Monday, December 7, 2009. Chaos and violence continue, an election measure may lead to Iraq elections (not this month or next), the Iraq Inquiry continues in England, calls for an investigation into an Iraq-related death to be reopened are made in England, and more. Asked in Vanity Fair's Proust Questionnaire what she most dislikes, singer-songwriter Carly Simon responds, "War or anything to do with instruments of war, or war-like tendencies." Carly's latest album is Never Been Gone in which she revisist many of her best known songs (including "You're So Vain," "Anticipation," "Coming Around Again" and "Let The River Run") to find new nuances and shadings. (Kat praised the new album here.) We've got a 'heavy' snapshot so we'll open with Carly for that reason and also because friends at Van Fair have repeatedly asked for links in the past weeks and I haven't had time (for their pain). Staying with Carly for a minute more, as Kat noted Friday, Mike Ragogan (Huffington Post) interviewed her last week and here she's explaining the making of Never Been Gone: It started in the summer of 2008, when I had been promoting This Kind Of Love which was the Starbucks album, and they had withdrawn Hear Music five days before my record was released. So I didn't have the marketing, I was riding on a horse and there was no horse under me. I was so unhappy, and it was embarrassing, and it was like, "Oh my god, what have I been doing for the last two years but writing this record, making this record, and being so proud of this record." But I was the horseless rider. So I was quite self-involved and indulgently so, and really depressed. It was the summertime and there were lots of people around my house -- Ben and his friends and a lot of musicians were up there working on a project with him. I couldn't be consoled I was so upset. Ben said to me, "Come on, let's turn this into productivity. We have all these musicians here, just sit down in the living room and play the songs the way you wrote them. Let's do an unplugged version," which you picked-up on in your review. There are no drums except for "You Belong To Me" and "No Freedom," we just didn't allow drums on the record, even on "You're So Vain" which was daunting to redo after it was my most popular song. But we did it and I really love the energy that was put into the song, and that really carries all the way through. It's got new vocal ideas, and I just think it's an inventive version. Inventive was Barack's speech last week where he took Bully Boy's 'lyrics' and made them his own. Al Jazeera's latest Inside Iraq began airing Friday and the topic was Afghanistan and Jasim al-Azawi was joined by retired US General Richard Myers (former commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and current War pushed from the boards of Aon Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation and United Technologies Corporation) and Professor As'ad Abu Khalil of the University of California at Berkeley. Jasim al-Azzawi: General Myers, let's call a spade a spade. In Iraq, pretty much the US army bought off those fighters from the Awakening Councils, you know, paid them salaries and said "Stop shooting at us." And overnight the fighting stopped. Are they going to do the same? Are they going to pour money at the Pashtuns? General Richard Myers: You know, it's a good question. I don't -- I don't know what incentives will be used and how they'll be used. In that part of the world, money is often used as an incentive. But I mean, Iraq is far from being stable and far from being a sure bet that it's going to be successful. On the other hand, it's been relatively stable and we'll see if they can get through elections here -- coming in January, there's some question about that. But if they do, then I think whatever methods were used, you'll have to say, "Well those were successful." Jasim al-Azzawi: As'ad Abu Khalil As'ad Abu Khalil: Let me say the following. I notice that General Myers uses the word "stable" government in Iraq and this is the new lingo because of American officials. It was used by the Bush administration, it's being used by the Obama administration. Remember that we were promised an exemplary democracy in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Instead, we have created some of the most corrupt governments on the face of the earth. Don't take my word for it, look at the recent rank by Transparency International in London and you will find these two governments are literally among the most corrupt in the world. Plus, I want to take issue with the model of success by the revival council in Iraq. These are some of the most repressive, sexist and thuggish tribal councils that oppress women and want to impose traditional views on society. That is not the kind of alternative we need against the sexism and misogyny of the Taliban. Plus, he said that we are moving away from [US-installed Afghanistan 'president'] Hamid Karzai. I'm not sure that's the case. We are, in fact, using two tract policy. On the one hand, we are throwing more additional money -- taxpayers money -- to be embezzled and misused by the Hamid Karzai government and we're also, on the second tract, relying on new council like the so-called Kandahar Strike Council. That council is related to none other than the brother of Hamid Karzai. The notorious, corrupt person known as Ahmad Karzai. So it seems to me with that strategy, we are creating more corruption and we are giving more time for America's enemy to wait it out until the date of withdrawal. Obama is clearly emulating not only the policies and war actions of the Bush administration, he's even copying the rhetoric, the empty rhetoric, that is out there -- Jasim al-Azzawi: As'ad Abu Khalil, let's give the general a chance to answer this. General Richard Myers: I -- I think that's -- I think those comments are probably -- uh, uhm -- there's a lot of hyperbole in those comments, in my view. If you look at Iraq and Afghanistan, they both adopted -- their citizens both adopted what most people consider liberal constitutions and yet -- it's not playing out, they've elected these governments. Certainly there is corruption but that's not new to that particular region and that's something that has to be worked on daily and I think the president [Barack Obama] said they were going to work on corruption. I know in my conversation with Adm [Mike] Mullens -- Jasim al-Azzawi: That being the case, General Myers, corruption is still rampant in Iraq. How you're going to prevent in Afghanistan? As'ad Abu Khalil just alluded to the president's brother who is somehow in bed with all the corrupt people not to mention trafficking in narcotics. General Richard Meyer: Well I think, Jasim, I think that's going to be one of the focuses of the strategy in Afghanistan -- is to hold people accountable and, if there's corruption, to hold them accountable for that-that corruption. Now that's easily said, hard to do, but I think you're going to see that in the way both our military and-and the civilians. By the way, it's been little noticed but the embassy in Kabul is going to be increased from 320 staff earlier this year, in January of this year, to about 1,000 by the end of this month and a lot of those people will be deployed to the provinces and a lot of them, I think, will be trying to mentor -- Jasim al-Azzawi: Then again, General, you know the number of US officials in Baghdad was increased, I don't know how many folds. Maybe twenty, thirty. It's the biggest embassy in the world and yet corruption is rampant in Iraq. As'ad Abu Khalil: 700 additional diplomats are not going to do the job just as 30,000 additional troops are not going to do the job. And just let me say for the record to the audience I would never refer to the government set up in Iraq as a liberal democracy. A constitution that was devised by a Grand Ayatollah who is inspired by Iran and who has not left his house except once in seven years is not a liberal democrat. And I think people in the region are clearly not impressed with whatever set-up -- sectarian, religious, traditional, and sexist government set up in both places. Again, go back to Transparency International. I take my clues from there. The broadcast offers a look at and fact check on Barack's speech and Myers objects to the terms "colonize" and "occupation." He foolishly rejects both. For the record, it is an occupation and there was no reason for Myers to make an idiot out of himself on international television. The UN approved (after the war started) the occupation (they never approved the war), the UN mandate that was repeatedly renewed until the end of 2008. He also expressed foolishness when he spoke of January elections when those have been off for some time. Saturday AFP reported that the Iraqi Parliament adjourned today because they did not have a quorum despite the session being called by President Jalal Talabani. Then Sunday night, ten minutes before midnight, the Parliament passed (another) election measure which still has to go before the presidency council (like the last one) and will become law only if it is not vetoed. Warren P. Strobel and Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) did the best job reporting on the developments. They not only provided the details of what happened just before midnight, they provide the details of what happened before and they explain, "While agreements have been reached in the past only to fall apart, there were high hopes that this one would stick. Hashimi withdrew his veto threat early Monday morning." Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quote Tariq al-Hashimi (Iraq's Sunni vice president) stating on satellite TV, "All of our demands have been achieved. The displaced people have been treated fairly, the value of people inside and outside Iraq are the same. I am happy because of this accomplishment and I consider it a historic day in building the modern Iraq." Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) quotes a statement issued by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today, "The secretary-general congratulates the Iraqi Council of Representativeson finalizing amendments to the Election Law and commends Iraqi leaders and parliamentarians for overcoming their differences and reaching a compromise. The way is now paved to hold national elections in Iraq on a date to be determined by the Iraqi Presidency Council. The secretary-general firmly believes that these elections will be an important step forward for Iraq's political and democratic process." In a sign of just how incompetent the US 'diplomatic' mission is in Iraq, Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) reports today that "uncertainty over" the vote had "US Ambassador Christopher Hill rushing back from Washington" -- along with not grasping that he goes by Chris -- officially, he is Chris Hill -- Arraf doesn't grasp that this is a huge detail and instead buries it in a puff piece. (It is puff -- Barack has no pull with the KRG. It was their 45 minute phone call with Joe Biden that sealed the Kurdish agreement to the deal. And it's nice that she's been led off the trail -- nice for the White House and other interests. The following paragraph is word for word from last night. Parker and Salman note that the Kurdish Regional Government extracted a promise from the US that a census would take place in the coming year. Presumably, the promise had some form of 'teeth' to it since the US has long promised that the Constitutionally mandated census would take place and yet, year after year, it has not. The KRG is aware of that and presumably would not fall for yet another round of pretty words. If that is indeed the case, one wonders how the press will report on this issue since Barack and Bully Boy Boy Bush both asserted Iraq was a sovereign nation -- that was the whole point of ending the UN mandate (it truly was -- as a sovereign nation, Iraq could start the tag sales on their assets that they couldn't while under UN supervision). If Iraq's a sovereign nation and since Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, has been the road block to a census since 2006, what did the US government promise the KRG this time that convinced them? The tensions between Baghdad and the KRG aren't exactly secret nor is the tremendous ill will towards Nouri from the KRG a secret. So if he's the roadblock and he's hoping to be the prime minister (elected by Parliament) again after the elections, what did the US promise the KRG, how did they convince the KRG that it would be different in 2010 then it has been in the last three years? Dorothy Parker once said you can lead a horticultural but you cannot make her think -- true as well of the press which has a huge story staring it in the face but either can't see it or is on orders to refuse to see it. I have no idea which. People often ask, in DC when the gossip is flying, "Why don't reporters report on ____?" Because they're not able to either because they're so easily distracted or because their superiors won't let them. The big story is what the US government promised the KRG. I said it last night and said it for a reason. I can lead you to the water but I'm not putting in your mouth, kids. Let's note something. The United States welcomes the resolution adopted December 6 by Iraq's Council of Representatives regarding the election law. This legislative action will allow Iraq to hold national elections within Iraq's constitutional framework. It is a decisive moment for Iraq's democracy and we congratulate the Iraqi people and their elected representatives. As part of the ongoing U.S. dialogue with the Iraqi leadership, the President and Vice President spoke on the morning of December 6 with Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani. The President and the Vice President confirmed the U.S. commitment to a long-term relationship with Iraq, including the KRG. You say, "Uh, it's the White House's official statement. And?" Click here and you go the KRG's website where that statement is posted in full. No, that is not common for the KRG's website. In fact, it's highly uncommon. You need to start using your brain because obviously you can't count on the press. Though the press in the US has never been perfect, even as late as the 1980s, you could still count on the press to ask: What deals were made and how? Apparently we need a sports star with a scandal or a woman willing to pose topless to get some attention to the deal that was struck. A deal was struck. Leaving aside what was all the talk in DC, we all know Barack has no pull with the KRG. We all know Joe was put in charge of Iraq -- after Barry's handpicked two-some failed (that's not a reference to Hillary, Iraq was never assigned to her) -- because the KRG trusted him and he had a solid relationship with them. Anyone who paid attention to pre-war and early war issues knows that the US used the KRG for the Iraq War and knows that the KRG agreed with the understanding that not only would Saddam Hussein be removed from office but also the KRG would stand to benefit. The Bush administration repeatedly broke key promises -- the PKK issue is what forever broke the trust the KRG had in the Bush administration. Barack, as senator or as president, has never had anything to do with the Kurdish issue and spent the bulk of his time -- on his for show trips to Iraq in 2008 and 2009 -- attempting to woo Nouri. Barack has no pull with the KRG. Joe Biden they trust. Barack spoke to them, but Barack offered pretty words and promises. It took Joe to sell them on the promises. The issue for the press should be what was promised? "A census!" shout some. Uh, a census has been promised forever. In fact, the 2005 Iraq Constitution requires one. How did the US government convince the KRG that a census would take place in 2010? The press needs to be asking that question. Again, when sides in any conflict suddenly agree, the immediate question for a working press is always: What deals were made? That's the question that's not being asked and it's the most important question -- far more important than the elections. Iraq didn't fix its Constitutional crisis (or stop being a Failed State) by possibly passing a measure that will allow elections to take place AFTER the Constitutionally mandated deadline for them to be held. The elections had to take place at some point. And they will. Maybe with this measure, maybe with another. But to get this measure signed off on, deals were made. The KRG feels (rightly or wrongly) that they have given and given and no one has lived up to the bargain on the other side. That is their attitude. They feel the previous administration made a ton of promises and it is the PKK issue that (still) most enrages them because it was supposed to be dealt with (by the US) in 2003. That didn't happen. They have a relationship of trust with Joe Biden but that relationship can go down the toilet if promises aren't kept. So the US public has a right to know what was promised? We have a right to know because if the promises aren't delivered what keeps being pimped by the press as "stability" in Iraq is going to get even worse. Nouri has been the thing preventing the census. How can the US government promise the KRG that a census will take place? It hasn't thus far and it's in Iraq's Constitution. The census would especially effect Kirkuk -- a disputed territory sought by the central government in Baghdad (who asserts that it is not a predominately Kurdish population in the area) and by the KRG (who asserts that it is historically Kurdish and point out the Kurds were forced out by Saddam Hussein). Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports new construction is ongoing in oil-rich Kirkuk with Kurds constructing new homes. The Kurds want Kirkuk. They may or may not deserve it and they may or not end up getting it. But when the US government discussed "census" with the KRG, you better believe the KRG representatives and president brought up Kirkuk. What was promised? More importantly, what was the KRG led to believe? If these promises aren't backed up, if these become failed promises, Iraq's going to see a lot more trouble and, despite press claims otherwise, Iraq hasn't been stable. You take the region that's been the most stable -- by comparison -- and you anger its government? It's government that already distrusts the current Iraqi Prime Minister (Nouri) and has nothing but ill will towards most of the Baghdad ministries? It's not going to be pretty. Did someone say violence? Bombings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and wounded five people and a bombing in Ali Yassir middle school which claimed the lives of 7 children and left "41 others" wounded. Reuters says the school death toll was 4 and 25 were wounded. Marc Santora and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) aren't specific on the death toll but explain, "Government officials gave contradictory school casualty figures, with the death toll varying from 1 to 15 children and the number of wounded from 41 to 56. Shootings? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 Sawha were shot dead at a Baghdad checkpoint. Corpses? Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the corpses of 2 Sahwa were discovered in Kirkuk. Marc Santora and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) state the two Sahwa were poisoned to death by unknown persons who offered them free food which the guards ended up sharing with their dogs. Both dogs died.. In England, the Iraq Inquiry continues hearing public testimony today. PA reports Edward Chaplin has testified this morning that the US refused to fund reconstruction in Basra adequately. Chaplin was the British Ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and it's interesting how his finger pointing at the US (I'm not denying the US has done appalling on reconstruction -- even worse, what they've overfunded has been waste; however, I believe we learned some of British's lack of funding for Basra last week). Chaplin's testimony can be seen as a diversion -- it is also far, far from the reasons the Inquiry was supposed to have been created -- why did England take part in the Iraq War? Along with Chaplin, the hearing heard from Maj Gen Tim Cross and Desmond Bowen today. Click here for video and transcript options for today's witnesses. And let's stick to Nothing-Was-Our-Fault Eddie Chaplin for a moment and with some of the most offensive remarks that the commitee has thus far heard. Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: Part of this, perhaps particularly relevant for British opinion was the start of hostage taking. So we had in this period the Kenneth Bigley and Margaret Hassan cases. How aware were you of the danger to British nationals in Baghdad? Edward Chaplin: Very aware. And, indeed, I think if you looked at the travel advice at the time, it would be "don't come anywhere near this place". They were terrible incidents. I mean, terrible obviously for the families, but terrible for the embassy in the sense that we were very helpless. Kidnapping was widespread at the time. This was often criminals rather than political. Of course, as we have seen elsewhere, often criminal gangs will carry out kidnappings of what they think are valuable people, valuable in the sense that they can be sold on to some political group. And I don't think we know even now exactly who was behind either kidnapping. I would have to refresh my memory. I mean, they were different in the sense that Ken Bigley, we didn't even now. He hadn't even registered with the embassy, we didn't know he was there. He was working with these two Americans for a Gulf company. The first thing we knew of his existence was when the news of the kidnap came through. Margaret Hassan was different. In fact, I had met her before when I was Ambassador in Jordan because she worked for CARE Australia, a very effective NGO, one of the few working inside Iraq before and after the invasion. So I admired the work that she was doing and the embassy kept in touch. So that was, if you like, an even greater blow. But just to explain -- I don't know if you want to go into detail about this, but I probably cannot because what happens when a kidnapping of a British citizen takes place is you have set up a really discrete team because this needs 24-hours-a-day attention. So that team was led my deputy and we had a lot of support particularly coming out from London, experience negotiators and so on. So after the initial phase, my job was really to keep it in the minds of Iraqi ministers who we thought would could help, the army and the police and so on, and do whatever else I could do to help. Commitee Member Lawrence Freedman: What sort of response did you get from -- Edward Chaplin: Very positive and, of course, this was raised all the way to Allawi himself and it was raised by ministers, but they didn't have the capacity to help very much, I don't think. And, of course, they were dealing at any one time with lots of other kidnappings. Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: We had no evidence oursevles of who was holding her? Edward Chaplin: I think the assumption early on was it was a criminal gang of some sort, but we never got very far in pinning down exactly who was behind it and -- let alone having contacts that might lead to some progress. Commitee Member Lawrence Freedman: And in the aftermath of her murder, we still seemed to have been in the dark as to what had happened and, indeed, where her body was. Edward Chaplin: Some time later some of her clothes and possessions were found. We knew her husband as well, who stayed on in Baghdad. So we would see him from time to time. I don't know what the investigation -- continued investigation showed. It takes a lot of nerve to speak of kidnapping victims and claim that you suffered from it -- you suffered as the family did. It takes even more nerve to do that when the kidnapped victims both ended up dead. That Edward Chaplin was ever put in charge of diplomacy anywhere is a puzzler. That he's so inept goes a long way towards explaining why Italy was able to rescue kidnapping victims, the US was able to and, thus far, the UK really doesn't have a record to point to with any pride in Iraq. Long before Chaplin got to Iraq, Margaret Hassan was already there so his it's-not-my-fault-we-warned-people-not-to-come-to-Iraq excuse is b.s. For him to claim to have known her and admired her work and yet to tell the committee today that he has no idea what was or wasn't found out about her death? That makes no sense. He's lying. Margaret Hassan was the most prominent kidnapping victim the UK had. To this day. As for his attempt to farm off any responsibility to his deputy -- Chaplin was still in charge. His deputy was his responsibility. Edward Chaplin is now an international embarrassment for the UK. David Brown (Times of London) reports that both of Margaret Hassan's sisters were present at the inquiry and hoped to hear some details about their sister. He quotes Deidre Fitzsimons explaining, "We have been waiting years for the chance to hear what happened to my sister but she was worth so little that she received just three minutes. We came to find out the truth even though we were skeptical, because we were told this would not be a cover-up. We have been betrayed. The authorities did not do one thing to help her when she was kidnapped and they are now doing nothing to find out why. As for Ken Bigley, it was almost as if he didn't matter at all [by Chaplin's testimony]. He was an innocent man who was murdered for no reason." Moving to another witness, Cross was in Iraq up until June 2003 and held the position of joint force logistic component commander before the war started. He also worked in DC with post-war planning. Committee Member Usha Prashar asked him about his visits to CentCom [US Central Command]. Maj Gen Tim Cross: My sense was this was a very joined-up headquarters, very well commanded and led with some very capable staff. They had been in place together as a team since 11th September, just before 11th September, they had planned and executed the initial operations in Afghanistan, they were now planning for possible operations in Iraq and, I think understandably, General [Tommy] Franks and his team, recognising that they would break as a team the following summer -- because inevitably normal postings and so forth would begin to kick in -- that they were pretty keen to get on with this. They had done a lot of hard work, they had been working 18 hours a day for months on these operations. So they were very -- Commitee Member Usha Prashar: You said "these operations", they were Afghanistan or are we looking towards Iraq? Maj Gen Tim Cross: Both. They had been working long hours for Afghanistan and then in the post -- initial operations in Afghanistan and at the same time planning for operations in Iraq. They were, I think, tired, if I'm honest, but I'm not surprised. And I sense that there was a strong desire to move quickly in terms of Iraq, and I sense too in a broader sense -- and I got more of this in Washington -- that following military operations, there would be other things linked to what was then called the Global War on Terror. Commitee Member Usha Prashar: But at that stage CentCom, was there any concentration on post-invasion planning or not? Maj Gen Tim Cross: I wouldn't say there was concentration on it. The major force was making sure that should be operations in Iraq, the military campaign would win, would succeed, and from a personal point of view I had no problem with that. That's the prime purpose of this headquarters: it is to fight and to make sure they win. There are no prizes for coming second on the battlefield. So that was undoubtedly their prime concern. So far as Phase 4, post-war -- whatever words we want to use -- operations were concerned, there were some discussions. They had appointed a one-star brigade general to head up a task force, looking at aspects of this, an engineer, an American engineer. But if I'm honest -- and I remember one specific occasion when there was an attempt to introduce him to the assembled large number of very senior military officers. He really was -- he was not really welcomed into the team. This was a war fighting team and as far as they were concerned, this was not their major business. Cross also testified that he and Jay Garner went to the United Nations together before the start of the Iraq War and "eventually we did go to New York for a day. We flew up very early in the morning, we spent a day with the UN and we saw both Lousie Frechette, who was then the deputy, and I would say 20 UN officials who sat in serried ranks opposite. There were only about five of us. And they were very, very strong on saying to Garner -- the main message was, 'You need to understand the legality of what you are into here. And if you end up as the occupying power, be quite clear what that means'." Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) reports of Cross: In a written statement, he said he had briefed Tony Blair at No 10 on 18 March 2003, two days before the invasion. "We talked for about 30 minutes or so. I was as honest about the positions as I could be, essentially briefing that I did not believe postwar planning was anywhere near ready," said Cross. "I told him that there was no clarity on what was going to be needed after the military phase of the operation, nor who would provide it. "Although I was confident that we would secure a military victory, I offered my view that we should not begin that campaign until we had a much more coherent postwar plan." Describing his meeting with Blair in oral evidence, Cross said: "He was engaged. I gave him the background of what we had been doing. We had a very sensible conversation. At the end of it I remember saying, in so many words, I had no doubt we will win in the military. I do not believe we are ready for postwar Iraq. "He nodded and didn't say anything particular. I didn't expect him to look me in the eye and say, 'This is terrible, we are going to pull the whole thing off.' I was just one of a number of people briefing him." More pressing news out of England involves two Iraqi males arrested in Iraq by the British military and handed over to the US "who then took them to Afghanistan in 2004," the BBC reports. The British actively took part in partnering with the US for rendition (kidnapping). Robert Verhaik (Independent of London) reports, "In February this year the former Defence Secretary, John Hutton, admitted that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces. In subsequent statements to parliament, the government revealed that in March 2004, British officials had become aware of the US intention to transfer the men from Iraq to Afghanistan." Reprieve is a United Kingdom human rights group and we'll note this from their press release: Reprieve's investigation reveals the identity of one man, Amanatullah Ali, together with damning evidence that the British government misled parliament and the public on the case. In February 2008, after years of government denials that the UK had been involved in any rendition operations, then-Secretary of State for Defence John Hutton announced to parliament that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces. In subsequent statements to parliament, the government revealed that in March 2004, British officials had become aware of the US intention to transfer the men from Iraq to Afghanistan. The British government admitted its complicity in a crime (kidnapping, otherwise called rendition), admitted it was wrong, and appeared to apologize. Yet the government will not identify the men, which would be most basic act that the government could do in order to reunite the men with their legal rights. Indeed, the British government has apparently taken no step over the past five years to ensure that they receive legal assistance. The day after Mr Hutton's statement to the House, Reprieve wrote to the Defence Secretary, asking him to identify the two men so that Reprieve lawyers – acting pro bono as always – could help make up for the regrettable involvement by the British government in this crime by acting for the men and their families and seek to secure their release. Despite the clear urgency of the situation, it took the UK government three months to reply. The Ministry of Defence wrote that they would not reveal the prisoners' names, taking the position that doing so would violate the prisoners's rights under the Data Protection Act. It is deeply disturbing that the MoD could apologize for our country's involvement in this wrongdoing, and yet refuse to assist to put matters right. Reprieve therefore embarked on an investigation. 1) Britain's Iraq renditions and the legal consequences 2) How Defence Secretary Hutton misled Parliament 3) How the UK violated the MoU governing transfer of prisoners 4) Why Mr Amanatullah urgently needs a lawyer 5) Why Bagram Internment Facility makes us all less safe 6) Further questions and timeline of events 1) Britain's Iraq renditions and the legal consequences Our complicated and expensive search for the identity of the men has covered three continents over six months. It now appears that the MoD statement to the House was factually incorrect on key points. Reprieve has now identified one of the men as Amanatullah Ali, and interviewed his family in a small village in the Pakistani Punjab. In his limited, and censored communications with his family he has told them that he was detained by the British, rather than the Americans; he has asked them to pray for his safe return, and to get him help. Amanatullah Ali is a fluent Arabic speaker. We have not been able to positively identify the second man, although our interviews with other released Bagram prisoners have gleaned some facts about him. He is apparently known as "Salahuddin". Significantly, he was brought up in the Gulf states (where the primary language is Arabic). "Salahuddin" has not been able to contact his family or even reassure them that he is alive. Reprieve has been told by multiple sources that as a result of his abuse in UK and US custody, "Salahuddin" is in catastrophic mental and physical shape, and now spends most of his time in the mental health cells at Bagram. Our claim is that the men must be formally identified, along with any information that could help us find their family members, so that we can seek a next friend authorization. This issue is now moot with respect to one of the men, but not the other. Furthermore, because the UK has been mixed up in the wrong-doing, our claim is that the UK is legally obliged to help us fight their case. This issue is very much alive for both men. Because we can already prove that one man (Amanatullah) is a Shia, the notion that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) becomes effectively impossible – as LeT is a Sunni extremist group that would view a Shia as an apostate. In other news out of England, Simon Walters (Daily Mail) reports, "Shocking new evidence reveals how the Labour Government bullied the Cabinet Minister who told Tony Blair that the Iraq War was illegal. Former Defence Secretary John Reid banned the head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, from taking Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to Baghdad to investigate alleged mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers." And, stil in England, there's a call to reopen an inquiry into an infamous death. Brendon Abbott (Daily Star) reports, "SIX doctors are taking legal action to demand the inquest into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly be re-opened." David Kelly was the source for many press reports including Andrew Gilligan's for the BBC that the Iraq intel had been "sexed up." David Kelly died July 17, 2003. Simon Alford (Times of London) identifies the six doctors: "Trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, radiologist Stephen Frost, Chris Burns-Cox, who specialises in internal general medicine, and Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner, have instructed solicitors and aim to approach the Attorney General Baroness Scotland to get the case before the High Court. " Alex Watts (Sky News -- link has text and video) explains, "Lord Hutton concluded he bled to death as a result of a cut to his wrist and an overdose of painkillers. But Michael Powers QC, an expert in coroners' law, said the cut would not have caused him to bleed to death, and there was only a normal dose of co-proxamol in his body. He said that for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide there must be evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt' that they intended to kill themselves. Dr Powers added: 'Suicide cannot be presumed, it has to be proven'." Andrew Alderson (Telegraph of London) adds: "The revelation of the move for a new inquest is embarrassing for the Government, particularly as it comes just two weeks into the inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot which is examining Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. The doctors are applying to the Attorney General, Baroness Scotland for permission to go to the High Court for a new inquest, or the resumption of the previous inquest." brendon abbott sky news alex watts the times of london simon alford andrew alderson the telegraph of london |
Monday, December 07, 2009
Iraq snapshot
Many children dead in today's latest wave of Iraqi violence
The violence never stops in Iraq. BBC News (link has text and video) reports a Baghdad bombing this morning has claimed 7 lives ("mostly children"). Reuters states the dead are all children and that 42 people are injured in the Sadr City bombing, "It was not clear if the bomb had been set to go off at that time or was inadvertently detonated after a rubbish heap was set on fire, the officer said. The blast made a crater 2 metres (6 feet) deep and 5 metres (16 feet) wide, he added." Reuters also notes 5 Sahwa were shot dead at a Baghdad checkpoint, 2 Sahwa were shot dead at a Kirkuk checkpoint and a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left five people injured.
In England, the Iraq Inquiry continues hearing public testimony today. PA reports Edward Chaplin has testified this morning that the US refused to fund reconstruction in Basra adequately. Chaplin was the British Ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and it's interesting how his finger pointing at the US (I'm not denying the US has done appalling on reconstruction -- even worse, what they've overfunded has been waste; however, I believe we learned some of British's lack of funding for Basra last week). Chaplin's testimony can be seen as a diversion -- it is also far, far from the reasons the Inquiry was supposed to have been created -- why did England take part in the Iraq War?
More pressing news out of England involves two Iraqi males arrested in Iraq by the British military and handed over to the US "who then took them to Afghanistan in 2004," the BBC reports. The British actively took part in partnering with the US for rendition (kidnapping). Robert Verhaik (Independent of London) reports:
In February this year the former Defence Secretary, John Hutton, admitted that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces. In subsequent statements to parliament, the government revealed that in March 2004, British officials had become aware of the US intention to transfer the men from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Reprieve says that Mr Hutton’s statement misled Parliament because ministers must have know that neither of the men could have been members of the Sunni extremist group they are accused of working for as both are Shia Muslims.
Mr Hutton also said that the men were taken to Afghanistan so that they could be interviewed using interpreters who spoke their own language. But Reprieve rejects this arguing that it was used as a pretext to rendition and claims that both men spoke Arabic and could have been interviewed in Iraq.
Reprieve has now tracked down the men still held unlawfully in the notorious Bagram prison.
Reprieve is a United Kingdom human rights group and we'll note this from their press release:
Reprieve's investigation reveals the identity of one man, Amanatullah Ali, together with damning evidence that the British government misled parliament and the public on the case.
In February 2008, after years of government denials that the UK had been involved in any rendition operations, then-Secretary of State for Defence John Hutton announced to parliament that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces. In subsequent statements to parliament, the government revealed that in March 2004, British officials had become aware of the US intention to transfer the men from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The British government admitted its complicity in a crime (kidnapping, otherwise called rendition), admitted it was wrong, and appeared to apologize. Yet the government will not identify the men, which would be most basic act that the government could do in order to reunite the men with their legal rights.
Indeed, the British government has apparently taken no step over the past five years to ensure that they receive legal assistance.
The day after Mr Hutton's statement to the House, Reprieve wrote to the Defence Secretary, asking him to identify the two men so that Reprieve lawyers – acting pro bono as always – could help make up for the regrettable involvement by the British government in this crime by acting for the men and their families and seek to secure their release.
Despite the clear urgency of the situation, it took the UK government three months to reply. The Ministry of Defence wrote that they would not reveal the prisoners’ names, taking the position that doing so would violate the prisoners's rights under the Data Protection Act.
It is deeply disturbing that the MoD could apologize for our country’s involvement in this wrongdoing, and yet refuse to assist to put matters right. Reprieve therefore embarked on an investigation.
1) Britain's Iraq renditions and the legal consequences
2) How Defence Secretary Hutton misled Parliament
3) How the UK violated the MoU governing transfer of prisoners
4) Why Mr Amanatullah urgently needs a lawyer
5) Why Bagram Internment Facility makes us all less safe
6) Further questions and timeline of events
1) Britain's Iraq renditions and the legal consequences
Our complicated and expensive search for the identity of the men has covered three continents over six months. It now appears that the MoD statement to the House was factually incorrect on key points.
Reprieve has now identified one of the men as Amanatullah Ali, and interviewed his family in a small village in the Pakistani Punjab. In his limited, and censored communications with his family he has told them that he was detained by the British, rather than the Americans; he has asked them to pray for his safe return, and to get him help. Amanatullah Ali is a fluent Arabic speaker.
We have not been able to positively identify the second man, although our interviews with other released Bagram prisoners have gleaned some facts about him. He is apparently known as “Salahuddin”. Significantly, he was brought up in the Gulf states (where the primary language is Arabic). "Salahuddin" has not been able to contact his family or even reassure them that he is alive. Reprieve has been told by multiple sources that as a result of his abuse in UK and US custody, "Salahuddin" is in catastrophic mental and physical shape, and now spends most of his time in the mental health cells at Bagram.
Our claim is that the men must be formally identified, along with any information that could help us find their family members, so that we can seek a next friend authorization. This issue is now moot with respect to one of the men, but not the other.
Furthermore, because the UK has been mixed up in the wrong-doing, our claim is that the UK is legally obliged to help us fight their case. This issue is very much alive for both men.
Because we can already prove that one man (Amanatullah) is a Shia, the notion that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) becomes effectively impossible – as LeT is a Sunni extremist group that would view a Shia as an apostate.
In other news out of England, Simon Walters (Daily Mail) reports, "Shocking new evidence reveals how the Labour Government bullied the Cabinet Minister who told Tony Blair that the Iraq War was illegal. Former Defence Secretary John Reid banned the head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, from taking Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to Baghdad to investigate alleged mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers." The Goldsmith revelations are all press revelations -- by that I mean, it is the press that has been unearthing Goldsmith news for the last two weeks, not the Iraq Inquiry. Chris Ames (writing at Index on Censorship) offers an evaluation on the Iraq Inquiry thus far:
The first two weeks of the Iraq Inquiry have seen some very guarded testimony from government witnesses, with the occasional revelation slipping out. But perhaps the most interesting revelation came from Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot, who admitted, implicitly and probably inadvertently, that the earlier Butler review of which he was a member watered down its findings.
The revelation shines a light on the process by which establishment inquiries are conducted. In particular it shows the difficulty they have not in getting to the truth but in disclosing it publicly.
In an early session on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Chilcot quoted a well-known claim from Tony Blair’s foreword to the September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s WMD: “What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons…” He commented that: “The Butler Committee, I think, came to a view that it was not a statement it was possible to make on the basis of intelligence.” One witness, Tim Dowse, a proliferation expert at the Foreign Office replied: “I think, with hindsight, the Butler Committee made a fair comment.”
The trouble is, the Butler report, published in July 2004, made no such comment. It made no comment on Blair’s claim at all. In fact, it made no comment on Blair’s foreword but merely published it in an appendix and invited readers to “reach their own conclusions.” The report’s main conclusion on the dossier was that while warnings about the limitations of the intelligence underlying its conclusions were not made sufficiently clear, “judgements in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the
intelligence available.” The assessment that it was possible to make the dossier’s claims on the basis of the intelligence available is effectively the opposite of Chilcot’s recent description of the view that the committee came to.
Yesterday, ten minutes before midnight in Baghdad, the Parliament hammered out an election measure that may take (or may not). The KRG is under the pressure that they have a firm promise from the US that a census will (finally) take place next year. Such a census will especially effect Kirkuk -- a disputed territory sought by the central government in Baghdad (who asserts that it is not a predominately Kurdish population in the area) and by the KRG (who asserts that it is historically Kurdish and point out the Kurds were forced out by Saddam Hussein). Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports new construction is ongoing in Kirkuk:
The homes are being built by Kurds who have poured into the northern province of Kirkuk to reassert, they say, their claim to land from which they were expelled by Saddam Hussein in an effort to create an Arab majority.
The oil fires illustrate the main reason the land is so hotly contested: Kirkuk is sitting on an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil and produces a quarter of Iraq's current output. That's enough to sustain an independent state should the Kurds get their way and annex the area to the largely autonomous Kurdistan enclave to the north -- and to bankrupt the state of Iraq should the revenue be lost.
Arabs and ethnic Turkmens, who also live here and want the province to remain under Iraqi control, are dismayed by the size of the Kurdish influx, which they say far exceeds the numbers driven out by Hussein. They suspect that Kurdish outsiders are moving to the area to influence the outcome of a referendum on whether to absorb Kirkuk into Kurdistan.
Friday night Patrick Martin and Shawn McCarthy (Globe and Mail) published a lengthy, indepth piece on oil in the Kurdistan Region and we'll note this from it:
On Dec. 11, the major oil players will have a key opportunity to place their bets on Iraq's future. Baghdad plans to auction off the right to develop 10 unexplored but highly prospective oil and gas fields, including some near Kirkuk, following a similar auction earlier this year.
Some 40 of the world's biggest oil companies are qualified to bid next week. Their ultimate success hinges on Iraq's ability to forge political compromises that will allow for peaceful development. The crucial test is Kirkuk, where Kurds and Arab Iraqis battle for control of the area, while coveted oil resources offer lasting economic benefits.
"Iraq is a high-risk place, there is no way around it," says Samuel Ciszuk, a Middle East energy analyst with IHS Global Insight. "But the opportunity for reward is also great."
If things go well – an enormous if – Iraq could boost its production from 2.5 million barrels a day to more than seven million by 2016, making it the third-largest producer after Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Barack Obama fluttered his War Hawk feathers last week as he announced he was sending more US troops to Afghanistan. Elaine Brower (World Can't Wait) observes:
So President Obama did what he said he was going to do, escalate the war in Afghanistan. Not only last March, when he sent 24,000 troops, but yesterday when he made his slick announcement at West Point Military Academy in New York to send another 30,000 more starting immediately. This month, 9,000 marines are set to deploy to Helmund Province to "root out" the drug lords stronghold, and fight the Taliban "insurgents." Huh? Is this a "War on Terror" or a "War on Drugs" or are we nation building?
I'm confused, aren't you? Just last month we were saving the women in Afghanistan, and the month before that we were bringing democracy by aiding the Afghan people in their democratic election process. What a bunch of bunk. And it is being sold to us by the best “used car salesman” on the planet! A smooth operator, Obama is selling us right down the river, along with 100,000 more troops into Afghanistan, special operations forces, almost equal amount of mercenary contractors hired to kill, and don't forget the constant increase in drone bombings. Our troops are exhausted with more than multiple deployments, suffering from traumatic brain injuries, severe PTSD, and wounds so horrible that years ago a soldier would have died immediately.
But the speech he gave last night at West Point could have made you stop and wonder, if you didn't know better. Most Americans don't. They buy the rhetoric that “the United States does not occupy other countries"” or “the United States has helped suffering nations by rebuilding and sending aid.” Were you scratching your head? Well, I was sitting outside the West Point gate, along with 300 other really angry protesters!
Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "It Takes A Starlet" went up last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
bbc news
reuters
the independent of london
robert verkaik
reprieve
the daily mail
simon walters
chris ames
the los angeles times
liz sly
the globe and mail
patrick martin
shawn mccarthy
elaine brower
the world cant wait
the world today just nuts
In England, the Iraq Inquiry continues hearing public testimony today. PA reports Edward Chaplin has testified this morning that the US refused to fund reconstruction in Basra adequately. Chaplin was the British Ambassador to Iraq in 2004 and it's interesting how his finger pointing at the US (I'm not denying the US has done appalling on reconstruction -- even worse, what they've overfunded has been waste; however, I believe we learned some of British's lack of funding for Basra last week). Chaplin's testimony can be seen as a diversion -- it is also far, far from the reasons the Inquiry was supposed to have been created -- why did England take part in the Iraq War?
More pressing news out of England involves two Iraqi males arrested in Iraq by the British military and handed over to the US "who then took them to Afghanistan in 2004," the BBC reports. The British actively took part in partnering with the US for rendition (kidnapping). Robert Verhaik (Independent of London) reports:
In February this year the former Defence Secretary, John Hutton, admitted that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces. In subsequent statements to parliament, the government revealed that in March 2004, British officials had become aware of the US intention to transfer the men from Iraq to Afghanistan.
Reprieve says that Mr Hutton’s statement misled Parliament because ministers must have know that neither of the men could have been members of the Sunni extremist group they are accused of working for as both are Shia Muslims.
Mr Hutton also said that the men were taken to Afghanistan so that they could be interviewed using interpreters who spoke their own language. But Reprieve rejects this arguing that it was used as a pretext to rendition and claims that both men spoke Arabic and could have been interviewed in Iraq.
Reprieve has now tracked down the men still held unlawfully in the notorious Bagram prison.
Reprieve is a United Kingdom human rights group and we'll note this from their press release:
Reprieve's investigation reveals the identity of one man, Amanatullah Ali, together with damning evidence that the British government misled parliament and the public on the case.
In February 2008, after years of government denials that the UK had been involved in any rendition operations, then-Secretary of State for Defence John Hutton announced to parliament that UK forces had captured two men in Iraq in February 2004, and handed them to US forces. In subsequent statements to parliament, the government revealed that in March 2004, British officials had become aware of the US intention to transfer the men from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The British government admitted its complicity in a crime (kidnapping, otherwise called rendition), admitted it was wrong, and appeared to apologize. Yet the government will not identify the men, which would be most basic act that the government could do in order to reunite the men with their legal rights.
Indeed, the British government has apparently taken no step over the past five years to ensure that they receive legal assistance.
The day after Mr Hutton's statement to the House, Reprieve wrote to the Defence Secretary, asking him to identify the two men so that Reprieve lawyers – acting pro bono as always – could help make up for the regrettable involvement by the British government in this crime by acting for the men and their families and seek to secure their release.
Despite the clear urgency of the situation, it took the UK government three months to reply. The Ministry of Defence wrote that they would not reveal the prisoners’ names, taking the position that doing so would violate the prisoners's rights under the Data Protection Act.
It is deeply disturbing that the MoD could apologize for our country’s involvement in this wrongdoing, and yet refuse to assist to put matters right. Reprieve therefore embarked on an investigation.
1) Britain's Iraq renditions and the legal consequences
2) How Defence Secretary Hutton misled Parliament
3) How the UK violated the MoU governing transfer of prisoners
4) Why Mr Amanatullah urgently needs a lawyer
5) Why Bagram Internment Facility makes us all less safe
6) Further questions and timeline of events
1) Britain's Iraq renditions and the legal consequences
Our complicated and expensive search for the identity of the men has covered three continents over six months. It now appears that the MoD statement to the House was factually incorrect on key points.
Reprieve has now identified one of the men as Amanatullah Ali, and interviewed his family in a small village in the Pakistani Punjab. In his limited, and censored communications with his family he has told them that he was detained by the British, rather than the Americans; he has asked them to pray for his safe return, and to get him help. Amanatullah Ali is a fluent Arabic speaker.
We have not been able to positively identify the second man, although our interviews with other released Bagram prisoners have gleaned some facts about him. He is apparently known as “Salahuddin”. Significantly, he was brought up in the Gulf states (where the primary language is Arabic). "Salahuddin" has not been able to contact his family or even reassure them that he is alive. Reprieve has been told by multiple sources that as a result of his abuse in UK and US custody, "Salahuddin" is in catastrophic mental and physical shape, and now spends most of his time in the mental health cells at Bagram.
Our claim is that the men must be formally identified, along with any information that could help us find their family members, so that we can seek a next friend authorization. This issue is now moot with respect to one of the men, but not the other.
Furthermore, because the UK has been mixed up in the wrong-doing, our claim is that the UK is legally obliged to help us fight their case. This issue is very much alive for both men.
Because we can already prove that one man (Amanatullah) is a Shia, the notion that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) becomes effectively impossible – as LeT is a Sunni extremist group that would view a Shia as an apostate.
In other news out of England, Simon Walters (Daily Mail) reports, "Shocking new evidence reveals how the Labour Government bullied the Cabinet Minister who told Tony Blair that the Iraq War was illegal. Former Defence Secretary John Reid banned the head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, from taking Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to Baghdad to investigate alleged mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers." The Goldsmith revelations are all press revelations -- by that I mean, it is the press that has been unearthing Goldsmith news for the last two weeks, not the Iraq Inquiry. Chris Ames (writing at Index on Censorship) offers an evaluation on the Iraq Inquiry thus far:
The first two weeks of the Iraq Inquiry have seen some very guarded testimony from government witnesses, with the occasional revelation slipping out. But perhaps the most interesting revelation came from Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot, who admitted, implicitly and probably inadvertently, that the earlier Butler review of which he was a member watered down its findings.
The revelation shines a light on the process by which establishment inquiries are conducted. In particular it shows the difficulty they have not in getting to the truth but in disclosing it publicly.
In an early session on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Chilcot quoted a well-known claim from Tony Blair’s foreword to the September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s WMD: “What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons…” He commented that: “The Butler Committee, I think, came to a view that it was not a statement it was possible to make on the basis of intelligence.” One witness, Tim Dowse, a proliferation expert at the Foreign Office replied: “I think, with hindsight, the Butler Committee made a fair comment.”
The trouble is, the Butler report, published in July 2004, made no such comment. It made no comment on Blair’s claim at all. In fact, it made no comment on Blair’s foreword but merely published it in an appendix and invited readers to “reach their own conclusions.” The report’s main conclusion on the dossier was that while warnings about the limitations of the intelligence underlying its conclusions were not made sufficiently clear, “judgements in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the
intelligence available.” The assessment that it was possible to make the dossier’s claims on the basis of the intelligence available is effectively the opposite of Chilcot’s recent description of the view that the committee came to.
Yesterday, ten minutes before midnight in Baghdad, the Parliament hammered out an election measure that may take (or may not). The KRG is under the pressure that they have a firm promise from the US that a census will (finally) take place next year. Such a census will especially effect Kirkuk -- a disputed territory sought by the central government in Baghdad (who asserts that it is not a predominately Kurdish population in the area) and by the KRG (who asserts that it is historically Kurdish and point out the Kurds were forced out by Saddam Hussein). Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports new construction is ongoing in Kirkuk:
The homes are being built by Kurds who have poured into the northern province of Kirkuk to reassert, they say, their claim to land from which they were expelled by Saddam Hussein in an effort to create an Arab majority.
The oil fires illustrate the main reason the land is so hotly contested: Kirkuk is sitting on an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil and produces a quarter of Iraq's current output. That's enough to sustain an independent state should the Kurds get their way and annex the area to the largely autonomous Kurdistan enclave to the north -- and to bankrupt the state of Iraq should the revenue be lost.
Arabs and ethnic Turkmens, who also live here and want the province to remain under Iraqi control, are dismayed by the size of the Kurdish influx, which they say far exceeds the numbers driven out by Hussein. They suspect that Kurdish outsiders are moving to the area to influence the outcome of a referendum on whether to absorb Kirkuk into Kurdistan.
Friday night Patrick Martin and Shawn McCarthy (Globe and Mail) published a lengthy, indepth piece on oil in the Kurdistan Region and we'll note this from it:
On Dec. 11, the major oil players will have a key opportunity to place their bets on Iraq's future. Baghdad plans to auction off the right to develop 10 unexplored but highly prospective oil and gas fields, including some near Kirkuk, following a similar auction earlier this year.
Some 40 of the world's biggest oil companies are qualified to bid next week. Their ultimate success hinges on Iraq's ability to forge political compromises that will allow for peaceful development. The crucial test is Kirkuk, where Kurds and Arab Iraqis battle for control of the area, while coveted oil resources offer lasting economic benefits.
"Iraq is a high-risk place, there is no way around it," says Samuel Ciszuk, a Middle East energy analyst with IHS Global Insight. "But the opportunity for reward is also great."
If things go well – an enormous if – Iraq could boost its production from 2.5 million barrels a day to more than seven million by 2016, making it the third-largest producer after Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Barack Obama fluttered his War Hawk feathers last week as he announced he was sending more US troops to Afghanistan. Elaine Brower (World Can't Wait) observes:
So President Obama did what he said he was going to do, escalate the war in Afghanistan. Not only last March, when he sent 24,000 troops, but yesterday when he made his slick announcement at West Point Military Academy in New York to send another 30,000 more starting immediately. This month, 9,000 marines are set to deploy to Helmund Province to "root out" the drug lords stronghold, and fight the Taliban "insurgents." Huh? Is this a "War on Terror" or a "War on Drugs" or are we nation building?
I'm confused, aren't you? Just last month we were saving the women in Afghanistan, and the month before that we were bringing democracy by aiding the Afghan people in their democratic election process. What a bunch of bunk. And it is being sold to us by the best “used car salesman” on the planet! A smooth operator, Obama is selling us right down the river, along with 100,000 more troops into Afghanistan, special operations forces, almost equal amount of mercenary contractors hired to kill, and don't forget the constant increase in drone bombings. Our troops are exhausted with more than multiple deployments, suffering from traumatic brain injuries, severe PTSD, and wounds so horrible that years ago a soldier would have died immediately.
But the speech he gave last night at West Point could have made you stop and wonder, if you didn't know better. Most Americans don't. They buy the rhetoric that “the United States does not occupy other countries"” or “the United States has helped suffering nations by rebuilding and sending aid.” Were you scratching your head? Well, I was sitting outside the West Point gate, along with 300 other really angry protesters!
Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "It Takes A Starlet" went up last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
bbc news
reuters
the independent of london
robert verkaik
reprieve
the daily mail
simon walters
chris ames
the los angeles times
liz sly
the globe and mail
patrick martin
shawn mccarthy
elaine brower
the world cant wait
the world today just nuts
Equipment left behind, no secrets are confidential
In "Millions' worth of gear left in Iraq" (Washington Post), Ernesto Londono reports that US military equipment -- including "passenger vehicles, generators and other equipment" -- is intended to be left in Iraq. Setting aside concerns what Nouri will do with the equipment (a valid concern but the US-installed him and possibly he's on his way out), leaving the equipment is a smart decision. DoD will be asking for more money for new equipment regardless and there's no point in spending the money (and time) necessary to transport it either to Afghanistan or the US. Some might argue against the 'donation' aspect (especially with the millions Nouri keeps tossing around for 'security'), but it's a write-off (for the US). Londono notes some of the complaints:
Officials involved say the approach has triggered arguments in the Pentagon over whether the effort to leave Iraqis adequately equipped is hurting the buildup in Afghanistan. Officials in the U.S. Central Command, which oversees both wars, have balked at some proposed handovers, and previously rejected an approach that would have granted base commanders even greater leeway.
U.S. commanders in Iraq say they have been judicious in assessing what equipment to earmark for donation. Alan F. Estevez, a deputy undersecretary of defense, wrote in an e-mail that "an important and vital goal is to leave behind fully functioning bases to the Government of Iraq to enable Iraq's civil capacities."
For those who disagree with the decisions, you may have valid reasons but this is position we've long advocated here. In this morning's New York Times, James Dao and Dan Frosch report on the lack of strict confidentiality rules when US service members are dealing with military therapists as opposed to civilian therapists. (Elaine's covered this topic repeatedly, FYI.) It translates as, "Tell us, trust us, and we may keep your secret or we may run to your superiors." The reporters note:
The problem with the military rules, experts say, is that they do not safeguard the confidentiality of mental health communications and records as strongly as federal rules of evidence for civilians. Both systems say therapists should report patients when they seem a threat to themselves or to others. But the military rules include additional exceptions that could be applied to a wide range of suspected infractions, experts say.
"There really is no confidentiality," said Kaye Baron, a psychologist in Colorado Springs who has been treating soldiers from Fort Carson and their families for eight years. "You can find an exception to confidentiality in pretty much anything one would discuss."
Amanda Shropshire (WTVC) reports on Knoxville's 278th Armored Calvary Regiment soldiers, 180 of whom will be headed to Shelby before Christmas for additional training before they deploy to Iraq. Those deploying will include brother and sister Adam Lee and Robin Oyer. It will be the sister's third tour of duty in Iraq and she states, "I look forward to being there with him and supporting him as well as supporting my family at home." Adam Crisp (Chattanooga Times Free Press) reports on the send-off ceremony for the soldiers yesterday and quotes Capt Casey Benzel stating, "This is bad timing being that it's right before Christmas, but mostly everyone is ready to go." Meanwhile Laura Incal Caterra (Journal News) reports on a "pre-mobilization preparation conference" held for New York Army National Guard members and their families in Tarrytown and quotes New York Governor David Paterson telling the assembled, "It's good to see that we're finally starting to show the decenty and the sensitivity and the loyalty to the people of our country, our brothers and sisters, who went overseas to put their lives on the line to protect freedom around the world." No offense to Paterson, but with the federal registry law tied up in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee [12-07 corrected from Senate Armed Services Committee -- apologies to Chair Carl Levin, Ranking Member John McCain and everyone who serves on and staffs the Senate Armed Services Committee], PTSD still an issue the military refuses to seriously address, nearly monthly reports of family members of service members being threatened with deportation, I'm not seeing the brilliant sunrise he is. Yesterday Patricia C. McCarther (Huntsville Times) reported on the send-off ceremony last week for the Alabama National Guard 441st:
Lt. Col. Roger Yearwood will lead the 441st in Iraq, and it's his third deployment with the group. He thanked families for their past and future sacrifices and assured them that the soldiers have the best training and equipment — including mine-resistant trucks -- that money can buy.
Those were reassuring words for Jana Nelson, 25, who has been married for just three weeks to soldier Michael Nelson, who is also a Huntsville police officer.
"I can't wait for this year to be over and he can come home and be safe," Jana said. "You don't think about being a police officer as being a safe job, but I think it is safer than being over there."
As the send-offs continue around the country, Tayleigh Davis (WALB) notes that Staff Sgt Briand Williams, scheduled to be home by Christmas, was honored at his Saturday funeral. Williams was serving in Iraq when he was killed November 22nd. Davis quotes Tonya Flippen telling the assembled mourners, "Remember him as a soldier and becoming a man. I will remember my son as my son and my hero." His daughter Brianna Williams is quoted stating, "He was a great dad and I loved him very much." Davis notes his wife (name not given) is pregnant and due to deliver a boy in January.
From World Can't Wait, we'll note the opening of "Saying NO to Obama's War Moves in Afghanistan:"
Last week, thousands, -- but not tens or hundreds of thousands, or the millions needed to stop this war -- protested Obama's war surge in Afghanistan. Across the country, groups of people from Honolulu to Maine to Florida, gathered, mostly on Wednesday, to respond with anger and outrage to 30,000 more troops from the US, and others from NATO, destroying one of the poorest countries in the world.
About 300 people gathered outside the gate at West Point on December 1 to protest the escalation Obama announced, more than protested there during the Bush era. Over and over, people talked about having voted for Obama, but now being disillusioned, and really "heart broken" as Matthis Chiroux, the Iraq war resister put it. The protest was intense, as the group marched silently to the main gate of West Point. Once there, we chanted "STOP THIS WAR NOW!" and "30,000 More! What the hell FOR?"
Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "It Takes A Starlet" went up last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington post
ernesto londono
the new york times
james dao
dan frosch
amanda shropshire
adam crisp
laura incal caterra
taleigh davis
patricia c. mccarter
the world today just nuts
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Officials involved say the approach has triggered arguments in the Pentagon over whether the effort to leave Iraqis adequately equipped is hurting the buildup in Afghanistan. Officials in the U.S. Central Command, which oversees both wars, have balked at some proposed handovers, and previously rejected an approach that would have granted base commanders even greater leeway.
U.S. commanders in Iraq say they have been judicious in assessing what equipment to earmark for donation. Alan F. Estevez, a deputy undersecretary of defense, wrote in an e-mail that "an important and vital goal is to leave behind fully functioning bases to the Government of Iraq to enable Iraq's civil capacities."
For those who disagree with the decisions, you may have valid reasons but this is position we've long advocated here. In this morning's New York Times, James Dao and Dan Frosch report on the lack of strict confidentiality rules when US service members are dealing with military therapists as opposed to civilian therapists. (Elaine's covered this topic repeatedly, FYI.) It translates as, "Tell us, trust us, and we may keep your secret or we may run to your superiors." The reporters note:
The problem with the military rules, experts say, is that they do not safeguard the confidentiality of mental health communications and records as strongly as federal rules of evidence for civilians. Both systems say therapists should report patients when they seem a threat to themselves or to others. But the military rules include additional exceptions that could be applied to a wide range of suspected infractions, experts say.
"There really is no confidentiality," said Kaye Baron, a psychologist in Colorado Springs who has been treating soldiers from Fort Carson and their families for eight years. "You can find an exception to confidentiality in pretty much anything one would discuss."
Amanda Shropshire (WTVC) reports on Knoxville's 278th Armored Calvary Regiment soldiers, 180 of whom will be headed to Shelby before Christmas for additional training before they deploy to Iraq. Those deploying will include brother and sister Adam Lee and Robin Oyer. It will be the sister's third tour of duty in Iraq and she states, "I look forward to being there with him and supporting him as well as supporting my family at home." Adam Crisp (Chattanooga Times Free Press) reports on the send-off ceremony for the soldiers yesterday and quotes Capt Casey Benzel stating, "This is bad timing being that it's right before Christmas, but mostly everyone is ready to go." Meanwhile Laura Incal Caterra (Journal News) reports on a "pre-mobilization preparation conference" held for New York Army National Guard members and their families in Tarrytown and quotes New York Governor David Paterson telling the assembled, "It's good to see that we're finally starting to show the decenty and the sensitivity and the loyalty to the people of our country, our brothers and sisters, who went overseas to put their lives on the line to protect freedom around the world." No offense to Paterson, but with the federal registry law tied up in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee [12-07 corrected from Senate Armed Services Committee -- apologies to Chair Carl Levin, Ranking Member John McCain and everyone who serves on and staffs the Senate Armed Services Committee], PTSD still an issue the military refuses to seriously address, nearly monthly reports of family members of service members being threatened with deportation, I'm not seeing the brilliant sunrise he is. Yesterday Patricia C. McCarther (Huntsville Times) reported on the send-off ceremony last week for the Alabama National Guard 441st:
Lt. Col. Roger Yearwood will lead the 441st in Iraq, and it's his third deployment with the group. He thanked families for their past and future sacrifices and assured them that the soldiers have the best training and equipment — including mine-resistant trucks -- that money can buy.
Those were reassuring words for Jana Nelson, 25, who has been married for just three weeks to soldier Michael Nelson, who is also a Huntsville police officer.
"I can't wait for this year to be over and he can come home and be safe," Jana said. "You don't think about being a police officer as being a safe job, but I think it is safer than being over there."
As the send-offs continue around the country, Tayleigh Davis (WALB) notes that Staff Sgt Briand Williams, scheduled to be home by Christmas, was honored at his Saturday funeral. Williams was serving in Iraq when he was killed November 22nd. Davis quotes Tonya Flippen telling the assembled mourners, "Remember him as a soldier and becoming a man. I will remember my son as my son and my hero." His daughter Brianna Williams is quoted stating, "He was a great dad and I loved him very much." Davis notes his wife (name not given) is pregnant and due to deliver a boy in January.
From World Can't Wait, we'll note the opening of "Saying NO to Obama's War Moves in Afghanistan:"
Last week, thousands, -- but not tens or hundreds of thousands, or the millions needed to stop this war -- protested Obama's war surge in Afghanistan. Across the country, groups of people from Honolulu to Maine to Florida, gathered, mostly on Wednesday, to respond with anger and outrage to 30,000 more troops from the US, and others from NATO, destroying one of the poorest countries in the world.
About 300 people gathered outside the gate at West Point on December 1 to protest the escalation Obama announced, more than protested there during the Bush era. Over and over, people talked about having voted for Obama, but now being disillusioned, and really "heart broken" as Matthis Chiroux, the Iraq war resister put it. The protest was intense, as the group marched silently to the main gate of West Point. Once there, we chanted "STOP THIS WAR NOW!" and "30,000 More! What the hell FOR?"
Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "It Takes A Starlet" went up last night. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
the washington post
ernesto londono
the new york times
james dao
dan frosch
amanda shropshire
adam crisp
laura incal caterra
taleigh davis
patricia c. mccarter
the world today just nuts
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "It Takes A Starlet"
Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "It Takes A Starlet." Barack, wearing a fetching sweater, declares, "The New York Times 'discovers' Celebrity in Chief, acts like it's a bad thing and argues I may be overexposed. Overexposed! Did the country ever tire of Joey Heatherton, Shannon Tweed, Lola Falana? No! And they'll never tire of me." Isaiah notes that Wally and Cedric have used "celebrity in chief" since the election and have used it in every joint-post, non-stop, since "He taught college, right? Right?" and "THIS JUST IN! WHO PASSED THIS FOOL?" Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.
the world today just nuts
comic
barack obama
it takes a starlet
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
the common ills
the new york times
And the war drags on . . .
So Sunday night the Parliament passes (another) election measure which still has to go before the presidency council (like the last one) and will become law only if it is not vetoed. The development has various news outlets in a tizzy and filing like crazy. Of the Western outlets, Warren P. Strobel and Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) do the best job. They not only provide the details of what happened just before midnight, they provide the details of what happened before and they explain, "While agreements have been reached in the past only to fall apart, there were high hopes that this one would stick. Hashimi withdrew his veto threat early Monday morning." It's not predicting, it's reporting. Ned Parker and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quote Tariq al-Hashimi (Iraq's Sunni vice president) stating on satellite TV, "All of our demands have been achieved. The displaced people have been treated fairly, the value of people inside and outside Iraq are the same. I am happy because of this accomplishment and I consider it a historic day in building the modern Iraq."
If true and if there are no other objections and the law passed the presidency council, that will mean al-Hashimi had a 'victory.' Why is that important? Iraq's still in a Constitutional crisis and that should bother the US government tremendously. But reporters? The news is always about conflict. Turmoil always qualifies as news. So it was rather amazing since al-Hashimi's veto to see so many Western outlets do so many attack pieces on al-Hashimi. The initial response to his veto by Parliament was to strip a number of seats away from Sunnis. And this led to not just opinion commentary that al-Hashimi had 'lost,' but also to so-called reporting. And this 'reporting' included a lot of scolding and calling him out. Now there's nothing final at this moment. Everything's still an if. Which is why this paragraph starts with "If true . . .," but a lot of so-called news outlets were attacking him in reporting and were saying he had "lost" when nothing was permanent or decided.
What was that? It wasn't reporting. And reporters, real ones, should have been thrilled with the Constitutional crisis because it gave them something to report on (it continues to). But there was a lot of anger in so-called objective reports and a lot of attacks on al-Hashimi. Some news outlets might need to go back and review their so-called reporting because it wasn't reporting.
Parker and Salman note that the Kurdish Regional Government extracted a promise from the US that a census would take place in the coming year. Presumably, the promise had some form of 'teeth' to it since the US has long promised that the Constitutionally mandated census would take place and yet, year after year, it has not. The KRG is aware of that and presumably would not fall for yet another round of pretty words. If that is indeed the case, one wonders how the press will report on this issue since Barack and Bully Boy Boy Bush both asserted Iraq was a soveriegn nation -- that was the whole point of ending the UN mandate (it truly was -- as a soveriegn nation, Iraq could start the tag sales on their assets that they couldn't while under UN supervision). If Iraq's a soveriegn nation and since Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister,
has been the road block to a census since 2006, what did the US government promise the KRG this time that convinced them? The tensions between Baghdad and the KRG aren't exactly secret nor is the tremendous ill will towards Nouri from the KRG a secret. So if he's the roadblock and he's hoping to be the prime minister (elected by Parliament) again after the elections, what did the US promise the KRG, how did they convince the KRG that it would be different in 2010 then it has been in the last three years?
That's a question reporters should be asking. For additional coverage of the measure Parliament passed tonight, see CNN, and Al Jazeera. [There are many other articles on the developments. Those four are the only Western ones I feel are worth highlighting.] And for those who need the insta-take: As reported tonight, the new measure means more seats for Sunnis and for Kurds and for ethnic minorities. Which would appear to mean the Shi'ites had to give up seats. I haven't read the measure. Whether or not any of the people talking to the outlets has is debatable. When al-Hashimi first threatened a veto, he was just learning of what was actually in the law and it had already passed Parliament at that point.
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4367. Tonight it remains 4367. Turning to some of the violence reported today . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people (two were police officers), a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded one person and a Kirkuk roadside bombing which wounded two police officers. Reuters notes a Mussayab roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four more people injured, a Rashad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and left three more injured and, dropping back to Saturday, they note a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five Iraqi service members injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 police officers shot dead at a Baghdad police checkpoint and 1 Iraqi solider shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 1 ex-police officer shot dead in Mosul yesterday.
New content at Third:
Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
Truest statement of week III
A note to our readers
Editorial: War Paint and Soft Feathers
TV: Oh what a difference a name change makes
Book: The Battle of Seattle
Roundtable
Iraq
Wanted by the FBI: Diane Rehm and Barbara Slavin
Liar Supreme: Greg Mitchell
Civil Rights Era Cold Cases
Highlights
Isaiah actually was going to take the night off because he didn't think he had an idea for a comic. He called ten minutes ago to say he's got one so it will go up shortly after this entry posts. Pru highlights "Does war make Britain safer from terrorism?" (Great Britian's Socialist Worker):
“A more stable and secure Afghanistan and Pakistan will help ensure a safer Britain.”
This is the mantra of Gordon Brown as he tries to bolster support for the Afghan war and justify sending more troops this week.
But we have already seen this is a false logic.
The US-led “war on terror” has made the world a more dangerous place—with imperialist armies ever more entrenched in conflicts abroad, instability shaking the Middle East, and the “blowback” of an increased threat of terror attacks in the West.
British and US foreign policy—the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, airstrikes on Pakistan, the use of torture and secret rendition, the horrors of Guantanamo Bay—have created a well of anger and bitterness that make the US and Britain much more of a target.
The only route to a safer Britain is to bring the troops home and put an end to the wars and human rights abuses that give rise to terrorism.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version
top of page
Along with Ernesto Londono's article, we'll note other topics tomorrow morning. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mcclatchy newspapers
warren p. strobel
mohammed al dulaimy
the los angeles times
ned parker
raheem salman
the socialist worker
the third estate sunday review
the world today just nuts
If true and if there are no other objections and the law passed the presidency council, that will mean al-Hashimi had a 'victory.' Why is that important? Iraq's still in a Constitutional crisis and that should bother the US government tremendously. But reporters? The news is always about conflict. Turmoil always qualifies as news. So it was rather amazing since al-Hashimi's veto to see so many Western outlets do so many attack pieces on al-Hashimi. The initial response to his veto by Parliament was to strip a number of seats away from Sunnis. And this led to not just opinion commentary that al-Hashimi had 'lost,' but also to so-called reporting. And this 'reporting' included a lot of scolding and calling him out. Now there's nothing final at this moment. Everything's still an if. Which is why this paragraph starts with "If true . . .," but a lot of so-called news outlets were attacking him in reporting and were saying he had "lost" when nothing was permanent or decided.
What was that? It wasn't reporting. And reporters, real ones, should have been thrilled with the Constitutional crisis because it gave them something to report on (it continues to). But there was a lot of anger in so-called objective reports and a lot of attacks on al-Hashimi. Some news outlets might need to go back and review their so-called reporting because it wasn't reporting.
Parker and Salman note that the Kurdish Regional Government extracted a promise from the US that a census would take place in the coming year. Presumably, the promise had some form of 'teeth' to it since the US has long promised that the Constitutionally mandated census would take place and yet, year after year, it has not. The KRG is aware of that and presumably would not fall for yet another round of pretty words. If that is indeed the case, one wonders how the press will report on this issue since Barack and Bully Boy Boy Bush both asserted Iraq was a soveriegn nation -- that was the whole point of ending the UN mandate (it truly was -- as a soveriegn nation, Iraq could start the tag sales on their assets that they couldn't while under UN supervision). If Iraq's a soveriegn nation and since Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister,
has been the road block to a census since 2006, what did the US government promise the KRG this time that convinced them? The tensions between Baghdad and the KRG aren't exactly secret nor is the tremendous ill will towards Nouri from the KRG a secret. So if he's the roadblock and he's hoping to be the prime minister (elected by Parliament) again after the elections, what did the US promise the KRG, how did they convince the KRG that it would be different in 2010 then it has been in the last three years?
That's a question reporters should be asking. For additional coverage of the measure Parliament passed tonight, see CNN, and Al Jazeera. [There are many other articles on the developments. Those four are the only Western ones I feel are worth highlighting.] And for those who need the insta-take: As reported tonight, the new measure means more seats for Sunnis and for Kurds and for ethnic minorities. Which would appear to mean the Shi'ites had to give up seats. I haven't read the measure. Whether or not any of the people talking to the outlets has is debatable. When al-Hashimi first threatened a veto, he was just learning of what was actually in the law and it had already passed Parliament at that point.
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4367. Tonight it remains 4367. Turning to some of the violence reported today . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded four people (two were police officers), a Mosul roadside bombing which wounded one person and a Kirkuk roadside bombing which wounded two police officers. Reuters notes a Mussayab roadside bombing which claimed 2 lives and left four more people injured, a Rashad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Sahwa and left three more injured and, dropping back to Saturday, they note a Baghdad roadside bombing which left five Iraqi service members injured.
Shootings?
Mohammed al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 police officers shot dead at a Baghdad police checkpoint and 1 Iraqi solider shot dead in Kirkuk. Reuters notes 1 ex-police officer shot dead in Mosul yesterday.
New content at Third:
Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
Truest statement of week III
A note to our readers
Editorial: War Paint and Soft Feathers
TV: Oh what a difference a name change makes
Book: The Battle of Seattle
Roundtable
Iraq
Wanted by the FBI: Diane Rehm and Barbara Slavin
Liar Supreme: Greg Mitchell
Civil Rights Era Cold Cases
Highlights
Isaiah actually was going to take the night off because he didn't think he had an idea for a comic. He called ten minutes ago to say he's got one so it will go up shortly after this entry posts. Pru highlights "Does war make Britain safer from terrorism?" (Great Britian's Socialist Worker):
“A more stable and secure Afghanistan and Pakistan will help ensure a safer Britain.”
This is the mantra of Gordon Brown as he tries to bolster support for the Afghan war and justify sending more troops this week.
But we have already seen this is a false logic.
The US-led “war on terror” has made the world a more dangerous place—with imperialist armies ever more entrenched in conflicts abroad, instability shaking the Middle East, and the “blowback” of an increased threat of terror attacks in the West.
British and US foreign policy—the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, airstrikes on Pakistan, the use of torture and secret rendition, the horrors of Guantanamo Bay—have created a well of anger and bitterness that make the US and Britain much more of a target.
The only route to a safer Britain is to bring the troops home and put an end to the wars and human rights abuses that give rise to terrorism.
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version
top of page
Along with Ernesto Londono's article, we'll note other topics tomorrow morning. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mcclatchy newspapers
warren p. strobel
mohammed al dulaimy
the los angeles times
ned parker
raheem salman
the socialist worker
the third estate sunday review
the world today just nuts
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Are they targeting US collaborators?
AFP reports that the Iraqi Parliament adjourned today because they did not have a quorum despite the session being called by President Jalal Talabani. The Parliament 'hopes' to meet tomorrow and address the elections. Of course, they've been 'hoping' that for some time. In fact, remember November 27th when we were being told a compromise had been agreed to? Only it hadn't been agreed to, had it? No.
But the violence continues . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded five Iraqi service members.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on Kurdish politician Sardar Abdulqadir in Sulaimaniyah -- he was wounded by gunfire and 1 man shot dead in Mosul. DPA adds that 1 police officer and 2 guards were shot dead in Mosul and, in a separate incident, 1 woman was shot dead and her daughter injured.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person kidnapped in Baghdad
In addition Issa reports another attack on the US military base in Basra, this time with rockets. This would be the base whose barrier walls collapsed last Saturday and the US military continues to insist the collapse was due to rain.
Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot, we'll note this:
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing which claimed 1 life and left six people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left two people injured, a Mosul bombing which left a child injured and 1 Tirkrit suicide bomber who took his own life and claimed the lives of 1 "commander of the anti-riot force in Tikrit" and 3 of his bodyguards with fifteen other people injured. Sabah al-Bzee, Michael Christie and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) report that the commander in Tikrit was Lt Col Ahmed Subhi al-Fahal who had been shopping when he was attacked. Ernesto Londono and Muhanad Saif (Washington Post) explain, "The bomber ran toward Lt. Col. Ahmed al-Fahal, who heads the city's anti-terrorism and anti-riot force, as he was walking in a crowded market, according to Lt. Ibrahim al-Duir, a police spokesman in Tikrit."
Jason Ditz (Antiwar) explains:
The death of Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Subhi al-Fahal, one of the top anti-terror chiefs in central Iraq, is being celebrated by insurgents across Iraq, and crowed about on Iraqi al-Qaeda affiliated web sites.
Fahal was an outspoken terror opponent, and rejected government efforts to reform militants, suggesting that only killing them en masse could pacify the region.
al-Fahal may have been targeted for collaborating with the US. The same may have happened to the US-backed Sardar Abdulqadir today. There's no proof that it did and I'm not saying that was the case for either. But it's something to watch to see if a pattern is emerging.
In London, an Iraq Inquiry is ongoing. Friday, they heard testimony from three witnesses. Matthew Taylor (Guardian) emphasizes the testimony of Lt Gen Anthony Pigott:
Britain committed a large land force to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to buy influence with the United States, the official inquiry into the war has been told.
Lieutenant General Sir Anthony Pigott, who was deputy chief of the defence staff responsible for commitments, said that by taking on a major military role the UK was able to show the Americans that it was a "serious player". After Tony Blair's meeting with George Bush at the president's Texas ranch in April 2002, Pigott said he set up a small team to look at the options for military action against Iraq.
Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) emphasizes the testimony of Dominic Asquith which included the assertion that then-Chancellor Gordon Brown (now England's Prime Minister) "refused to increase" the reconstruction funds in Basra.
The following community sites have updated in the last 24 hours:
Cedric's Big Mix
Look who's attacking medicare!
3 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! LET THE RATIONING BEGIN!
3 hours ago
Ann's Mega Dub
Caprice
19 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
Max's problems, Caroline's big nose
20 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Carly Simon and my thoughts on the Grammys
20 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Flamingo Road
21 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Al Gore disappoints again
21 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
Desiree Needs To Go Rogers
21 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
The Dickless Bob Somerby
21 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
barbara ehrenreich’s a damn liar
23 hours ago
Trina's Kitchen
Warm Hearts in the Kitchen
23 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
E-mail theme
23 hours ago
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
afp
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
jason ditz
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the guardian
matthew taylor
the financial times of london
alex barker
anns mega dub
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
But the violence continues . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which wounded five Iraqi service members.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on Kurdish politician Sardar Abdulqadir in Sulaimaniyah -- he was wounded by gunfire and 1 man shot dead in Mosul. DPA adds that 1 police officer and 2 guards were shot dead in Mosul and, in a separate incident, 1 woman was shot dead and her daughter injured.
Kidnappings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 person kidnapped in Baghdad
In addition Issa reports another attack on the US military base in Basra, this time with rockets. This would be the base whose barrier walls collapsed last Saturday and the US military continues to insist the collapse was due to rain.
Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot, we'll note this:
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing which claimed 1 life and left six people injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed 1 life and left two people injured, a Mosul bombing which left a child injured and 1 Tirkrit suicide bomber who took his own life and claimed the lives of 1 "commander of the anti-riot force in Tikrit" and 3 of his bodyguards with fifteen other people injured. Sabah al-Bzee, Michael Christie and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) report that the commander in Tikrit was Lt Col Ahmed Subhi al-Fahal who had been shopping when he was attacked. Ernesto Londono and Muhanad Saif (Washington Post) explain, "The bomber ran toward Lt. Col. Ahmed al-Fahal, who heads the city's anti-terrorism and anti-riot force, as he was walking in a crowded market, according to Lt. Ibrahim al-Duir, a police spokesman in Tikrit."
Jason Ditz (Antiwar) explains:
The death of Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Subhi al-Fahal, one of the top anti-terror chiefs in central Iraq, is being celebrated by insurgents across Iraq, and crowed about on Iraqi al-Qaeda affiliated web sites.
Fahal was an outspoken terror opponent, and rejected government efforts to reform militants, suggesting that only killing them en masse could pacify the region.
al-Fahal may have been targeted for collaborating with the US. The same may have happened to the US-backed Sardar Abdulqadir today. There's no proof that it did and I'm not saying that was the case for either. But it's something to watch to see if a pattern is emerging.
In London, an Iraq Inquiry is ongoing. Friday, they heard testimony from three witnesses. Matthew Taylor (Guardian) emphasizes the testimony of Lt Gen Anthony Pigott:
Britain committed a large land force to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to buy influence with the United States, the official inquiry into the war has been told.
Lieutenant General Sir Anthony Pigott, who was deputy chief of the defence staff responsible for commitments, said that by taking on a major military role the UK was able to show the Americans that it was a "serious player". After Tony Blair's meeting with George Bush at the president's Texas ranch in April 2002, Pigott said he set up a small team to look at the options for military action against Iraq.
Alex Barker (Financial Times of London) emphasizes the testimony of Dominic Asquith which included the assertion that then-Chancellor Gordon Brown (now England's Prime Minister) "refused to increase" the reconstruction funds in Basra.
The following community sites have updated in the last 24 hours:
Cedric's Big Mix
Look who's attacking medicare!
3 hours ago
The Daily Jot
THIS JUST IN! LET THE RATIONING BEGIN!
3 hours ago
Ann's Mega Dub
Caprice
19 hours ago
Mikey Likes It!
Max's problems, Caroline's big nose
20 hours ago
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
Carly Simon and my thoughts on the Grammys
20 hours ago
Oh Boy It Never Ends
Flamingo Road
21 hours ago
Ruth's Report
Al Gore disappoints again
21 hours ago
SICKOFITRADLZ
Desiree Needs To Go Rogers
21 hours ago
Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
The Dickless Bob Somerby
21 hours ago
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
barbara ehrenreich’s a damn liar
23 hours ago
Trina's Kitchen
Warm Hearts in the Kitchen
23 hours ago
Like Maria Said Paz
E-mail theme
23 hours ago
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
afp
mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
jason ditz
mcclatchy newspaperslaith hammoudi
the guardian
matthew taylor
the financial times of london
alex barker
anns mega dub
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)