until today. It was a slow and steady targeting. And then the paper wants to claim that perceptions are skewed about the violence because of high profile attacks?
No, the only the violence gets covered is if it's a high profile attack. When it's not, it goes uncovered and the paper pretends everything's 'safe' and 'peaceful' in Iraq. It's not the attacks that are skewing perceptions, it's bad reporting.
On the front page of this morning's New York Times, Sam Dagher's "Kurds Lay Claim To Land and Oil, Defying Baghdad" that some strong points and some strong problems. First, I grasp that anytime you write about the Kurdish region, it's up for misunderstanding. Making basic points of fairness here leads to e-mail drive-bys from people who assume I am pro-KRG or anti-KRG. I'm neither. The KRG exists and it exists without my say-so and neither requires nor needs it. So I grasp that simple statements can easily be misconstrued on this issue -- by readers in the US and outside. And I grasp that efforts at fairness can upset some groups. But the news needs to strive towards fairness and Dagher's article fails that test.
This is the statement that matters: "Iraq's federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court."
The Kurds have the right to their own constitution. That's not debatable. Nor do we need fretting from Nouri al-Maliki or any Iraqi MP. Fairness is that any power the Constitution outlines can be exercised without need for a tizzy or uproar.
The Kurds creating their own Constitution is within their rights. Whether or not some in the KRG area feel they'll have time to know it before July 25th really isn't an issue. Not one for outsiders. July 25th is when the region holds their elections (they did not hold elections January 31st -- and it's interesting to note how much time the press spent/favored on those elections and how little attention the international press has given to these elections). A body has ruled that the Constitution cannot be voted on by the people in the region July 25th (they now hope to have it August 11th or before September). But bringing the aspect of oh-I-don't-have-time-to-read into it is just nonsense because the article already sets up that Nouri's opposed to the Constitution that Iraqi MPs are and by tossing in that useless information, the paper appears to be taking sides.
I doubt anyone is ever ready for any vote. Myself included. I know the referendums, I know the statewide (and national offices) but there's always at least one local office I have no idea on. Boo-hoo. That's the way it goes. Had the constitution been put before the people, as the KRG wanted, you can be sure it would have been printed in newspapers in the region. You can be sure it would have been available. And those who cared to inform themselves would do so and those who didn't care (as well as those who didn't have the time) wouldn't inform themselves. They might, as I do on a local office, ask friends for input before deciding their own vote. They might just skip that section of the ballot. Or they might just mark something on their ballot without caring.
That's the way it goes in every election around the world. When you've already weighted the argument to one side, and the paper had long before it began whining that voters wouldn't know what was in the constitution, including that nonsense is taking a side. And it's also flaunting ignorance because, again, the constitution, were it being included in the July 25th vote, would be publicized and widely printed.
Did they have the right to write their own constitution? Yes, they did. That should have led the article. Instead, it led with how Americans are fretting about tensions and how Nouri's opposed to it and how some Iraqi MPs are (a lot of Iraqi MPs were outraged by it). And then, it briefly notes what the actual law is before turning to various groups to trash the constitution for various reasons.
That's not reporting. And it's not fair and this is a volatile region so care needs to be taken.
Care was not taken.
That includes in the last two paragraphs which are devoted to Gareth Stansfield. I would be very curious to read his full quote because the two sentences fit the article's alarmist tone; however, they do not reflect Stansfield's manner of speaking -- which is usually more weighted and thoughtful than the paper's quote indicates.
Dagher writes:
Kurdish officials defended their efforts to adopt a new constitution that defines the Kurdistan region as comprising their three provinces and also tries to add all of hotly contested and oil-rich Kirkuk Province, as well as other disputed areas in Nineveh and Diyala Provinces. Iraq's federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court.
No where in that paragraph -- or elsewhere in the article -- is it noted that any disputes are the fault of the centeral government in Baghdad. These issues were supposed to have been resolved long ago. They have not been. Nouri spent the weekend floating the idea that maybe Kirkuk could be resolved with a vote before killing that at the start of the week.
The issues need to be resolved. The issue of Kirkuk was Constitutionally mandated to be resolved by November 2007 (in the 2005 constitution). Not only that but Nouri agreed to the White House's 2007 benchmarks and those benchmarks included resolving the Kirkuk issue.
Nouri agreed to that, he signed off on it.
He hasn't done his job.
Where in the article is that noted or made clear?
It isn't.
It's those pesky Kurds, in such a rush, and, my, how greedy!
That's how the article reads (headline is from the print version, by the way). I don't live in Kirkuk. Who ends up with it isn't really a pressing concern of mine. But you can't pretend to explore the topic and ignore the fact that the issue was supposed to have been addressed four years ago and that Nouri has been the impediment there for three years. You should note that the United Nations attempted to graft an agreement and Nouri was again the problem. But you are required to note that the issue was supposed to have been resolved long ago and that Nouri agreed, in 2007, to resolve it when he signed off on the White House benchmarks.
You might need to note that the paper reported in June of 2007 (Damien Cave), "The future of oil-rich Kirkuk was left in limbo, with Kurds holding out for a referendum scheduled for the end of this year that they hope will grant them control."
Furthermore, the paper is accepting the boundaries set by the central government and those boundaries have always been in dispute, even in Saddam's time. The areas are disputed on both sides. It's not just the Kurds disputing the boundaries.
And it needs to be noted that the Kurdish elections take place July 25th . . . with none of the drum rolls or breathless panting the New York Times offered non-stop in the lead up to the January 31st elections -- elections that the repeatedly forgot to note were not taking place across Iraq.
Turning to TV, this week on NOW on PBS:
Once one of the most dangerous and violent cities in the West Bank, Jenin was the scene of frequent battles between the Israeli military and Palestinian fighters, and the hometown of more than two dozen suicide bombers.
The Weekly Q
Does the U.S. relationship with Israel help our national security?
Yes
No
Not sure
Survey software by SurveyGizmo
Send this Weekly Q to a friend!
Today, however, there's been a huge turnaround. Jenin is now the center of an international effort to build a safe and economically prosperous Palestinian state from the ground up. On Jenin's streets today, there's a brand new professional security force loyal to the Palestinian Authority and funded in part by the United States. But can the modest success in Jenin be replicated throughout the West Bank, or will the effort collapse under the intense political pressure from all sides?
This week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and their hopes for the future.
To Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue for creating a more stable and secure world."
This show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through self-sustaining innovation.
Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.
Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.
That begins airing tonight on most PBS stations as does Washington Week which finds Gwen sitting around the table with James Barnes (National Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Kay James and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Steve Roberts fills in for Diane Rehm. The first hour (domestic) includes E.J. Dionne (Washington Post), Dante Chinni (Christian Science Monitor) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine). The second hour (international) features Andrei Sitov (Itar-Tass), Farah Stockman (Boston Globe) and Tom Gjelten (NPR). The Diane Rehm Show begins airing on most NPR stations (and streaming online) live at ten a.m. EST.
We'll note this from Michael Schwartz' "The US takes to the shadows in Iraq" (Asia Times):
Unfortunately, not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's happening in "the dark" - beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras - that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and the US military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else - something more unsettling - appears to be going on.
And it wasn't just the president's hedging over withdrawing American "combat" troops from Iraq which, in any case, make up as few as one-third of the 130,000 US forces still in the country - now extended from 16 to 19 months. Nor was it the re-labeling of some of them as "advisors" so they could, in fact, stay in the vacated cities, or the redrawing of the boundary lines of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to exclude a couple of key bases the Americans weren't about to give up.
After all, there can be no question that the Obama administration's policy is indeed to reduce what the Pentagon might call the US military "footprint" in Iraq. To put it another way, Obama's key officials seem to be opting not for blunt-edged, former president George W Bush-style militarism, but for what might be thought of as an administrative push in Iraq, what Vice President Joe Biden has called "a much more aggressive program vis-a-vis the Iraqi government to push it to political reconciliation".
An anonymous senior State Department official described this new "dark of night" policy to Christian Science Monitor reporter Jane Arraf in this way: "One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the US can continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do so."
Without being seen to do so. On this General Odierno and the unnamed official are in agreement. And so, it seems, is Washington. As a result, the crucial thing you can say about the Obama administration's military and civilian planning so far is this: ignore the headlines, the fireworks, and the briefly cheering crowds of Iraqis on your TV screen. Put all that talk of withdrawal aside for a moment and - if you take a closer look, letting your eyes adjust to the darkness - what is vaguely visible is the silhouette of a new American posture in Iraq. Think of it as the Obama Doctrine. And what it doesn't look like is the posture of an occupying power preparing to close up shop and head for home.
Plugging a friend's movie.
The Hurt Locker opens today in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. The amazing film directed by Kathryn Bigelow is winning raves all over. Ann Hornaday's "'Locker' Serves as Iraq Tour De Force" (Washington Post):
"War is a drug," writes Christopher Hedges in the epigraph that precedes "The Hurt Locker." Someone else described war as "interminable boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror." Director Kathryn Bigelow comprehends both those observations and conveys them in this captivating, completely immersive action thriller. "The Hurt Locker" just happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, but, like the best films, transcends time and place, and in the process attains something universal and enduring. "The Hurt Locker" is about Iraq in the same way that "Paths of Glory" was about World War I or "Full Metal Jacket" was about Vietnam -- which is to say, utterly and not at all. "The Hurt Locker" is a great movie, period.
From Mick LaSalle's "'The Hurt Locker' shows Bigelow's skill" (San Francisco Chronicle):
She uses handheld cameras in "The Hurt Locker" not to make viewers dizzy or to instill excitement that isn't there but to create a subtle sense of being alongside the characters. Her camera doesn't shake. It breathes. It pulses. The camera becomes the viewer's eyes, not those of a spastic cameraman. Through such intuitive means, Bigelow takes an audience from the opening credits into a state of fierce attention and total empathy within about 60 seconds.
Notice how quickly Bigelow conveys the charm and humanity of Guy Pearce, a soldier called upon to neutralize a bomb in the movie's first scene. Notice also how the direction and Mark Boal's screenplay inject a workaday quality into this tense moment. Throughout "The Hurt Locker," the human element is central, so that whenever something happens, it feels personal.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
steven lee myers
campbell robertson
the washington post
nada bakri
the los angeles times
ned parker
usama redha
michael schwartz
That's from Nada Bakri's "Explosions Kill 50 in Iraq, Raise Fears of Sectarian Strife" (Washington Post) on yesterday's violence which includes the twin bombings in Tal Afar. Mike Tharp (McClatchy Newspapers) offers this context, "Mass bombings continued for a second day Thursday throughout Iraq, killing dozens of people and wounding more than 130 in at least three cities a week after the U.S. military withdrew combat forces from Iraq's major cities." Ned Parker and Usama Redha's "In self-policed Iraq, bombings kill 54" (Los Angeles Times) covers the back and forth blaming:
Provincial council member Yahya Abed Majoub, a member of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party, blamed the attack in Tall Afar on political factions as well as neighboring countries.
"There are groups who want to ignite sectarian and ethnic tensions all over Iraq. Nineveh is just the starting point," Majoub said. "There is a political agenda from inside and outside related to the election."
Kurdish officials blamed the attack on the group Al Qaeda in Iraq. They lashed out at the U.S. military, however, saying it had allowed security to deteriorate by withdrawing. The Kurds have viewed the American forces as a partner and a check on Arab ambitions in the provinces adjoining Iraqi Kurdistan.
In today's New York Times, Steven Lee Myers and Campbell Robertson's "Insurgency Remains Tenacious In North Iraq" whose key characteristic appears to be the continued low-balling of fatalities. For example, going with 12 for Wednesday's bombings in Thursday morning's paper (as happened in NYT) was understandable in that the article could have been filed before the final toll was in. An article appearing in this morning's paper on yesterday's violence, an article written yesterday (Thursday) has no excuse for still not having the death toll from Wednesday correct. But that's the New York Times, always heading the undercount. We'll note this from the article:
The persistent violence in Mosul and Nineveh underscores the broader turmoil afflicting Iraq. But it also reflects the region's unique mixture of insurgency and ethnic tensions between Kurds and Arabs, as well as a proliferation of criminal gangs, that makes the north the most dangerous part of the country.
That was supposed to change last spring, when 4,000 American troops joined more than 25,000 Iraqi security personnel to clean out Mosul's neighborhoods one by one. Just as significantly, a Sunni Arab political bloc won in January’s provincial elections, giving the Arab citizens of the north proportional representation for the first time and, it was hoped, defusing antigovernment sentiment and support for insurgents. It has not turned out that way.
Along with undercounting, the article stands out for suddenly noticing things that others have long been noting. (Including Mosul being the target of violence and the targeting of the police.) And you really have to laugh at this coming from the New York Times: "Much of the death toll in Iraq these days results from large, high-profile attacks that can skew perceptions of day-to-day violence. The attacks in Mosul, though, are just as often small, directed and constant, with a toll that accumulates inexorably even as it draws less attention." If it's not a large high profile attack, the paper ignores it. That's why the violence in Mosul has largely gone uncovered by the paper. The targeting of the police, for example, became the story of the weekend and yet the paper never noted it until today. It was a slow and steady targeting. And then the paper wants to claim that perceptions are skewed about the violence because of high profile attacks?
No, the only the violence gets covered is if it's a high profile attack. When it's not, it goes uncovered and the paper pretends everything's 'safe' and 'peaceful' in Iraq. It's not the attacks that are skewing perceptions, it's bad reporting.
On the front page of this morning's New York Times, Sam Dagher's "Kurds Lay Claim To Land and Oil, Defying Baghdad" that some strong points and some strong problems. First, I grasp that anytime you write about the Kurdish region, it's up for misunderstanding. Making basic points of fairness here leads to e-mail drive-bys from people who assume I am pro-KRG or anti-KRG. I'm neither. The KRG exists and it exists without my say-so and neither requires nor needs it. So I grasp that simple statements can easily be misconstrued on this issue -- by readers in the US and outside. And I grasp that efforts at fairness can upset some groups. But the news needs to strive towards fairness and Dagher's article fails that test.
This is the statement that matters: "Iraq's federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court."
The Kurds have the right to their own constitution. That's not debatable. Nor do we need fretting from Nouri al-Maliki or any Iraqi MP. Fairness is that any power the Constitution outlines can be exercised without need for a tizzy or uproar.
The Kurds creating their own Constitution is within their rights. Whether or not some in the KRG area feel they'll have time to know it before July 25th really isn't an issue. Not one for outsiders. July 25th is when the region holds their elections (they did not hold elections January 31st -- and it's interesting to note how much time the press spent/favored on those elections and how little attention the international press has given to these elections). A body has ruled that the Constitution cannot be voted on by the people in the region July 25th (they now hope to have it August 11th or before September). But bringing the aspect of oh-I-don't-have-time-to-read into it is just nonsense because the article already sets up that Nouri's opposed to the Constitution that Iraqi MPs are and by tossing in that useless information, the paper appears to be taking sides.
I doubt anyone is ever ready for any vote. Myself included. I know the referendums, I know the statewide (and national offices) but there's always at least one local office I have no idea on. Boo-hoo. That's the way it goes. Had the constitution been put before the people, as the KRG wanted, you can be sure it would have been printed in newspapers in the region. You can be sure it would have been available. And those who cared to inform themselves would do so and those who didn't care (as well as those who didn't have the time) wouldn't inform themselves. They might, as I do on a local office, ask friends for input before deciding their own vote. They might just skip that section of the ballot. Or they might just mark something on their ballot without caring.
That's the way it goes in every election around the world. When you've already weighted the argument to one side, and the paper had long before it began whining that voters wouldn't know what was in the constitution, including that nonsense is taking a side. And it's also flaunting ignorance because, again, the constitution, were it being included in the July 25th vote, would be publicized and widely printed.
Did they have the right to write their own constitution? Yes, they did. That should have led the article. Instead, it led with how Americans are fretting about tensions and how Nouri's opposed to it and how some Iraqi MPs are (a lot of Iraqi MPs were outraged by it). And then, it briefly notes what the actual law is before turning to various groups to trash the constitution for various reasons.
That's not reporting. And it's not fair and this is a volatile region so care needs to be taken.
Care was not taken.
That includes in the last two paragraphs which are devoted to Gareth Stansfield. I would be very curious to read his full quote because the two sentences fit the article's alarmist tone; however, they do not reflect Stansfield's manner of speaking -- which is usually more weighted and thoughtful than the paper's quote indicates.
Dagher writes:
Kurdish officials defended their efforts to adopt a new constitution that defines the Kurdistan region as comprising their three provinces and also tries to add all of hotly contested and oil-rich Kirkuk Province, as well as other disputed areas in Nineveh and Diyala Provinces. Iraq's federal Constitution allows the Kurds the right to their own constitution, referring any conflicts to Iraq's highest court.
No where in that paragraph -- or elsewhere in the article -- is it noted that any disputes are the fault of the centeral government in Baghdad. These issues were supposed to have been resolved long ago. They have not been. Nouri spent the weekend floating the idea that maybe Kirkuk could be resolved with a vote before killing that at the start of the week.
The issues need to be resolved. The issue of Kirkuk was Constitutionally mandated to be resolved by November 2007 (in the 2005 constitution). Not only that but Nouri agreed to the White House's 2007 benchmarks and those benchmarks included resolving the Kirkuk issue.
Nouri agreed to that, he signed off on it.
He hasn't done his job.
Where in the article is that noted or made clear?
It isn't.
It's those pesky Kurds, in such a rush, and, my, how greedy!
That's how the article reads (headline is from the print version, by the way). I don't live in Kirkuk. Who ends up with it isn't really a pressing concern of mine. But you can't pretend to explore the topic and ignore the fact that the issue was supposed to have been addressed four years ago and that Nouri has been the impediment there for three years. You should note that the United Nations attempted to graft an agreement and Nouri was again the problem. But you are required to note that the issue was supposed to have been resolved long ago and that Nouri agreed, in 2007, to resolve it when he signed off on the White House benchmarks.
You might need to note that the paper reported in June of 2007 (Damien Cave), "The future of oil-rich Kirkuk was left in limbo, with Kurds holding out for a referendum scheduled for the end of this year that they hope will grant them control."
Furthermore, the paper is accepting the boundaries set by the central government and those boundaries have always been in dispute, even in Saddam's time. The areas are disputed on both sides. It's not just the Kurds disputing the boundaries.
And it needs to be noted that the Kurdish elections take place July 25th . . . with none of the drum rolls or breathless panting the New York Times offered non-stop in the lead up to the January 31st elections -- elections that the repeatedly forgot to note were not taking place across Iraq.
Turning to TV, this week on NOW on PBS:
Once one of the most dangerous and violent cities in the West Bank, Jenin was the scene of frequent battles between the Israeli military and Palestinian fighters, and the hometown of more than two dozen suicide bombers.
The Weekly Q
Does the U.S. relationship with Israel help our national security?
Yes
No
Not sure
Survey software by SurveyGizmo
Send this Weekly Q to a friend!
Today, however, there's been a huge turnaround. Jenin is now the center of an international effort to build a safe and economically prosperous Palestinian state from the ground up. On Jenin's streets today, there's a brand new professional security force loyal to the Palestinian Authority and funded in part by the United States. But can the modest success in Jenin be replicated throughout the West Bank, or will the effort collapse under the intense political pressure from all sides?
This week, NOW talks directly with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the international community's envoy to the region and an architect of the plan. We also speak with a former commander of the infamous Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in Jenin about his decision to stop using violent tactics, and to residents of Jenin about their daily struggles and their hopes for the future.
To Blair, the Jenin experiment can be pivotal in finally bringing peace to the Middle East. He tells NOW, "This is the single most important issue for creating a more stable and secure world."
This show is part of Enterprising Ideas, NOW's continuing spotlight on social entrepreneurs working to improve the world through self-sustaining innovation.
Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.
Next week NOW on PBS reports from inside the Israeli Defense Force to get the Israeli perspective on peace in the Middle East.
That begins airing tonight on most PBS stations as does Washington Week which finds Gwen sitting around the table with James Barnes (National Journal), Ceci Connolly (Washington Post), Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times) and Deborah Solomon (Wall St. Journal). Bonnie Erbe sits down with Melinda Henneberger, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Kay James and Genevieve Wood on PBS' To The Contrary. Check local listings, all three PBS shows begin airing tonight on many PBS stations. And turning to broadcast TV, Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes offers:
Kill Bin Laden
The officer who led the army's Delta Force mission to kill Osama bin Laden after 9/11 reveals what really happened in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, when the al-Qaeda leader narrowly escaped. Scott Pelley reports. | Watch Video
Eyewitness
Lesley Stahl reports on flaws in eyewitness testimony that are at the heart of the DNA exonerations of falsely convicted people like Ronald Cotton, who has forgiven his accuser, Jennifer Thompson. (This is a double-length segment.) | Watch Video
60 Minutes, Sunday, July 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
On NPR's The Diane Rehm Show, Steve Roberts fills in for Diane Rehm. The first hour (domestic) includes E.J. Dionne (Washington Post), Dante Chinni (Christian Science Monitor) and Karen Tumulty (Time magazine). The second hour (international) features Andrei Sitov (Itar-Tass), Farah Stockman (Boston Globe) and Tom Gjelten (NPR). The Diane Rehm Show begins airing on most NPR stations (and streaming online) live at ten a.m. EST.
We'll note this from Michael Schwartz' "The US takes to the shadows in Iraq" (Asia Times):
Unfortunately, not just for the Iraqis, but for the American public, it's what's happening in "the dark" - beyond the glare of lights and TV cameras - that counts. While many critics of the Iraq War have been willing to cut the Obama administration some slack as its foreign policy team and the US military gear up for that definitive withdrawal, something else - something more unsettling - appears to be going on.
And it wasn't just the president's hedging over withdrawing American "combat" troops from Iraq which, in any case, make up as few as one-third of the 130,000 US forces still in the country - now extended from 16 to 19 months. Nor was it the re-labeling of some of them as "advisors" so they could, in fact, stay in the vacated cities, or the redrawing of the boundary lines of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, to exclude a couple of key bases the Americans weren't about to give up.
After all, there can be no question that the Obama administration's policy is indeed to reduce what the Pentagon might call the US military "footprint" in Iraq. To put it another way, Obama's key officials seem to be opting not for blunt-edged, former president George W Bush-style militarism, but for what might be thought of as an administrative push in Iraq, what Vice President Joe Biden has called "a much more aggressive program vis-a-vis the Iraqi government to push it to political reconciliation".
An anonymous senior State Department official described this new "dark of night" policy to Christian Science Monitor reporter Jane Arraf in this way: "One of the challenges of that new relationship is how the US can continue to wield influence on key decisions without being seen to do so."
Without being seen to do so. On this General Odierno and the unnamed official are in agreement. And so, it seems, is Washington. As a result, the crucial thing you can say about the Obama administration's military and civilian planning so far is this: ignore the headlines, the fireworks, and the briefly cheering crowds of Iraqis on your TV screen. Put all that talk of withdrawal aside for a moment and - if you take a closer look, letting your eyes adjust to the darkness - what is vaguely visible is the silhouette of a new American posture in Iraq. Think of it as the Obama Doctrine. And what it doesn't look like is the posture of an occupying power preparing to close up shop and head for home.
Plugging a friend's movie.
The Hurt Locker opens today in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Austin, Oahu, Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Minneapolis, Denver, Toronto and DC. The amazing film directed by Kathryn Bigelow is winning raves all over. Ann Hornaday's "'Locker' Serves as Iraq Tour De Force" (Washington Post):
"War is a drug," writes Christopher Hedges in the epigraph that precedes "The Hurt Locker." Someone else described war as "interminable boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror." Director Kathryn Bigelow comprehends both those observations and conveys them in this captivating, completely immersive action thriller. "The Hurt Locker" just happens to be set in Iraq in 2004, but, like the best films, transcends time and place, and in the process attains something universal and enduring. "The Hurt Locker" is about Iraq in the same way that "Paths of Glory" was about World War I or "Full Metal Jacket" was about Vietnam -- which is to say, utterly and not at all. "The Hurt Locker" is a great movie, period.
From Mick LaSalle's "'The Hurt Locker' shows Bigelow's skill" (San Francisco Chronicle):
She uses handheld cameras in "The Hurt Locker" not to make viewers dizzy or to instill excitement that isn't there but to create a subtle sense of being alongside the characters. Her camera doesn't shake. It breathes. It pulses. The camera becomes the viewer's eyes, not those of a spastic cameraman. Through such intuitive means, Bigelow takes an audience from the opening credits into a state of fierce attention and total empathy within about 60 seconds.
Notice how quickly Bigelow conveys the charm and humanity of Guy Pearce, a soldier called upon to neutralize a bomb in the movie's first scene. Notice also how the direction and Mark Boal's screenplay inject a workaday quality into this tense moment. Throughout "The Hurt Locker," the human element is central, so that whenever something happens, it feels personal.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the new york times
sam dagher
steven lee myers
campbell robertson
the washington post
nada bakri
the los angeles times
ned parker
usama redha
michael schwartz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)