A study on the status of Widows in Iraq by Relief International was shared with the Iraqi Parliament on Sunday, Sept. 18, 2011. Portions of the study were reported by the Associated Press on Sept. 18, 2011. The information available on the wire was misinterpreted by some other outlets.
The AP wire stated that: “A study released Sunday by a global humanitarian aid organization concluded that three out of every five widows in Iraq lost their husbands in the years of violence that followed the 2003 invasion. The study by Los Angeles-based Relief International found that about 10 percent of the estimated 15 million women who live in Iraq are widows. Among them, 59 percent have lost their husbands during the U.S.-led war.” Some media reports erroneously equated the period within which women were widowed to a "causal" factor. Therefore many iterations of the newswire misrepresent the Relief International study stating that the study reports that 59 percent of the incidents were caused by the U.S.-led war.
The "US invasion" is the start of the Iraq War. If you die of violence that came about in the years after the "US invasion," then you're dying of Iraq War violence.
If they're not happy with the way some outlets reported their story (and I believe they're specifically referring to one Arabic newspaper's report last Tuesday and the remarks by one MP -- we ignored that article because there was still no published study), then the answer is release your study. If you've feel you've been misinterpreted, release your study.
If you're study wasn't ready to be released, you shouldn't have said a damn thing. It's one thing to give an advance copy to a media outlet with the understanding that they'll note it the day before or morning of release. But if you're not ready to release your study and you're not sure when you will be, you're not running to the press or to a foreign government.
If you're study's not ready to be released then it hasn't been properly vetted and you shouldn't be advancing it to the media let alone passing it to a foreign government.
And you can split hairs all you want but if you're saying violence following the 2003 invasion killed X, that is violence of the Iraq War because the "invasion" is the start of the war. I'm real sorry if you can't understand that.
I'm more sorry that the AP doesn't draw the line that you do in their story but you know you don't dare take on the AP.
The AP article opened with, "Three out of every five widows in Iraq lost their husbands in the years of violence that followed the 2003 invasion, a study by a humanitarian aid organisation has concluded." The third sentence was, "Among them, 59 per cent have lost their husbands during the US-led war." The only widow the article notes is 41-year-old Wafiya Hussein whose "husband was killed in a Baghdad explosion in 2009 as he was heading to work."
If your study wasn't ready to be released, you shouldn't have supplied excerpts to a foreign government. That's a given. Even more so when it's a struggling government. And if comments made by an MP this week were not to your liking (his comments were only slightly stronger than what the AP article quotes Osama al-Nujaifi, Speaker of Parliament, stating), that's no one's fault but your own.
Iraq, all of Iraq, is a war zone. To this day, the US government pays US troops combat pay for being anywhere in Iraq. All violence that starts with (and/or follows) the invasion is violence that takes place during the Iraq War.
You can split hairs all you want but the AP story ran on Sunday and does portray that Iraqi women were widowed by violence during the Iraq War. (That would be "Iraq War violence.") In the days that followed, everyone waited for the report. By Tuesday, outlets started running with quotes from MPs familiar in some manner with the report. If you'd done your job correctly, your report would have been available as soon as the story designed to create interest in it (the AP article) was published.
Your failure to do so after you make certain claims is your problem. We had other things to cover so I just ignored it. But I know here there were e-mails asking when we were going to cover it and I can't imagine this being ignored forever by Iraqi media outlets. Nor did they. They waited a few days and when the report still wasn't available they spoke to MPs and used the AP article to cover it. That's Relief International's fault and no one else's.
Sunday, after the Emmys, Ava and I were at the second party of the night (and I was drinking heavily and with a date; Ava, of course, was with Jess) when Jim called to tell us that our TV piece was lost and we needed to rewrite it (out of thin air, we were in LA, our notes weren't). We managed to scribble "TV: The backlash whines 'poor men'" and had to leave the party in order to do so. As noted here in "And the war drags on . . ."
And Ava and my TV piece we had to redo tonight at the last minute. I don't understand (and don't care) how it was lost, we had written, we had typed it and we had gone on about out day and evening (Emmys and after party) when we were called and told that our piece was lost and we needed to redo it. That took an hour and a half so I'm not really in an online mood. I had planned to do this entry and nothing else. (Isaiah's comic goes up after this. That was planned.) I'm tired and I'm pissed (over having to redo the article) and I have to be up in less than two and a half hours. Yea. It is what it is.
Were it not for being tired and pissed, we probably would have ran with the AP article on Sunday and made it the point of the entry. Had I not still been tired on Monday, I would have paired it with an article from Middle East Online on Iraqi women. By Tuesday, there was too much going on and Relief International still hadn't released their study so it was no longer of interest. Time moves on. But I could have very easily ran with that on Sunday and on Monday. And if I had, by Relief International's standards or 'standards,' I would have been wrong. Only (bad) luck (being forced to re-do a piece for Third at the last minute) spared this site from running with the AP article. There but for tequila and vodka . . .
It is not at all surprising that, in the silence that followed Sunday, Iraqi outlets had to move on the story and did so. The supposed study, as portrayed in the sole article Relief International approved, makes extreme claims. It was incumbent on newspapers and TV stations in Iraq to cover it and when they had no help from Relief International, they went with what they could.
The AP article was supposed to create a buzz. It did. If it led to a study being misinterpreted, you should have been immediately prepared to publish your study. Failure to do so calls into question not just your actions but the alleged findings of your report.
The US government wishes to retain a military presence in Iraq. In the past, when studies on Iraq War violence didn't provide a happy spin, the US government has attacked the study and pressured the organization. If that's happened to Relief International and they've buckled to it, they're not just a fool, they're a fraidy cat. Regardless, they've made themselves unnecessary.
Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and we'll note this from her office:
The full text of Chairman Murray's letter is below:
September 22, 2011
The Honorable Hilda L. Solis
Secretary of Labor
Frances Perkins Building 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210
Dear Secretary Solis:
With the unemployment rate for young veterans reaching unprecedented levels in recent months, ensuring that America's veterans can access living-wage jobs is of paramount concern. I know that the Administration shares my concern -- as evidenced by the unveiling of the American Jobs Act.
One area where we have an opportunity to make a real and meaningful difference in addressing the high veteran unemployment rate is outreach to -- and partnership with -- employers who want to hire veterans.
Recently, my office was contacted by an employer regarding a hiring initiative for veterans within his industry. According to the employer, despite the initiative's potential to create thousands of job opportunities for veterans, the employer found it difficult to connect with the right people at the Department regarding his efforts to hire veterans. And every day my staff or I talk with companies that are desperate to find employees to fill good jobs.
Every step that can be taken should be taken to fully capitalize on employers' interest in, and commitment to, hiring America's veterans. This is especially true given President Obama's recent challenge to the private sector to hire 100,000 unemployed veterans or their spouses by the end of 2013. To this end, it is critical that such employers are connected to the right resources, and that veterans have the information they need to be competitive for these employment opportunities.
Therefore, please detail for me the current process by which the Department partners with prospective employers committed to hiring veterans and shares such information with veterans:
§ How does the Department cultivate and foster partnerships with prospective employers?
§ Does the Department coordinate such efforts with the VETS web portal, and if so, how? If not, what portal (if any) does the Department use to engage with prospective employers?
§ Has the Department developed a best practice as to the manner by which it connects separating servicemembers and recently separated veterans with employers who are hiring? If so, please share a description of that practice with my office.
§ Does the Department attempt to match veterans and employers by targeting veterans whose military occupational specialties are aligned with the unique needs of the employer?
§ How does the Department disseminate information to veterans about employers who are currently hiring? Is such information included in the Transition Assistance Program? If not, why?
§ How does the Department communicate information about employers who are currently hiring to the Department's One-Stop Career Centers and coordinate with Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program specialists and relevant Local Veterans' Employment Representatives?
§ How does the Department coordinate efforts to engage employers with the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense? What other departments and agencies are also involved with your efforts?
§ Finally, does the Department possess all the necessary legal authority to partner with prospective employers and connect separating servicemembers and veterans with such employers? If not, what specific authority is lacking.
Secretary Solis, thank you for your leadership and work on behalf of America's veterans, and for your response to these questions. I am confident that the Department, in partnership with private industry, can continue to make real progress against the high rate of veteran unemployment that has persisted for far too long.
I look forward to working with you in the weeks and months ahead to help get our veterans back to work.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq