Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Iraq snapshot

Tuesday, September 7, 2010.  Chaos and violence continue, 2 US service members are shot dead in Iraq, another journalist is killed in Iraq, the "combat operations" are not over as a Sunday Baghdad attack demonstrated, the political stalemate continues, and more.
 
Liz Sly (Los Angeles Times) reports, "Two American soldiers were killed and nine injured Tuesday when a man wearing an Iraqi army uniform opened fire on them inside an Iraqi commando compound in the province of Salahuddin, highlighting the continued danger to U.S. troops in Iraq despite the formal end of combat operations announced by President Obamalas week."  BBC News adds, "The US military says they were shot by a gunman dressed in Iraqi army uniform near the town of Tuz Khormato, 210km (130 miles) north of Baghdad."  Barack declared "combat operations" over last Tuesday.  Apparently not everyone got the memo . . . or else Barack was wrong.  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes: "But Tuesday's attack -- like a sophisticated assault on Iraqi facilities in central Baghdad on Sunday that American soldiers helped repel -- underscored what U.S. military commanders on the ground in Iraq have been saying for weeks: A change of mission doesn't mean the threats are over for the estimated 50,000 U.S. soldiers that remain in the country."  Sunday attack in Baghdad?
 
Leila Fadel and Jinana Hussein (Washington Post) reported, "Just five days after the United States declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq, U.S. soldiers opened fire Sunday morning on suicide bombers who snuck into an Iraqi army base in Baghdad, a U.S. military spokesman said."    Steven Lee Myers and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) observed, "Insurgents mounted a coordinated attack on one of the main military commands in Baghdad on Sunday, briefly drawing fire from American soldiers, an event that underscored the ambiguity of the American military's role in Iraq."  NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams Sunday had Lester Holt anchoring and he noted, "Oversees now to Iraq and another suicide bombing. This one targeting one of the main Iraqi military commands in Baghdad. Twelve people were killed and thirty-six wounded when terrorists detonated a van filled with explosives, then stormed the base. American soldiers returned fire, helping to repel the attack."  On The KPFA Evening News Sunday, David Landau explained:
 
 
In the Middle East today, American soldiers helped Iraqi troops battle insurgents in downtown Baghdad earlier today, repelling a major attack in the capital five days after President Obama had declared an end to US combat operations there. At least 18 people were killed and 39 injured when a group of suicide bombers and gunmen attempted to storm the army's east Baghdad headquarters located in a former ministry of defense building in a busy market district along the Tigris River. No Americans were among the casualties, according to a US military spokesman, but US soldiers did join in the fighting alongside Iraqis to repel the assailants, two of whom managed to enter the army compound. The US military also dispatched helicopters, bomb disposal experts, unmanned aerial drones and other unspecified intelligence, surveillance and reconassiance assistance to the scene of the downtown battle, the US military spokesman said. According to an Iraqi official, speaking anonymously, the Iraqi security forces had requested American help in the battle and US soldiers shot 2 snipers who had taken up position in nearby buildings. It was the first significant attack in Baghdad since President Obama's address to the nation on Tuesday in which he told Americans that US combat operations were over and said it was time to "turn the page" on Iraq.
 
 

John Hockenberry: It's safe to say it's a new dawn in Iraq but it's partly cloudly.

Celeste Headless: That's -- that's a pretty good weather forecast. Accurate but not pretty.

John Hockenberry: Exactly. The lack of clarity over what the "new dawn" and the end of combat operations in Iraq actually means for US forces was demonstrated over the weekend. And, you know, less than a week after combat operations ended, US forces were reportedly called in to repel a coordinated attack on an Iraqi military. No American casualties there -- or at least none killed. But in the bombing and the shooting that came after at least 12 Iraqis were killed and more than 20 were wounded. Iraqi forces were also involved in this firefight as well. Iraqi Defense Spokesperson Maj - Gen Mohammed al-Askari denied though that US troops had been involved.

Maj - Gen Mohammed al-Askari: [Translated by PRI] This is not true. We didn't call the American troops. The Iraqi troops did it, foiling the attackers. And we wouldn't use American troops in this kind of operation. I don't think only six attackers represents a threat to Iraqi national security. I'm in direct contact with the operation room and the Defense Minister and we never used the Americans in this incident.

John Hockenberry: But a US military spokesman, Lt Col Eric Bloom, said the Iraqi military had requested help from helicopters, drones and explosive experts. The details in this incident? Well we're going to go to two reporters with our partner the New York Times: Anthony Shadid, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times based in Baghdad -- we welcome him back -- he won the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting this year and in 2004 for his coverage of the Iraq War and he joins us from Baghdad and Michael Gordon, New York Times military correspondent and author of The Generals of War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf and Cobra II. He joins us from northern Virginia. Anthony, since there's a delay on your line, let me just start with you. What are the details and the truth as we know it about this incident that took place over the weekend?

Anthony Shadid: You might be able to reconcile those two accounts, actually. I don't think the Americans were called in to the base, they were actually already in the base as part of what they consider these partnership programs. And American soldiers were there. Now what role they exactly played is still a little unclear. The way the American military portrays it, they did what they call suppressive fire. But the actual raid on where these two insurgents were holed up, that was done by Iraqi troops. Now when you look at this raid itself, the general, the Iraqi general may have been dismissive of six people posing a challenge, but we have to consider that this is one of the division commands in Baghdad and an operation of just six men managed to breach the security and actually enter the base -- only two of them managed to get inside. I think it is a blow in some ways to the perceived Iraqi security forces that the insurgents were able to pull off this attack. It lasted a few hours, it was a very loud scene, as-as you reported there were American helicopters involved along with drones. It's something that's going to be remembered here for a little while, I think.

John Hockenberry: Anthony Shadid, foreign correspondent for the New York Times reporting from Baghdad. Michael Gordon, in a situation where combat operations are said to have ended, what are we to -- How are we to characterize this incident? Is this purely defensive combat? There's going to be a lot of this over the next year or so, right?


Michael R. Gordon: Well I was just in Baghdad last week with Vice President [Joe] Biden and I've been at that particular base that was attacked. I was embedded there in '08. I think it's not the case that combat operations have truly ended. The way I put it is: The combat phase is over but the fighting goes on. When you read the fine print of what the administration is talking about, it's clear that offensive American combat operations in partnership with Iraqi forces will continue in the realm of Special Operations. It's called "partnered counter-terrorism" but what it means is Special Operation Forces will hunt for al Qaeda -- Iraqi and American. And also American conventional forces retain the right to defend themselves either with the Iraqis or without them.
 
Liz Sly and Riyadh Mohammed (Los Angeles Times) added, "An official with the Interior Ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Iraqi security forces requested American help to defeat the insurgents, and that it was U.S. soldiers who shot two snipers who had taken up position in nearby buildings." As Hurriyet noted, Barack's claim of the end of combat operations "should be taken with a grain of salt". "American soldiers were rushing to the aid of the Iraqi army,"   In an intro to her slide show at wowOwow, Julie Dermansky observes, "On August 31, 2010, Obama declared it is "time to turn the page" on Iraq, yet he didn't declare the war is over. The page may be turned but the story is not over. A visit to Arlington West illustrates the open book as more casualties are added to the records, and more markers are added in the sand."  The slide show is on the crosses put up for the fallen at Arlington West.  Over the weekend, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram editorial board opined, "Claiming credit for the end of the combat mission means Obama will own whatever happens after the war he was so virulently against as a U.S. senator and a campaigner for the White House. He won't be able to point a finger at the war's architect, former President George W. Bush, any longer." Atul Aneja (The Hindu) points out:

Under cover of darkness, hundreds of armoured vehicles rumbled across the Iraqi border into Kuwait, marking the much-touted withdrawal of American combat forces. Dominant sections of the international media interpreted the August 19 pullout as a political statement -- the fulfilment of a commitment by President Barack Obama to bring home troops entrapped by the Bush administration in the Iraqi military quagmire. In short, the American public was made to believe that the pullout by the fourth Stryker Brigade was leading to the end of the U.S. occupation. On August 31, Mr. Obama formally declared in a televised address that all American combat operations in Iraq had ceased. The spin-doctors in the American establishment and their willing accomplices in the media have indeed done a marvellous job. An extraordinary task -- of dressing up a new phase of Iraqi occupation as the beginning of its end -- has been accomplished.   
However, many questions arise in the wake of the withdrawal. How should the pullout be interpreted, if not as the occupation entering its terminal phase? What are the facts on the ground, and what prospects do they hold for the future of Iraqis?                        
There are three significant markers that the Iraqi occupation is not ending and is being merely repackaged. First, the suggestion that the U.S. combat operations are ending is just not true. The nomenclature, however, has changed significantly. Instead of being called "combat operations," the act of chasing militants, joint raids by U.S. Special Forces and their Iraqi counterparts on militant strongholds, and other offensive military tasks will henceforth be called "stability operations."
On the most recent broadcast of Inside Iraq (Al Jazeera, began airing Friday), guest host Teymoor Nabili spoke with Professor Sami Ramadani (London Metropolitan University), Mustafa al-Hiti (Iraqi National Alliance) and Saad al-Muttalibi (State of Law).
 
Teymoor Nabili: If I may begin in London with Sami Ramadani, I suppose you are the most distant from the process in a number of ways.  So let me try and get just a broad baseline from you on what's going on.  President Obama said that we have met our responsiblities in Iraq.  Is he right in doing that? But particularly in saying that, particularly given that there is no government and that the process of democracy that Americans spent so much time trying to build appears to have yielded nothing.
 
Sami Ramadani: Absolutely and one could also add to your list the fact that Iraq is in such a mess.  The population's daily lives have been reduced to a -- to a level which is equal to the worst in the world -- including Somolia and the like.  The daily lives of the people who are there -- whether it is to do with health, with electricity, the essential services, unemployment, the condition of women, the -- not to mention the security situation, the death of over a million Iraqis.
 
Teymoor Nabili: Alright.
 
Sami Ramadani: The situation in terms of the -- I mean, the country is in ruins so I don't know what Mr. Obama or President Obama was talking about when he said 'fulfilling our responsibilities.'
 
Teymoor Nabili: Saad al-Muttalibi in Baghdad was laughing when you said that.  This is not a country you recognize from those terms, apparently?
 
Saad al-Muttalibi: Well I thought this was a serious political program, not a comedian stand up program.  Because, really what I'm hearing, has nothing to relate to.  What he's saying -- Probably he's representing a political view that has gone with the past.  I mean the Ba'ath Party is trying to show that Iraq is in dire straights and in a desperate position but that is the Ba'ath Party speaking and I suspect that the kind gentleman in London probably is somehow related to the Ba'ath Party.
 
If you don't grasp why Iraq's in gridlock, it's right ther with the ass Saad al-Muttalibi.  Not only is he in Nouri's political slate (also in Nouri's political party) he is an adviser to Iraq's Ministry of Dialogue and Reconciliation.  He damn well knows that the Ba'ath Party is illegal in Iraq (since the start of the Iraq War) and he damn well knows that you sideline opponents with that charge/smear.  Brought on to discuss Iraq, he can't do it.
 
He immediately trashes the man he disagrees with as a stand up comic before making the deadliest accusation an Iraqi can make: "Ba'ath Party member!"  This is not the first time Saad al-Muttalibi has pulled that stunt or even the first time on Inside Iraq.  He is a thug.  For some reason, he's a thug that gets on TV.  But he's crooked, he's a liar and he's part of the problem that will refuse to let Iraq move forward. And if you're not getting it, the ministry he advises?  They were supposed to have met a benchmark in 2007 (never did) of bringing former Ba'ath Party members back into Iraqi society and government.  That's the 'reconcilaition' and people like Saad al-Muttalibi are the reason that there has been no reconciliation. 
 
Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reports that Nouri al-Maliki's ally Hussein al-Shahristani is arguing that the political stalemate is encouraging the violence such as the attacks Sunday on the Iraqi military base while "a small group of activists and politicians gathered outside the Iraqi parliament" today to register their objection to the stalemate. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 30 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted. Khalid al-Ansary, Serena Chaudhry, Michael Christie and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) report that Allwi is stating that, "I hope in Ocotber some time, late October (things will be sorted out)." Allawi also states that he is fine with someone else from Iraqiya becoming prime minister.


Alsumaria TV reports, "Allawi pointed out to two main pending points in coalition talks namely the position of prime minister and the question of who had the right to form the next government. Allawi said it was important to divide power amongst all political blocs in Iraq's fledgling democracy." Today Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that news from the Aswat al-Iraq outlet states that Nouri al-Maliki refuses to step aside as candidate for prime minister for State of Law and that the Iraqi National Alliance is standing behind (current Shi'ite vice president) Adel Abdel Mahdi but the two groups, allegedly, have agreed to take a vote and go with whichever candidate receives 65% of the vote. Not addressed is what happens if no one receives 65%. Going into the March elections, for those who've forgotten, Nouri insisted he would win by a huge margin. He did not win. By any margin. Despite having many in the press call the election for him before the votes were even counted (for example, Quil Lawrence of NPR). Meanwhile Alsumaria TV notes that some members of the Iraqi National Alliance was at the home of Ahmed Chalabi addressing the issue of the stalemate and that the meeting stressed the need "to preserve unity within the national alliance." Michael Christie (Reuters) adds, "Shi'ite Iran, which exerts considerable influence over many Iraqi Shi'ite leaders after housing them for years when they were exiled under Saddam, is also pushing for a united front."  Assad Abboud (AFP) reports that Iraqi politicians are stating that Nouri has the backing of both the US and Iran and that various blocs are currently scurrying to get behind Nouri.
 
 Reuters reports a Samarra home invasion in which 3 family members were murdered "execution style," and, dropping back to Monday night, 2 corpses discovered in Kirkuk and 2 police officers injured in a Baghdad shooting. Alsumaria TV reports, "Religious programs anchor on Al Iraqiya Satellite TV network and head of Al Sheala District Riyad Al Saray was killed by unknown gunmen in central Baghdad."
 
In other news, Phil Bronstein (San Francisco Chronicle) and Eliott C. McLaughlin (CNN) both report (with text and video) on pranks being played in Iraq on Iraqis by Iraqis in the style of the MTV show Punk'd. And while that might make you grin, roll your eyes, groan or any variety of response, Oliver Pickup (Daily Mail) reports another aspect that should not be happening. Pickup reports on a group interjecting themselves into these antics: US soldiers. Pickup emphasizes a 'prank' a US soldier played on Iraqi by planting "a live grenade in an Iraqi's car". The scroll across the US video: "This is my partner and I working at a Traffic control point in Iraq. We decided to scare one of the locals a bit by placing a grenade in his trunk while he wasn't looking. This was all in fun and never in any intent to harm anyone."  The US soldiers taking part in that need to be disciplined. There's no excuse for it and it shouldn't be happening.

There is the obvious fact that a live grenade could explode and, if and when that happens during a prank, it will not be, "Oh, those funny Americans!" That's just one problem. Equally true is that this is how rumors get started. US soldiers today having 'fun' by planting grenades and other weapons are encouraging a belief in Iraq that US soldiers planted and planned the violence. How so? Iraqis are outraged by the violence that has plagued and continues to plauge their country -- rightly so. They are outraged and have blamed everyone possible for the violence -- including their own governmental leaders, including US service members, everyone. When videos exist showing Americans doing these 'stunts' for 'fun' it's only a matter of time before a few people start saying, "See, it was the Americans." That belief then spreads and it becomes, at best, an urban legend that never goes away and, at worst, a reason to attack US service members. It's not cute, it's not funny and it needs to stop immediately. Maybe the US military brass needs to worry less what civilians in the US do and start focusing on the problems taking place under their command? (That's in reference to Petraeus' hectoring of some church in the US and their plan to burn the Koran -- which they can do as American citizens. I don't support book burnings of any type but they are a legal form of protest and they really aren't the US military's business. In fact, the US military needs to be told to butt the hell out of civilian life in the United States. Civilian groups in the US have and are weighing in and that's what happens in a democracy -- though the fear card shouldn't be played -- but military brass has no say in what US citizens do or do not do as they exercise their Constitutional rights to free speech. Fear card shouldn't be played? Though both the Republican and Democratic parties love to play the fear card -- and pretend they don't -- it has no place in this debate.  It had no place in 2003 when it was used to attack the Dixie Chicks and how their 'remarks' would effect the world. This is a democracy, people will do what they want.  If the burning isn't wise -- again, I support no book burnings -- then there should be valid arguments for it not taking place.  Fear of what might happen OH NO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN is bulls**t.  You better find a better reason and stop trying to scare America.  Shame on anyone who does that and shame on anyone who silently goes along with that.)
 
This is Workers World's editorial "Iraq's resistance stands up:"

From the point of view of the U.S. government and the Pentagon, the U.S. has begun to wind down its military occupation of Iraq, now in the middle of its eighth year. But Washington intends to keep control of Iraq's oil and foreign policy with a string of military bases, a supersized embassy complete with its own mercenary army, and a puppet government dependent on U.S. military, economic and diplomatic backing.            

In the meantime these seven-plus years of occupation have destroyed much of Iraq, slaughtering its people and devastating its culture and its scientific and technical leadership. The occupation has divided Iraq along ethnic and sectarian fault lines as never before, and it left the city of Falluja poisoned with cancer-producing substances.            

That the U.S. invasion has brought much pain and suffering to Iraq is indisputable. What is missing from the above picture, however, is one essential thing: the indomitable determination of the Iraqi people and nation to regain their sovereignty.            

With U.S. troops leaving the country or staying safely within their well-protected bases, elements apparently from the Iraqi resistance launched 34 attacks in 16 cities on Aug. 25. Some 31 of the 55 people killed were members of the puppet police and security forces. It was clear that the Iraqi resistance that had prevented the U.S. from a clean takeover of Iraq is still around, still a force on the ground. More cities were hit at the same time than had ever been hit before, with police headquarters, checkpoints and government offices being the main targets.

Soon after the initial U.S.-British occupation in April 2003, George Bush claimed "mission accomplished." The fighting seemed over, but soon this illusion became a nightmare. Former army officers and many others grouped fighters around themselves who began to make life hell for the occupation army. The vast majority of Iraqis would simply not submit to imperialist rule.        

President Barack Obama, who was elected partly based on his promise to leave Iraq, is on the verge of making a speech on Aug. 31 to the county explaining the withdrawal. The early word on Obama's speech is that the president will avoid the triumphant tone that got Bush into trouble. But no amount of intelligent words can cover up a policy of military aggression that has left the U.S. with only enemies and ineffective puppets in Iraq.           

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.          

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011    
Email: ww@workers.org        
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net 
Support independent news DONATE  
 
 
Friday Ashish Kumar Sen (Washington Times) reported, "The United Nations' refugee agency is expressing concern that Western European countries are forcibly deporting Iraqi citizens back to Iraq. Sixty-one people, most of them Iraqis living in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Britain, were flown back to Baghdad this week." The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) released the following:

GENEVA, September 3 (UNHCR) -- The UN refugee agency on Friday objected to the continuing forced returns of Iraqi citizens from Western European countries soon after 61 people were flown back to Baghdad.                
Spokesman Adrian Edwards told journalists in Geneva that UNHCR was "very concerned' about the returns. The 61 on Wednesday's chartered flight were mainly Iraqis who had been residing in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom. UNHCR has not been able to confirm reports that three Iranians were among those on board.                       
UNHCR's guidelines for Iraq ask governments not to forcibly return people originating from the governorates of Baghdad, Diyala, Kirkuk, Ninewa and Salah Al-din, in view of the serious human rights violations and continuing security incidents in these areas.                  
"Our position is that Iraqi asylum applicants originating from these five governorates should benefit from international protection in the form of refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention or an alternative form of protection," Edwards said in Geneva's Palais des Nations.               
UNHCR considers that serious risks, including indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from violence or events seriously disturbing public order, are valid reasons for international protection.             
Some of the individuals among the group returned on Wednesday may be destined for safer areas such as the Kurdistan Region in the north, others may have elected to return voluntarily.            
"Nonetheless, of the 11 individuals we were able to interview on arrival, some originated from Baghdad and at least one person was a Christian from Mosul, in the governorate of Ninewa," Edwards said, adding: "The security situation in that governorate remains extremely volatile."           
Similarly in the Baghdad governorate, the security situation remains unstable with increased attacks and several recent major security incidents. On August 25, for example, a series of coordinated attacks throughout the country, including suicide bombs, left 62 people dead and 250 wounded. Car explosions, roadside bombs, mortar attacks and kidnapping remain daily threats for Iraqis.             
"We strongly urge European governments to provide Iraqis with protection until the situation in their areas of origin in Iraq allows for safe and voluntary returns. In this critical time of transition, we also encourage all efforts to develop conditions in Iraq that are conducive to sustainable and voluntary return," Edwards said.             
The continuing violence in Iraq has resulted in large-scale internal and external displacement of the Iraqi population. More than 1.5 million people remain displaced within the country while hundreds of thousands of others have found refuge in neighbouring countries, mainly in Syria and Jordan.            
UNHCR is concerned about the signal that forced returns from Western Europe could give to Iraq's neighbours, which, despite a score of national priorities, are hosting large numbers of Iraqi refugees.        

Saturday Rob Hastings (Independent of London) reported that Iraqis Ahmed Hussein Saeed and Mohammed Abdullah escaped the Oxfordshire detention center they were being held on Thursday night and were hunted down "by police using dogs and a helicopter" and adds, "Fifteen Iraqi refugees have been flown to Baghdad this month, of which several were Kurds. British officials tried to send their flight on to Kurdistan but were told by the KRG that this was not acceptable. A spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Deportations to Iraq told The Independent that British authorities now simply left Kurdish refugees in Baghdad with $100 and a hotel room for the night, and instructed them to make their own way back home to Kurdistan from there."
 
Saturday in Dublin, a War Hawk was held accountable. AP reports that Tony Blair showed up to sign his memoir I Helped Kill Millions But Found Love In Bush and was pelted with shoes and eggs. There were no reports of injuries so apparently all the eggs and shoes hit Blair in the head.  The War Hawk is attemping to garner press -- revisionary press -- while on his book tour.  CNN reported Monday that Tones Blair has canceled a book-signing in London out of fear of protests. In a statement, Blair attempts to spin the animosity the world feels towards him insisting that "I have decided not to go ahead with the signing as I don't want the public to be incovenienced by the inevitable hassle caused by protesters." AFP quotes the War Hawk whining to Sky News, "I think it's sad if you can't sign a book without people trying to physically prevent you, and as we saw in Dublin there were hundreds more who wanted to come and have their book signed than wanted to protest." Tony's also running from the revelations that his "I will give all royalties to wounded British soldiers" was another of his Iraq War lies because his huge advance means there will be few (if any) profits from the book and he's not handing over any of that six-figure advance to wounded soldiers. UK's Stop The War notes:      

Tony Blair has cancelled his book-signing at Waterstone's bookshop. He knows he cannot appear in public without being confronted by protests over his war crimes. He is running scared but he cannot hide. Stop the War has called a protest at Tate Modern gallery at 5.30pm on Wednesday September when Blair is hosting a book launch party, which will no doubt also be attended by Alistair Campbell, Jack Straw, Peter Mandelson and other war criminals.   
Protest when Blair hosts book launch party Wednesday 8 September 5.30pm
Tate Modern Gallery, Park Street, Bankside, London SE1 9TG Tube: Mansion House     
Q. Who said: "You've got to put in prison those who deserve to be there"? A. Tony Blair, 6 September 2010   

 
 
 

Posted by at 3:33 PM Links to this post

The political stalemate, the continued violence

Gabriel Gatehouse (BBC News) reports that Nouri al-Maliki's ally Hussein al-Shahristani is arguing that the political stalemate is encouraging the violence such as the attacks Sunday on the Iraqi military base while "a small group of activists and politicians gathered outside the Iraqi parliament" today to register their objection to the stalemate. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 30 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted. Khalid al-Ansary, Serena Chaudhry, Michael Christie and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) report that Allwi is stating that, "I hope in Ocotber some time, late October (things will be sorted out)." Allawi also states that he is fine with someone else from Iraqiya becoming prime minister.

Alsumaria TV reports, "Allawi pointed out to two main pending points in coalition talks namely the position of prime minister and the question of who had the right to form the next government. Allawi said it was important to divide power amongst all political blocs in Iraq's fledgling democracy." Today Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports that news from the Aswat al-Iraq outlet states that Nouri al-Maliki refuses to step aside as candidate for prime minister for State of Law and that the Iraqi National Alliance is standing behind (current Shi'ite vice president) Adel Abdel Mahdi but the two groups, allegedly, have agreed to take a vote and go with whichever candidate receives 65% of the vote. Not addressed is what happens if no one receives 65%. Going into the March elections, for those who've forgotten, Nouri insisted he would win by a huge margin. He did not win. By any margin. Despite having many in the press call the election for him before the votes were even counted (for example, Quil Lawrence of NPR). Meanwhile Alsumaria TV notes that some members of the Iraqi National Alliance was at the home of Ahmed Chalabi addressing the issue of the stalemate and that the meeting stressed the need "to preserve unity within the national alliance." Michael Christie (Reuters) adds, "Shi'ite Iran, which exerts considerable influence over many Iraqi Shi'ite leaders after housing them for years when they were exiled under Saddam, is also pushing for a united front."

Unity? The only consistent fabric in Iraqi life is the ongoing violence. Today Reuters reports a Samarra home invasion in which 3 family members were murdered "execution style," and, dropping back to Monday night, 2 corpses discovered in Kirkuk and 2 police officers injured in a Baghdad shooting. Alsumaria TV reports, "Religious programs anchor on Al Iraqiya Satellite TV network and head of Al Sheala District Riyad Al Saray was killed by unknown gunmen in central Baghdad." Meanwhile Azzaman attempts to sort through the attack Sunday on the Iraqi military base:


The aftermath of the attack shows chaos all over the government, both civilian and military ranks.
Nobody for sure can tell whether the attackers were suicide bombers, used car bombs or simply foot rebels from al-Qaeda who wanted to show how intrepid they have become.
Even our own newspaper which has reporters in almost every corner in Baghdad published two totally different reports about the battle.
Our international edition said they were suicide bombers but the domestic edition said it was a coordinated attack by foot rebels who stormed the building and had backing from snipers in nearby houses and streets.
The international edition’s copy was based on a Reuters report which could not independently be confirmed. The local edition was based on stringers on the scene and eyewitnesses.
Our local reporters on the ground say there were at least 20 attackers and no car or suicide bombs.
It is always easy in Iraq to blame suicide bombers and the government is usually happy with the version.
But to say that the attackers inflicted heavy losses on the army base and all managed to escape the scene unscathed is too big for the faltering government to swallow.


Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Now He's Soaking In It" went up Monday as did Kat's "Kat's Korner: Last Decade's Buried Treasure" and "Kat's Korner: The exclusion of Cher" and Marcia posted "Rachel Ambramowitz bad and sexist book" at her site and Mike posted "Labor Day" at his site.

Be sure to check out this James Foley's Raw Story article. And we'll close with Workers World's editorial "Iraq's resistance stands up:"

From the point of view of the U.S. government and the Pentagon, the U.S. has begun to wind down its military occupation of Iraq, now in the middle of its eighth year. But Washington intends to keep control of Iraq’s oil and foreign policy with a string of military bases, a supersized embassy complete with its own mercenary army, and a puppet government dependent on U.S. military, economic and diplomatic backing.

In the meantime these seven-plus years of occupation have destroyed much of Iraq, slaughtering its people and devastating its culture and its scientific and technical leadership. The occupation has divided Iraq along ethnic and sectarian fault lines as never before, and it left the city of Falluja poisoned with cancer-producing substances.

That the U.S. invasion has brought much pain and suffering to Iraq is indisputable. What is missing from the above picture, however, is one essential thing: the indomitable determination of the Iraqi people and nation to regain their sovereignty.

With U.S. troops leaving the country or staying safely within their well-protected bases, elements apparently from the Iraqi resistance launched 34 attacks in 16 cities on Aug. 25. Some 31 of the 55 people killed were members of the puppet police and security forces. It was clear that the Iraqi resistance that had prevented the U.S. from a clean takeover of Iraq is still around, still a force on the ground. More cities were hit at the same time than had ever been hit before, with police headquarters, checkpoints and government offices being the main targets.

Soon after the initial U.S.-British occupation in April 2003, George Bush claimed “mission accomplished.” The fighting seemed over, but soon this illusion became a nightmare. Former army officers and many others grouped fighters around themselves who began to make life hell for the occupation army. The vast majority of Iraqis would simply not submit to imperialist rule.

President Barack Obama, who was elected partly based on his promise to leave Iraq, is on the verge of making a speech on Aug. 31 to the county explaining the withdrawal. The early word on Obama’s speech is that the president will avoid the triumphant tone that got Bush into trouble. But no amount of intelligent words can cover up a policy of military aggression that has left the U.S. with only enemies and ineffective puppets in Iraq.

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news DONATE


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


























Posted by at 4:45 AM Links to this post

Views and US soldiers think they can 'prank' in Iraq

On August 31 President Barack Obama announced that "the American combat mission in Iraq has ended."
The last officially designated combat troops were withdrawn on August 18. Within days an American soldier was killed in a rocket attack.
On September 5, U.S. troops participated in a battle between suicide bombers and Iraqi forces in which 12 people were killed and 36 wounded. The bombers attacked an army base in Baghdad “in broad daylight,” according to Reuters, which reported that the "U.S. military said its troops opened fire and provided air support for Iraqi forces during the gunbattle."
The dictionary defines combat in the military sense as "active, armed fighting with enemy forces." If these battles do not qualify as combat, what does?
They also qualify as an excuse for Obama to keep troops in Iraq well beyond the end of 2011, which is clearly what all the movers and shakers in the U.S. government and the Council on Foreign Relations want.

The above is from Michael Tennant's "Combat in Iraq Continues as Plans for Long-term U.S. Presence Are Laid" (New American) and that's one view. Hasan Kanbolat (Today's Zaman) offers:

The US is not changing its mind on Iraq. It will continue its political, economic and military presence in the country. The US will not remain indifferent to Iraqi politics through its largest embassy in the world, located in Baghdad, and its consulates in Arbil, Mosul, Kirkuk and al-Basra. US forces have not been visible on the streets of Iraq and in daily life for a long time. So we should ask ourselves whether the withdrawal is preparation for an upcoming mid-term election showcased for the American public.
The image trying to be portrayed is that "the Republicans began the occupation of Iraq, but the Democrats ended it. Furthermore, the US withdrawal from Iraq can also be seen as a US effort to renew its global image, which is striving to do just this through the Obama administration because this administration is underscoring that the occupation is ending at a time when Iraq is in a good situation. The Obama administration, which does not wish to give the appearance that the US is a powerful country that invaded and then abandoned Iraq, leaving it to its own fate, but that it takes every opportunity to highlight Iraq’s political maturing, the ability of the nation to solve its own political crises through its own leaders as well as the improvement in the security of the nation.

The Iraq War continues and word games do not end it. The editorial board of Florida's New-Press observes, "We can read the news about Iraq any way we want, but the hard fact is Americans will be there a long time. American soldiers and Marines will remain in harm's way, and American policy will remain unsettled for years to come." Lamis Andoni (Al Jazeera) wonders about the country's neighbors:

The US invasion of Iraq marked a dramatic turning point for the Arab world, but the recent partial American withdrawal generated notably little interest across the region. This is partly because it signaled neither an unequivocal end to the occupation nor an explicit continuation of US military control. But the silence also reflects the bitter reality that many have simply tuned out of Iraq.
When Baghdad fell in 2003, it drew comparisons with the loss of Palestine and the dispossession of its people in 1948. And while the US invasion did not lead to, or aim at, colonising the country, changing its name or razing its towns and villages, it did serve to remove a once powerful state from the regional political equation and, in so doing, weakened the Arab world. This emboldened Israel and Iran, while striking a critical blow against pan-Arabism.
On both the official and popular level, Arabs failed to connect with and support the Iraqi people.
In the immediate wake of the invasion, Arab governments appeared confused. Some initially played to popular sentiment and looked to boycott the newly-installed American-backed government before eventually bowing to US pressure.
A country that had once helped to support others suddenly became an economic burden to its neighbours as hundreds of thousands of refugees fled into Syria and Jordan. Baghdad lost its status as an educational centre and cultural hub for Arab intellectuals, artists, poets and novelists.
The tragic shift in its position left many Iraqis feeling like the formerly wealthy relation who lost their fortune only to find that their friends and family had disappeared along with it.


Andoni really doesn't grasp it? The Arab world could not take part. Even now they only take tentative steps due to the fact that Iraq has no legitimate government. They have to wait for the exiles and puppets to move their way out of the government (if possible). To back up the US-installed exiles is to endorse the Iraq War. This isn't confusing, this isn't puzzling.

In other news, Phil Bronstein (San Francisco Chronicle) and Eliott C. McLaughlin (CNN) both report (with text and video) on pranks being played in Iraq on Iraqis by Iraqis in the style of the MTV show Punk'd. And while that might make you grin, roll your eyes, groan or any variety of response, Oliver Pickup (Daily Mail) reports another aspect that should not be happening. Pickup reports on a group interjecting themselves into these antics: US soldiers. Pickup emphasizes a 'prank' a US soldier played on Iraqi by planting "a live grenade in an Iraqi's car". The scroll across the US video: "This is my partner and I working at a Traffic control point in Iraq. We decided to scare one of the locals a bit by placing a grenade in his trunk while he wasn't looking. This was all in fun and never in any intent to harm anyone."

The US soldiers taking part in that need to be disciplined. There's no excuse for it and it shouldn't be happening.

There is the obvious fact that a live grenade could explode and, if and when that happens during a prank, it will not be, "Oh, those funny Americans!" That's just one problem. Equally true is that this is how rumors get started. US soldiers today having 'fun' by planting grenades and other weapons are encouraging a belief in Iraq that US soldiers planted and planned the violence. How so? Iraqis are outraged by the violence that has plagued and continues to plauge their country -- rightly so. They are outraged and have blamed everyone possible for the violence -- including their own governmental leaders, including US service members, everyone. When videos exist showing Americans doing these 'stunts' for 'fun' it's only a matter of time before a few people start saying, "See, it was the Americans." That belief then spreads and it becomes, at best, an urban legend that never goes away and, at worst, a reason to attack US service members. It's not cute, it's not funny and it needs to stop immediately. Maybe the US military brass needs to worry less what civilians in the US do and start focusing on the problems taking place under their command? (That's in reference to Petraeus' hectoring of some church in the US and their plan to burn the Koran -- which they can do as American citizens. I don't support book burnings of any type but they are a legal form of protest and they really aren't the US military's business. In fact, the US military needs to be told to butt the hell out of civilian life in the United States.)


Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Now He's Soaking In It" went up Monday as did Kat's "Kat's Korner: Last Decade's Buried Treasure" and "Kat's Korner: The exclusion of Cher" and Marcia posted "Rachel Ambramowitz bad and sexist book" at her site and Mike posted "Labor Day" at his site.

And Brendan notes Felicity Arbuthnot's "British Military in Iraq: A Shocking Legacy" (Information Clearing House):

August is seemingly Spotlight on Illegal Invasion month. President Obama has made his Mission-Lost-Cause speech about US., Iraq fantasy "withdrawal" - leaving behind 50,000 troops, perhaps 50,000 mercenaries, and some have suggested 100,000 "advisors."
In context: "Last month, the Congressional Research Service reported that the Department of Defense workforce has 19 percent more contractors (207,600) than uniformed personnel ... in Iraq and Afghanistan, making these wars ... the most outsourced and privatized in US history. Worse, the oversight of contractors will rest with other contractors. As has been the case in Afghanistan, contractors will be sought to provide "operations-center monitoring of private security contractors (PSCs) as well as PSC inspection and accountability services."
Tony "I would do it again" Blair, announced, on 16th August, he is to give his entire £4.6 million advance on his book: "My Journey", to the Royal British Legion, for support of British soldiers in need. As the ungracious calls for his "journey" to be to The Hague get louder - with some suggesting a far less civilized ordeal - it seems timely to assess British "achievements" in Iraq.
The British, of course, having come in flying the St George's flag on their vehicles (the Crusaders' flag) slithered out of Basra city, under cover of darkness, to hunker down at the fortified airport, some distance outside the town, in September 2007, much as US units did from other parts of Iraq, last week, fleeing in the night, over the border to Kuwait.
UK Forces, who had also illegally squatted in Basra Palace, as did their US counterparts in palaces throughout the country, taking over Iraq's cultural properties, additionally pillaging them, in defiance of the 1954 and 1977 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. To use such buildings in support of military effort or as a command centre is specifically prohibited. The full extent of pillaging is unlikely to ever be documented, since no one was guarding the guards. An early British example was the theft of a statue of Saddam Hussein from Basra, for which the British tax payer paid the transport for its journey to the Unit's base in southern England.



The e-mail address for this site is href="mailto:common_ills@yahoo.com">common_ills@yahoo.com.



























Posted by at 4:30 AM Links to this post

Monday, September 06, 2010

Kat's Korner: The exclusion of Cher

Kat: Rock and roll is serious business, you understand. That and assorted other lies will be tossed at you if you dare to point out just how sexist the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is. On the pop culture scale, minor nobodies from the fifties are in the Hall provided they have penis. Men of dubious legacies are in there as well because they have a penis. Having a penis allowed the Hall to break their own rules and induct Smokey Robinson as a solo act before the guidelines allowed him to be eligible for induction. (He records solo in 1973 and is inducted in 1987. No, that is not in keeping with the 25-year 'rule' supposedly enforced.) In other words, these apparently magical penises waive you on in repeatedly. Rather unrealistic, if you ask me, because I've never seen a burly bouncer waive anyone through for having a penis but a nice rack has gotten many a woman into a club. That's real life, though, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has little to do with real life or reality.

The most recent round of inductees saw four singers of the group Abba inducted -- two men, two women. And those two female members of Abba were the only women inducted this go round. The year prior to that Madonna was the token woman inducted with all the men. In fact, 2007 was such a 'landmark' that both Patti Smith and the Ronettes were inducted. That alone should demonstrate the problem, by the way. Patti hits in the mid-seventies and she's getting inducted at the same time as the seminal girl group from the early sixties. How does that happen? Take a look at the 2004 inductees or the 2003 inductees and you'll see (not one woman was inducted in either year). It happens because women are repeatedly overlooked and the Hall has to play catch up over and over due to their inducting a large number of male losers who will need highly descriptive plaques at the Hall to remind visitors who they were and what they allegedly accomplished.

Now I ain't looking to fight with you
Frighten you or uptighten you
Drag you down or drain you down
Chain you down or bring you down

What does the singer really want to do? "Baby, be friends with you." And maybe you're thinking, "Bob Dylan!" Yeah, Bobby wrote it. He sang it. He just didn't carry it onto the charts. The Byrds did, of course, at the same time Cher was putting the song on the chart. Who won the dueling "All I Really Want To Do" competition? Cher. But the Byrds are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and where's Cher?

As a legacy alone, she deserves the honor. Cher in concert still commands top bucks. She's charted on the hot 100 album chart repeatedly -- five decades have found her with hit solo albums including at least one in the top 30 in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and the 00s. This is the woman whose early recordings as a backup singer are historic: the Ronette's "Be My Baby" and "Walking in the Rain," the Righteous Brothers' "You've Lost That Loving Feeling," etc. This is the woman who introduced the country, the world, to hippies as half of Sonny & Cher. You'd think being half of "I've Got You Babe," "The Beat Goes On" and "Baby Don't Go" would be more than enough to get into the Hall on its own but apparently that's not the case.

Now while Cher was part of that duo, she was also a solo artist. But while she and Sonny would ponder the sweet, innocence of "Why Don't They Let Us Fall In Love?" (and make it up to number two on the Hot 100 with that song), as a solo act, Cher was a little darker in her song choices. As a solo artist, Cher covered Dylan's "Blowing In The Wind," "Like A Rolling Stone," "I Want You," "The Times They Are A Changin'," "Tonight I'll Be Staying Here With You," "I Threw It All Away," "Don't Think Twice," "Lay Lady Lay" (as "Lay Baby Lay") and "Masters of War," Tim Hardin's "Reason To Believe," Buffy Sainte-Marie's "Until It's Time for You to Go," Peter Yarrow and Paul Stookey's "Cruel War," Donovan's "Catch The Wind," Jackie DeShannon's "Come and Stay With Me" and much more.

Her sixties solo persona is that of a one-woman Shangri-La. Tough talking and getting a raw deal, she's frequently pregnant in songs -- unwed pregnancy, you understand -- and these weren't tracks buried on the lps but actual singles.


Bang Bang: The Early Years


Of all the collections available for downloading focusing on Cher's sixties solo work, the one I recommend most strongly is Bang Bang: The Early Years. The 18-track collection opens with Cher's first solo track, Sonny's "Dream Baby," which has grabbed a strong following in the years that have ensued (and which was remastered in 1990 for this collection). Bang Bang focuses largely on the hit singles. (For those looking for an album proper, 3614 Jackson Highway remains my favorite Cher solo album of the sixties.)

Songs like the top 25 "Where Do You Go" find Cher singing she doesn't know (where you go) and she may or may not be pregnant, "Mama (When My Dollies Have Babies)" finds her pregnant and unwed as does "Magic In The Air (I Feel Something In The Air)." That last number finds her rejecting what her parents or the neighbors think due to "magic in the air" and wondering, "What's a matter with you, baby, did you fall too hard, did you fall in love, did you fall in love, what's a matter with you, baby, did you fall too hard?"

No one was doing that. Whatever got tossed over the Tallahatchie Bridge in Bobbie Gentry's "Ode to Billie Joe" was left unspecified. The closest anyone really came to Cher's persona in the sixties was Diana Ross & the Supremes with "Love Child" and then only to insist that the gals would keep "waiting" to avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the height of the 60s sexual revolution, Cher was the only rocker -- musically -- that you knew was doing something more than holding hands. In fact, you had to wander over to country music and the likes of the "widowed wife" Jeannie C. Riley sang about ("Harper Valley PTA") to find any thing remotely like Cher's solo persona but, of course, Riley refuses to perform her big hit today or any other 'blasphemous'' music.

Of all her solo hits from 1965 through 1969, the biggest was "Bang Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" which climbed to number two in 1966 and would go on to be recorded by practically everyone from both singing Sinatras (Frank and Nancy) to Stevie Wonder. But Cher's 60s version remains the classic interpretation (Cher re-recorded the song for her 1987 self-titled Geffen album). It's the tough but tragic quality of Cher's vocal that puts the story of the abandoned lover across. And in her 1965 cover of Ray Davies' "I Go To Sleep" you can hear the later emergence of Pretenders.

Chrissie Hynde's group's in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, by the way. Cher's not. She apparently has had less impact than Chrissie who teamed up with her, Neneh Cherry and Eric Clapton for the 1995 British number one hit "Love Can Build A Bridge." Clapton? He's in the Hall as well.

But Cher's not. Despite carving out a space for women in sixties rock music that didn't exist prior. Despite pioneering many trends to come. Hey, Cher's second biggest single of the sixties is "You Better Sit Down Kids." In it, Cher explains to the kids that she's divorcing . . . their mom.

You better sit down kids
I'll tell you why kids
You might not understand kids
But give it a try kids
Now how should I put this
I've got something to say
Your mother is staying
But I'm gone away

No, it wasn't common at that time for women in rock music to sing from a male perspective. In fact, Carole King, promoting 1980's Pearls (recordings of some of her classic songs written with former husband Gerry Goffin) would make a big deal of how she sung "Hey Girl" without changing the gender and how you could do that "today." But "yesterday," in 1967, Cher took "You Better Sit Down Kids" to number nine on the Hot 100.

To review the artists who have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is to find a very small list of women. In fact, solo female artists? Only 11 women have been inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. You might think Tina Turner or Diana Ross are in but you'd be wrong. They're in there as part of groups. Not as solo artists. George Harrison, Paul Simon, John Lennon and other men are inducted as group members and as solo artists. And there are over 70 male solo artist inductees. But there are only 11 women inducted as solo artists.

Disco's Bee Gees and Abba are in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't. Rap's Run DMC is in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't. Jazz' Miles Davis is in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't. Reggae King Bob Marley is in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't. Country music legend Johnny Cash is in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't. The ultimate slick pop crooner Bobby Darin is in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't. Teen TV-idol Ricky Nelson is in the "Rock and Roll" Hall of Fame and Cher isn't.

Let's all stop pretending that there are standards that women can't meet and that's what keeps them out of the Hall. The reality is these so-called standards are bent and broken for one man after another. It's only when it comes to women that the gates can't be opened and new barriers are erected. In the sixties, Cher notched up chart hits as one-half of a successful duo and as a successful solo artist. She would go on to chart and influence in every subsequent decade. She's a pioneer and she's a legend. And she belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

-----------
Note: I plan to do pieces on Cher's seventies, eighties, nineties, and 2000s output. I am serious about Cher belonging in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and outraged that she's still not in there. These reviews will be my attempt to point out how sexism is preventing her (and many other women) from being inducted.











Posted by at 3:08 PM Links to this post

Combat operations never ended

Steven Lee Myers and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) report, "Insurgents mounted a coordinated attack on one of the main military commands in Baghdad on Sunday, briefly drawing fire from American soldiers, an event that underscored the ambiguity of the American military’s role in Iraq." For those late on the news, we'll again note The KPFA Evening News Sunday, where David Landau explained:


In the Middle East today, American soldiers helped Iraqi troops battle insurgents in downtown Baghdad earlier today, repelling a major attack in the capital five days after President Obama had declared an end to US combat operations there. At least 18 people were killed and 39 injured when a group of suicide bombers and gunmen attempted to storm the army's east Baghdad headquarters located in a former ministry of defense building in a busy market district along the Tigris River. No Americans were among the casualties, according to a US military spokesman, but US soldiers did join in the fighting alongside Iraqis to repel the assailants, two of whom managed to enter the army compound. The US military also dispatched helicopters, bomb disposal experts, unmanned aerial drones and other unspecified intelligence, surveillance and reconassiance assistance to the scene of the downtown battle, the US military spokesman said. According to an Iraqi official, speaking anonymously, the Iraqi security forces had requested American help in the battle and US soldiers shot 2 snipers who had taken up position in nearby buildings. It was the first significant attack in Baghdad since President Obama's address to the nation on Tuesday in which he told Americans that US combat operations were over and said it was time to "turn the page" on Iraq.



Two correspondents for the New York Times -- Anthony Shadid and Michael R. Gordon -- were on PRI's The Takeaway today. Excerpt:

John Hockenberry: It's safe to say it's a new dawn in Iraq but it's partly cloudly.

Celeste Headless: That's -- that's a pretty good weather forecast. Accurate but not pretty.

John Hockenberry: Exactly. The lack of clarity over what the "new dawn" and the end of combat operations in Iraq actually means for US forces was demonstrated over the weekend. And, you know, less than a week after combat operations ended, US forces were reportedly called in to repel a coordinated attack on an Iraqi military. No American casualties there -- or at least none killed. But in the bombing and the shooting that came after at least 12 Iraqis were killed and more than 20 were wounded. Iraqi forces were also involved in this firefight as well. Iraqi Defense Spokesperson Maj - Gen Mohammed al-Askari denied though that US troops had been involved.

Maj - Gen Mohammed al-Askari: [Translated by PRI] This is not true. We didn't call the American troops. The Iraqi troops did it, foiling the attackers. And we wouldn't use American troops in this kind of operation. I don't think only six attackers represents a threat to Iraqi national security. I'm in direct contact with the operation room and the Defense Minister and we never used the Americans in this incident.

John Hockenberry: But a US military spokesman, Lt Col Eric Bloom, said the Iraqi military had requested help from helicopters, drones and explosive experts. The details in this incident? Well we're going to go to two reporters with our partner the New York Times: Anthony Shadid, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times based in Baghdad -- we welcome him back -- he won the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting this year and in 2004 for his coverage of the Iraq War and he joins us from Baghdad and Michael Gordon, New York Times military correspondent and author of The Generals of War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf and Cobra II. He joins us from northern Virginia. Anthony, since there's a delay on your line, let me just start with you. What are the details and the truth as we know it about this incident that took place over the weekend?

Anthony Shadid: You might be able to reconcile those two accounts, actually. I don't think the Americans were called in to the base, they were actually already in the base as part of what they consider these partnership programs. And American soldiers were there. Now what role they exactly played is still a little unclear. The way the American military portrays it, they did what they call suppressive fire. But the actual raid on where these two insurgents were holed up, that was done by Iraqi troops. Now when you look at this raid itself, the general, the Iraqi general may have been dismissive of six people posing a challenge, but we have to consider that this is one of the division commands in Baghdad and an operation of just six men managed to breach the security and actually enter the base -- only two of them managed to get inside. I think it is a blow in some ways to the perceived Iraqi security forces that the insurgents were able to pull off this attack. It lasted a few hours, it was a very loud scene, as-as you reported there were American helicopters involved along with drones. It's something that's going to be remembered here for a little while, I think.

John Hockenberry: Anthony Shadid, foreign correspondent for the New York Times reporting from Baghdad. Michael Gordon, in a situation where combat operations are said to have ended, what are we to -- How are we to characterize this incident? Is this purely defensive combat? There's going to be a lot of this over the next year or so, right?

Michael R. Gordon: Well I was just in Baghdad last week with Vice President [Joe] Biden and I've been at that particular base that was attacked. I was embedded there in '08. I think it's not the case that combat operations have truly ended. The way I put it is: The combat phase is over but the fighting goes on. When you read the fine print of what the administration is talking about, it's clear that offensive American combat operations in partnership with Iraqi forces will continue in the realm of Special Operations. It's called "partnered counter-terrorism" but what it means is Special Operation Forces will hunt for al Qaeda -- Iraqi and American. And also American conventional forces retain the right to defend themselves either with the Iraqis or without them.

Liz Sly and Riyadh Mohammed (Los Angeles Times) add, "An official with the Interior Ministry, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Iraqi security forces requested American help to defeat the insurgents, and that it was U.S. soldiers who shot two snipers who had taken up position in nearby buildings." Hurriyet notes that Barack's claim of the end of combat operations "should be taken with a grain of salt".

To the Pacifica whiner, insisting Iraq was being covered last week (it wasn't) by various Pacifica outlets, let's note that Aileen Alfandary couldn't even cover Sunday's attack on this morning's headlines for The Morning Show. She could reach back to Saturday to whore/play Barack's weekly speech but she couldn't cover Iraq. That's surprising because AP did cover it at length and Aileen's so very good at reading AP on the air word-for-word, without credit, and passing it off as her own 'writing.' When KPFA lost Sandra Lupien, they lost a great deal. But Aileen's an old whore who knows how to play everyone in order to keep the job she long ago grew tired and stale in. Saturday, I was speaking with a friend on the Pacifica board about Aileen and others like her and how they really should have the equivalent of term-limits to clean the tired trash that offers nothing but refuses to ever 'move on' thereby dragging down the entire station.

And, still on Pacifica, a WBAI friend asked that I note ballots are due by September 30th for the Local Station Board Election 2010 and that, in addition to mailing in your ballot you can drop it off in person at WBAI (you always have to call first to visit WBAI and bring a photo ID). If you have not received a ballot and you believe you are eligible to vote (having donated either money or volunteer time to the station), call 347-329-4533.

Violence continued today in Iraq -- even if Aileen didn't have a clue as usual.

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing which injured fifteen people and a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured two foreign mercenaries. Reuters adds a Mosul mortar attack injured one person.

Shootings?


Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Brig Gen Abdul Mohsin Kathem was assassinated in Baghdad this morning, Mohammed Ghazie (of the Ministry of Agriculture) was taken to a Baghdad hospital following unknown assailants shooting him and 5 people were killed in a Samarra attack (shooting). Reuters adds the five in Samarra were construction workers. Of the five, Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) reports, "Authorities discovered their bullet-riddled bodies in an apartment where they were living in the center of the city. Two of the men were engineers and the other three laborers for a construction company refurbishing a police station and a youth center."

On the continued violence, Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) observes, "There have been concerns that insurgents would take advantage of the political vacuum to try to reignite the sectarian bloodshed that gripped Iraq for years." March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board notes, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's now 5 months and 29 days. Phil Sands (National Newspaper) notes that if the stalemate continues through September 8th, it will then be a half a year since Iraqis voted. Khalid al-Ansary, Serena Chaudhry, Michael Christie and Samia Nakhoul (Reuters) report that Allwi is stating that, "I hope in Ocotber some time, late October (things will be sorted out)." Allawi also states that he is fine with someone else from Iraqiya becoming prime minister.


At IPS, Phyllis Bennis explores the realities of Iraq in "What We Didn't Hear from Obama on Iraq" (and link is to her text article but there are also two videos of Bennis analyzing -- on Fox News and the Real News Network -- the situation in Iraq):

But what he left out was more significant. Just on the cost of war, while acknowledging the overall cost, and speaking separately about job loss and the economic crisis in the U.S., he didn’t make the crucial link between the two. He didn’t say, for instance, that the cost of keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq another year and a half, more than $12 billion, could instead pay for 240,000 new green union jobs back home -- and still have funds left over to begin paying for real reconstruction and reparations in Iraq.
What else didn’t we hear? We didn’t hear that the 50,000 troops in Iraq now ARE still combat troops -- even if the Pentagon has "re-missioned" them for training and assistance. We heard about the 4th Stryker Brigade leaving Iraq, but not about the 3,000 new combat troops from Fort Hood in Texas, from the Third Armored Cavalry -- combat troops -- who just deployed TO Iraq 10 days ago.

We'll be noting that and a radio interview by Phyllis in this week's snapshots. Today is Labor Day and this is from David Bacon's "THE FACE OF LABOR IN THE STREETS" (Truth Out):


This Labor Day the faces in the streets in cities across the U.S. are those of hotel workers, picketing some of the world's most luxurious establishments. In San Francisco, cooks, room cleaners, housemen and laundry workers laid siege to the Downtown Hilton recentlly, demanding that the corporation negotiate a new contract with their union, UNITE HERE Local 2.
This fall, the conflict between the union and the hotel corporations is spreading to over 40,000 workers in at least nine cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto, Minneapolis, Monterey, Vancouver, Honolulu, and Washington DC.
The San Francisco agreement expired on August 14. Since then, the union has been trying to bargain in the middle of an economic depression. According to Local 2 President Mike Casey, "The hotels are trying to exploit the bad economy to lower benefits. That's just not acceptable for corporations that are making significant profits, even now." The owners of the Hilton chain, the Blackstone investment group, told Wall Street analysts that it had $12.6 billion in available capital. CEO Stephen Schwarzman was given a compensation package of $1.39 billion in 2008.
San Francisco's largest hotels are demanding cuts in health and retirement benefits, and increased workloads. The luxury chains want workers to begin paying for their healthcare premiums -- $35/month this year, $115/month next year, and $200/month the year after. A typical San Francisco hotel worker earns $30,000 per year, and many can't work a full 40-hour week.
One Hilton housekeeper, Lupe Chavez, explains: "Some of us don't go on breaks or take shorter lunch breaks in order to finish. At the end of the day I'm exhausted. When I get home I just want to sleep. Now they're talking about increasing the hours needed to qualify for health benefits. That is what we're trying to avoid. I'm lost my health at the hotel, and all they think about is money."

David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) which won the CLR James Award. Bacon can be heard on KPFA's The Morning Show (over the airwaves in the Bay Area, streaming online) each Wednesday morning (begins airing at 7:00 am PST). Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Now He's Soaking In It" went up this morning as did Kat's "Kat's Korner: Last Decade's Buried Treasure" and Kat has another music article which will go up shortly. And we'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "OBAMA LOSING LIBERAL BASE AND YOUTH
COULD COST DEMOCRATS BIG IN NOVEMBER" (Global Research):

President Obama is not only losing support among the general public but also of the liberals and college students who did so much to energize his presidential campaign. Now, even some Democratic incumbents whose seats had been considered safe in November are in trouble.
According to Rasmussen pollsters, Obama's general approval rating plunged from 65 per cent upon taking office to 45 per cent today. Larry Sabato, director of the Center For Politics at the University of Virginia, says the Republicans are poised to have a net gain of 47 House seats and likely eight Senate seats. “If anything,” says Sabato, “we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains...”
What's turning off liberals is that on issue after issue, Obama appears to be little more than a slicker copy of his stumbling predecessor. When the Republicans under George Bush elected to bail out Wall Street, Obama helped them finish the job even though congressional mail ran overwhelmingly against it.
Instead, he might have created a massive jobs program to restart the economy with paycheck power as FDR did with his New Deal. But Obama's half-hearted make-work blueprint appears to be too little and too late. “For Vulnerable Democrats, Economy Fuels Election Fears,” The New York Times reported September 4th. “Seeking to keep the focus away from Mr. Obama and the national economy, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona emphasizes her work for rougher border controls and support for the stimulus money that saved the jobs of local teachers and public safety workers,” the paper said. Her campaign manager, Rodde McLeod, says, “We're running our own race.” Translation: the man in the White House is now a liability, not an asset.
A related article in the same issue is titled, “In a Shift, Fewer Young Voters See Themselves as Democrats.” Reporter Kirk Johnson writes, “The college vote is up for grabs this year---to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago, when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama.” He quotes Mandi Asay, 22, spokeswoman for the University of Colorado's College Democrats, as saying: “People are angry---about the budget deficit, health care plan, angry about this and that. I feel like Republicans definitely, definitely have a chance of getting back on their feet.” The percentage of collegians who identify themselves as Democrats has dropped about five points to 57 percent in roughly two years, according to Pew Research Center.


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




































Posted by at 2:30 PM Links to this post
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)