Saturday, November 19, 2011

Yeah, a US delegation is in Iraq -- even if the US media pretends otherwise

"We live in fictitious times," Tim Robbins famously said during the Bush era. He didn't know the half of it. Yesterday's snapshot opened with: "Starting with breaking news out of Iraq, Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports a mixture of White House officials and US military officials arrived in Baghdad Friday for a three day visit to discuss a number of issues including to "provide immunity to American trainers." The delegation will meet with President Jalal Talabani and Iraq's two vice presidents, with the prime minister, and with the head of the political blocs. In addition, it will visit the Krudistan Regional Government. Al Mada reports that Rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr wasted no time in announcing that, should immunity be granted, his bloc would immediately withdraw from the National Alliance coalition. An MP with the Sadr bloc is quoted declaring that it is not the right of Nouri al-Maliki to provide the Americans with immunity."

I do read the public e-mail account on Saturday and Sunday. Only time -- other than holidays -- when I'm the only one reading it and a number of e-mails are asking, "Was that true?" Or, "If that's true, why wasn't anyone else reporting it?"

It was true. It's what Al Mada reported. I translated that accurately. Your next question should be was Al Mada correct in its report?

Yes.

And let's prove it with a picture.

Talabani.U.S.Delegation.19-11-2011

Al Rafidayn reports that the delegation met with Jalal Talabani today and they were accompanied by US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey and the top US Commander in Iraq Lloyd Austin -- in the picture above Austin's on the far left, then Jeffrey. Talabani sits in a chair on the far right. Who are the two in the middle? The one closest to Talabani, the one with the grey hair is Dennis McDonough who is currently the Deputy National Security Advisor, a position he's held since October of last year. The other man in the photo? Al Rafidayn states that Antony J. Blinken, who is the National Security Advisor to the Vice President, also met with them. I can't see his face clearly and last time I saw Blinken he had greyer hair. Dark, but it had grey in. Maybe he's touched it up -- not a problem, if he has, not mocking if he has. Just noting, Al Rafidayn says that's who was present and I can't see the face clearly and the hair's a bit darker than the last time I saw Tony.


The picture's not from Al Rafidayn's story, by the way. There is no picture with their story. The picture is from Jalal Talabani's official website (and they say it's Tony as well).

1 jalal


Once again, the question to ask is not why we note it, the question why US outlets don't.

Do you see any big news out of Iraq (there's one thing, hold on for that) today or yesterday?

Does the US media not generally treat US officials visiting another country as news?

So why are they burying this, why are they ignoring it?

Maybe because it takes a lot of lying to keep an illegal war going. But you've got your picture. The US sent a delegation to Iraq. Al Mada's report was correct.

In news of violence, Al Rafidayn reports that a roadside bombing "south of Baghad" targeted US soldiers leaving three injured and that US forces are said to have responded by firing at and killing civilians (two were killed and five were injured). The US military, the paper notes, denies killing anyone. AGI has the same count and states the incident was in Yusifiyah. AFP reports on it here. The New York Times and other US outlets report on it here -- well, here -- no, here. Uh. Okay, they don't report on it at all. Just like the meeting. Seems there are bits of news that some feel the American people need to be kept from.


In other violence, Reuters notes an attack on a Ramadi police checkpoint in which 4 police officers were killed and four more were left wounded, 2 corpses were discovered in Mussayab and a Baghdad bombing left eight soldiers and two civilians injured.

And Al Mada reports that there are rumors that a big split is about to take place in Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the last elections, headed by Ayad Allawi) while Al Rafidayn reports that Iraqi forces have confiscated canned goods -- they're canned goods from Japan and said to put the population at risk (due to the nuclear accident in Japan).



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




























Iraq and its neighbors

Al Rafidayn reports that, as of tomorrow, Turkish planes will no longer be able to land at Iraqi airports in response to the refusal to allow Iraqi planes to land at Turkish airports -- these are commercial flights. Turkey has refused to allow Iraqi planes to land because Iraqi allegedly owes money. KUNA explains, "The Iraqi move followed Turkish authorities' ban of Iraqi airplanes from landing in Istanbul airport because of what Ankara claimed was Iraq's Oil Marketing Company's (Somo) unpaid debt of USD five million."

The Turkish government's been praised by a number of commentators of late. Many may wonder why that is. Part of the reason was explained today on BBC's Newhour in a segment broadcast from Turkey. Excerpt:

Robin Lustig: Turkey's been in the business of buying and selling for centuries. I'm in the heart of old Istanbul at the moment, in the spice market, surrounded by the colors, the smells of every spice you could imagine. There's a wonderful smell of coffee wafting on the evening air. These days, though, Turkey is selling something a little bit different. It's selling the idea of Turkish democracy, democracy in a Muslim country.

[chanting is heard]

Robin Lustig: These people are making full use of their democratic freedoms. They're Kurds, they're protesting, noisily, outside the court house, chanting for the release of a young Kurdish student who they say is being held in jail on trumped up charges. Kurds here in Turkey say the country's democratic system is deeply flawed, it fails to protect minority rights.

Robin Lustig: I've come now just a few steps away from the court house and I'm down by the Bosphorus, the strip of water that divides Europe from Asia. And with me here is one of Turkey's best known television stars Banu Guven. She's been telling me that she now has her own reasons for doubting Turkey's democratic credentials.

Banu Guven: I used to work for NTV and I had to quit because a week before the elections here, I was going to host one of the most prominent Kurdish politicians but just three or four days before, the director told me that we couldn't do it. A week before the elections, the government and the prime minister didn't want media to host Kurdish candidates.

Robin Lustig: In many parts of the world now, particularly in the Arab world, people are looking at Turkey as an example of a sort-of model of an Islamic democracy.

Banu Guven: We'd like to be a model for democracy, but we are not any kind of a model to anyone.


For text, you can refer to Robin Lustig's report here and here (the latter includes audio link and notes it's only good for the next seven days). It's really important for a number of players -- including the US government -- that Turkey be seen as a model.


AFP reports on the decision of the Iraqi government not to side with Arab neighbors in condemning Syria. Syria's been having internal problems -- and if that strikes you as "mild," the rest of the US commentary elsewhere should more than make up for my being mild. AFP presents a theory as to why. It's been one theory after another these days. Could it be that with all the other problems it has currently, Iraq just doesn't see the benefits to calling out a neighbor? Or maybe they don't want to appear to be doing the US government's bidding? It's really amazing because Iraqi President Jalal Talabani wants to house members of Muammar Gaddafi within Iraq. I'm not condemning it, I'm not endorsing it. It's not my business. But of the two decisions, one is ignored and one is seized. The one everyone leaps on is the one that might help propel war (with Syria), the one ignored goes to the fact that, yes, these wars are effecting people. No matter how you demonize the leader -- and the US government has been very good about demonizing other leaders in the last nine years -- he or she is still a person and still has family members.


Robert Fisk (Independent of London via ZNet) reviews the region:

The French Foreign Minister Alain JuppĂ© was here "to talk about Syria". Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, pontificated that "perhaps because Syria has not enough petroleum, there has been less interest in the West in the killing of Syrian civilians" – probably true – while every Turkish newspaper has been speculating about the Turks' future plans for action in Syria. A Turkish military cordon sanitaire inside the border with Syria seems to be the favourite.

Listening in the old capital of the Ottoman Empire to the mice-turned-to-lions of the Gulf, you could almost believe these were the Last Days of Assad. Personally, I doubt it. When The Wall Street Journal announces his forthcoming demise I reckon he's safe for a good while yet. The Syrian National Council in Istanbul is itself a pretty argumentative mouse, recognised only by the pipsqueak power of the new Libya.

Yet the very final ultimatum from the Arab League – it expires tomorrow – is an extremely serious matter for the Baathist powers in Damascus. Does Syria allow a 500-strong team of observers from the League to go prowling around Homs and Hama and Deraa? Isn't that in itself a real boxer's punch to Syria's sovereignty? The Moroccan ambassador has left Damascus after the attack on his embassy. The Qataris and Saudis left a long time ago. The German ambassador is flaunting what is supposed to be a new draft UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria. Presumably he has discovered some crumbs to throw to the Russians and Chinese to bring them on board.



Since yesterday evening the following community sites -- plus Dissident Voice, IVAW and FPIF -- have updated:




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






















Friday, November 18, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, November 18, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, a US delegation is said to be in Baghdad to continue negotiations on immunity for US troops, Moqtada al-Sadr threatens to take his bloc and go home, Baghdad and the KRG continue to argue over the Exxon deal, DoD identifies the fallen, and more.
 
Starting with breaking news out of Iraq, Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports a mixture of White House officials and US military officials arrived in Baghdad Friday for a three day visit to discuss a number of issues including to "provide immunity to American trainers."  The delegation will meet with President Jalal Talabani and Iraq's two vice presidents, with the prime minister, and with the head of the political blocs.  In addition, it will visit the Krudistan Regional Government.  Al Mada reports that Rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr wasted no time in announcing that, should immunity be granted, his bloc would immediately withdraw from the National Alliance coalition.  An MP with the Sadr bloc is quoted declaring that it is not the right of Nouri al-Maliki to provide the Americans with immunity
 
Bombs went off throughout Iraq today.  Press TV counts 9 dead from bombings alone. Reuters provides the breakdown: a police officer's Saqlawiya home was bombed claiming the lives of his wife and their 4 kids [CNN states the dead were police officer Najah Abdullah's mother-in-law, the man's five-year-old son and two daughters with two more relatives injured and notes that his home was attacked in 2008 as well]; a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the lives of 2 police officers and left four people injured (this was near a mosque in the Abu Ghraib section of Baghdad), a second Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left five people injured, 1 police officer was injured in a Hawija shooting, and, dropping back to Thursday, a Mahmudiya car bombing claimed 2 lives and left seven people injured (increase in deaths by 1 and injured by 2 since yesterday's report by Mohammed Tawfeeq of CNN), a Baghdad attack in which one police officer was injured, a Mosl car bombing claimed 1 life, a Mosul grenade attack which left a police officer injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left one Iraqi soldier injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left an Iraqi police officer injured and 1 man was shot dead outside their Mosul home.  The Abu Ghraib mosque bombing, Bushra Juhi (AP) reports it was "bombs" plural, near mosques (plural) and that 4 people died with eighteen more injured.
 
Staying with violence, earlier this week it was announced another US soldier had died in Iraq.  DoD has identified the fallen:
 
The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation New Dawn. 
Spc. David E. Hickman, 23, of Greensboro, N.C., died Nov. 14, in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries suffered after encountering an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, N.C. 
For more information related to this release, the media may contact the Fort Bragg public affairs office at 910-432-0661 or at 82ndpao@conus.army.mil .
 
 
Today at the US State Dept, Deputy Dept Spokesperson Mark C. Toner gave the press briefing.  Iraq came up at the end in an exchange with AFP's Lachlan Carmichael.
 
Lachlan Carmichael: Can I have one more here?
 
Mark C. Toner: Oh, I'm sorry, Lach. Sure. I'm sorry, guys.
 
Lachlan Carmichael:  No, just -- in --
 
Mark C. Toner:  It's just Friday. We're so close here.
 
Lachlan Carmichael:  Yeah. In Brussels, the head of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with Iraq raised concerns about the fate of Camp Ashraf refugees. He said that Iraq has served a virtual death warrant on the residents, and he pointed to an embassy note from the Iraqi Government saying that they're committed to close the camp by the end of 2011.
 
Mark C. Toner:  That's correct, yeah.
 
Lachlan Carmichael:  And it says that dissidents there are terrorists, and the Iraqis deny they have refugee status, and therefore the Europeans are fearing that the UNHCR will not be able to interview them as refugees.
 
Mark C. Toner:  Well, we are working -- look, I don't have a detailed response to those accusations. I do know that we are working with international organizations, including UNHCR, to find a suitable outcome and a suitable destination for these individuals, and we recognize the urgency.
 
While this was going on at the US State Dept, AFP reports that the European Parliament's MEP Struan Stevenson declared that a "death warrant" had been signed today on the residents of Camp Ashraf when the government sent the European Parliament which refers to the residents as "terrorists" and asserts that they are not protected under the Geneva Convention nor do they have refugee status.
 
 
Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people).  Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize.  In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf.  The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents.  Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice.  July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten.  They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place).  Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them.  Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran.  They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely.  Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year.  UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
 
Tuesday the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing addressed many Iraq issues.  In yesterday's snapshot, we noted the remarks on the residents of Camp Ashraf.  We're going to go over most of those again today in light of the comments that a "death warrant" has been signed and what appears to be a refusal of the Iraqi government to honor the agreement that was made with the US government with regards to the residents of Camp Ashraf.  Senator Carl Levin is the Chair of the Committee,  Senator John McCain is Ranking Member on the Committee.  The first panel the Committee heard testimony from was composed of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy.  
 
 
Senator Lindsey Graham: Do you think -- do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they're going to get killed? What's going to happen to them?
 
General Martin Dempsey: The, uh, as you know, Senator, the State Department is leading an effort to ensure that -- work with the Iraqi government ---
 
Senator Lindsey Graham:  Can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there are no American forces up there policing the problem? 
 
General Martin Dempsey:  I won't say anything to those people because I'm not involved in the outcome.
 
Senator Lindsey Graham: Fair enough. 
 
 
[. . .]
 
Ranking Member John McCain: Could I just say finally on the Camp Ashraf issue, I know the Secretary of Defense -- I mean, Secretary of State is addressing this issue, but it is American troops that are protecting them now. I hope that you can give us some idea of what disposition is going to be because I think it's -- I think it's very clear that the lives of these people are at risk and I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
 
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: I appreciate that.
 
Chair Carl Levin: Well, just on that, to turn it into a question -- and, maybe, General, this needs to be addressed to you too -- what -- There's obviously a greater risk to folks there unless the Iraqis keep a commitment.  What's going to be done to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they keep that committment and what about the question of removing them from the list of -- not them, the organization from the terrorist list?
 
General Martin Dempsey:  Well, Senator --
 
Senator Carl Levin: We're all concerned about this --
 
General Martin Dempsey:  And we share your concern. [General] Lloyd Austin shares your concern.  And I know that Ambassador Jeffreys shares the concern and there is no  -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to encourage the Iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protection of those folks in Camp Ashraf.  But right now, actually, the Iraqi security forces guard Camp Ashraf with our advisory and assistance group with them.  And so the concern, when we do leave that capacity, is a real one.  And  But I actually think we've got to put the pressure on the Iraqi government diplomatically to have the outcome that we think is correct.
 
Senator Carl Levin: Just assure them if you would that there's a real strong feeling around here that if they -- if they violate a committment to protect those people -- assuming that they're still there and that they haven't been removed from the terrorist list so that they can find other locations -- that if they violate that committment to us, that is going to have a severely negative impact on the relationship with the -- I think I can speak here -- the Congress although I'm reluctant to ever say this. I think there's a lot of concern in the Congress about it and this will, I believe, in my opinion, will severely negatively impact their relationship with the Congress. Let me leave it at that.
 
Secretary Leon Panetta:  Senator, I want to assure you that Ambassador Jeffrey has made that point loud and clear, loud and clear the Iraqis.
 
Senator Carl Levin: Senator Lieberman?
 
Senator Joe Lieberman:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And add my voice and I think you can speak for Congress members of both parties in both houses in expressing our concern about the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf.
 
The concerns have been expressed, a supposed understanding was reached, yet reports today indicate that the understanding meant nothing to the government of Nouri al-Maliki.
 
Turning to issues revolving around the provinces,  Aswat al-Iraq notes "Tahreer Square in Baghdad witnesses since last February different types of demonstrators, including terminating political differences and ending corruption dossiers." And they note today's protest included a call for provinces not to move towards being semi-autonomous. Alsumaria TV adds that the participants in the protest numbered in the "tens."  Along with today's protesters, the move is opposed by Nouri al-Maliki and Moqtada al-Sadr. Nouri is especially ticked off at the Speaker of Parliament, Osama al-Nujaifi, because he continues to cite what the Constitution states on this issue while Nouri and his lackeys on the 'independent' electoral commission repeatedly attempt to pretend that the Constitution gave the Council of Ministers the right to make these decisions. (Article 119, as McClatchy Newspapers' Laith Hammoudi has reported, notes the process for a province to move to semi-autonomy.) Apparently having difficulty maintaining all of his many grudges, Nouri's focusing on al-Nujaifi but, Al Rafidayn reports, he's decided that Ayad Allawi is a-okay. The Iraqiya leader pissed off Nouri weeks ago when he offered a strong critique to a London paper about the current state of Iraq. Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) covers the province issue and other developments:


On 2 November, a Sunni-dominated province of Iraq created uproar when its local council voted to establish itself as an "independent region within a unified Iraq."
The provincial council of Salaheddin, which hosts Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, voted by 20 votes out of 28 to set up the new federal region, sparking speculation that other Sunni provinces may now follow suit.
In trying to explain the shift, the council's leaders said that the establishment of an autonomous region was a reaction to the Iraqi government's negligence, exclusion and marginalisation of Sunnis.
They said that the request to set up an autonomous region had been intended to boost the province's share of federal revenues and to protest against the domination of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's Shia-led government.
Coming in the aftermath of a nationwide crackdown on former Saddam loyalists, the timing of the vote seemed to have been spurred by the firing of more than 100 lecturers at Tikrit University for alleged Baath Party connections and a roundup of suspected Baathists in the province.
Hundreds of former Baathists have been arrested in recent weeks following government reports that they were conspiring to overthrow Al-Maliki's government.



And to clarify on the Salahuddin vote, there are 28 members of the provincial council. Twenty of them voted on the measure. All voting on the measure voted "yes." On the alleged conspiracy,  Aswat al-Iraq reports that over 2,000 people marched in Salahuddin's Samarra today to declare their support for Salahudding becoming a semi-autonomous province.  In other 'oops Nouri' news,  Al Mada reports Iraqiya's Salman Jumaili has declared Iraqiya intends to host a session in the Parliament over the claims of the existence of a conspiracy. With several dents already in Nouri's public claims, the prime minister may be sweating that possible session.
 
 
Currently, Nouri's Baghdad government is engaged in a game of chicken with the Kurdistan Regional Government -- Exxon being the prize.  Javier Blas (Financial Times of London) reviews the companies interested in oil exploration in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Blas notes in addition to oil, Turkey's eyeing the KRG's natural gas reserves and that Erbil is becoming a boom town. This follows on the deal that the KRG says is a done deal and that the government out of Baghdad is still making noises about. Pierre Bertrand (International Business Times) reports, "After several days of loaded proclamations, a deal may be in the offering between ExxonMobil, the Kurdish regional government, and Iraq's central government, in relation to an oil exploration contract the company signed with Kurdistan that the central government calls illegal ."  Ipek Yezdani (Hurriyet Daily News) reports, "Iraq's deputy prime minister for energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, said the Iraqi govenrment did not recognize the oil agreement signed between the KRG and Exxon Mobil in northern Iraq [. . .] this contract is not approved by the Iraqi government and is not legal."
Turning to the US, Rand Paul is a Senator from Kentucky. His father is US House Rep Ron Paul who is currently in a race for the GOP's presidential nomination. Senator Paul's office notes:

Nov 17, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul introduced an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to formally end the war in Iraq.
The war in Iraq cannot be considered definitively concluded if Congress does not reclaim its constitutional power to declare war by repealing the underlying authorization. Until Congress takes this action, the President would still possess the legal authority to move troops into Iraq or to conduct kinetic operations within its borders, agreements with the Iraqi government notwithstanding.
"On several occasions this year, Congress has been ignored or remained silent while the President committed our forces to combat. It is my intention to urge Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over the decision to go to war, or to end a war - it is one of the body's most important powers," Sen. Paul said. "It is right that we wrest it back from a President who has shown he cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution or powers prescribed to Congress in it."
The President has ordered withdrawal of most forces by the end of the year, and Sen. Paul's amendment continues the spirit of that decision by formally ending the war. Sen. Paul will push for a vote on this measure during consideration of the Defense bill. Under existing laws, necessary actions to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq (such as at the embassy) will still be allowed.
"Americans should celebrate the safe return of our soldiers, thank those who served, and mourn those we lost. We should honor them by committing to a return to a more rational and constitutional foreign policy," Sen. Paul added.

###




Finally, today the Defense Dept released the Army's suicide data for October:
 
The Army released suicide data today for the month of October.  Among active-duty soldiers, there were 17 potential suicides:  one has been confirmed as suicide and 16 remain under investigation.  For September 2011, the Army reported 16 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers.  Since the release of that report, one case has been added for a total of 17 cases.  Three cases have been confirmed as suicide and 14 cases remain under investigation.
            During October 2011, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were 12 potential suicides:  none have been confirmed as suicide and 12 remain under investigation.  For September 2011, the Army reported six potential suicides among not-on-active-duty soldiers.  Since the release of that report, two cases have been added for a total of eight cases.  Three cases have been confirmed as suicide and five cases remain under investigation.
            Maj. Gen. David E. Quantock, director of the Army Health Promotion and Risk Reduction Task Force, knows how the tragedy of suicide affects our soldiers, civilians, and families.  He joins the task force as the former commanding general of the U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. "Our people are the Army and their health and well-being are top priorities.  This is very important work and I can assure you that the Army team is fully engaged and is totally committed to it," said Quantock.
            Soldiers and families in need of crisis assistance can contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline.  Trained consultants are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year and can be contacted by dialing 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or by visiting their website at http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org . 
            Army leaders can access current health promotion guidance in newly revised Army Regulation 600-63 (Health Promotion) at: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_63.pdf and Army Pamphlet 600-24 (Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention) at http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/p600_24.pdf .
            The Army's comprehensive list of Suicide Prevention Program information is located at http://www.preventsuicide.army.mil .
            Suicide prevention training resources for Army families can be accessed at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/training_sub.asp?sub_cat=20 (requires Army Knowledge Online access to download materials).
            Information about Military OneSource is located at http://www.militaryonesource.com or by dialing the toll-free number 1-800-342-9647 for those residing in the continental United States.  Overseas personnel should refer to the Military OneSource website for dialing instructions for their specific location.
            Information about the Army's Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program is located at http://www.army.mil/csf/.
            The Defense Center for Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (DCoE) Outreach Center can be contacted at 1-866-966-1020, via electronic mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org and at http://www.dcoe.health.mil .
            The website for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention is http://www.afsp.org/, and the Suicide Prevention Resource Council site is found at http://www.sprc.org/index.asp .



iraq
al sabaah
the financial times of london
javier blas
international business times
pierre bertrand
aswat al-iraq
al rafidayn
mcclatchy newspapers
laith hammoudi
al-ahram weekly
salah nasrawi
cnn
mohammed tawfeeq

A Parliamentary session exploring the alleged coup?

Is it the end for Iraqi fish? Al Sabaah reports that the country's fish are at risk due to a scarcity of water (as a result of, among other things, the damns Turkey's built), salinity (as a result of Iran) and overfishing. With proper care -- which would include addressing the drying of Iraq's marshes -- it's thought that Iraq could be harvesting 300,000 tons of fish per year.

We open with that because the obsession with Iraq's oil means many other important things get drowned out. True, oil is one of the main reasons for the illegal war; however, you can't eat it, you can't drink it.

But, again, it is the obsession. Javier Blas (Financial Times of London) reviews the companies interested in oil exploration in the Kurdistan Regional Government. Blas notes in addition to oil, Turkey's eyeing the KRG's natural gas reserves and that Erbil is becoming a boom town. This follows on the deal that the KRG says is a done deal and that the government out of Baghdad is still making noises about. Pierre Bertrand (International Business Times) reports, "After several days of loaded proclamations, a deal may be in the offering between ExxonMobil, the Kurdish regional government, and Iraq's central government, in relation to an oil exploration contract the company signed with Kurdistan that the central government calls illegal ."

Meanwhile Aswat al-Iraq notes "Tahreer Square in Baghdad witnesses since last February different types of demonstrators, including terminating political differences and ending corruption dossiers." And they note today's protest included a call for provinces not to move towards being semi-autonomous. Along with today's protesters, the move is opposed by Nouri al-Maliki and Moqtada al-Sadr. Nouri is especially ticked off at the Speaker of Parliament, Osama al-Nujaifi, because he continues to cite what the Constitution states on this issue while Nouri and his lackeys on the 'independent' electoral commission repeatedly attempt to pretend that the Constitution gave the Council of Ministers the right to make these decisions. (Article 119, as McClatchy Newspapers' Laith Hammoudi has reported, notes the process for a province to move to semi-autonomy.) Apparently having difficulty maintaining all of his many grudges, Nouri's focusing on al-Nujaifi but, Al Rafidayn reports, he's decided that Ayad Allawi is a-okay. The Iraqiya leader pissed off Nouri weeks ago when he offered a strong critique to a London paper about the current state of Iraq. Salah Nasrawi (Al-Ahram Weekly) covers the province issue and other developments:


On 2 November, a Sunni-dominated province of Iraq created uproar when its local council voted to establish itself as an "independent region within a unified Iraq."
The provincial council of Salaheddin, which hosts Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, voted by 20 votes out of 28 to set up the new federal region, sparking speculation that other Sunni provinces may now follow suit.
In trying to explain the shift, the council's leaders said that the establishment of an autonomous region was a reaction to the Iraqi government's negligence, exclusion and marginalisation of Sunnis.
They said that the request to set up an autonomous region had been intended to boost the province's share of federal revenues and to protest against the domination of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki's Shia-led government.
Coming in the aftermath of a nationwide crackdown on former Saddam loyalists, the timing of the vote seemed to have been spurred by the firing of more than 100 lecturers at Tikrit University for alleged Baath Party connections and a roundup of suspected Baathists in the province.
Hundreds of former Baathists have been arrested in recent weeks following government reports that they were conspiring to overthrow Al-Maliki's government.



And to clarify on the Salahuddin vote, there are 28 members of the provincial council. Twenty of them voted on the measure. All voting on the measure voted "yes." On the alleged conspiracy, Al Mada reports Iraqiya's Salman Jumaili has declared Iraqiya intends to host a session in the Parliament over the claims of the existence of a conspiracy. With several dents already in Nouri's public claims, the prime minister may be sweating that possible session.

Rand Paul is a US Senator from Kentucky. His father is US House Rep Ron Paul who is currently in a race for the GOP's presidential nomination. Senator Paul's office notes:

Sen. Paul Introduces Resolution to End War in Iraq

Nov 17, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul introduced an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to formally end the war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq cannot be considered definitively concluded if Congress does not reclaim its constitutional power to declare war by repealing the underlying authorization. Until Congress takes this action, the President would still possess the legal authority to move troops into Iraq or to conduct kinetic operations within its borders, agreements with the Iraqi government notwithstanding.

"On several occasions this year, Congress has been ignored or remained silent while the President committed our forces to combat. It is my intention to urge Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over the decision to go to war, or to end a war - it is one of the body's most important powers," Sen. Paul said. "It is right that we wrest it back from a President who has shown he cannot be trusted to obey the Constitution or powers prescribed to Congress in it."

The President has ordered withdrawal of most forces by the end of the year, and Sen. Paul's amendment continues the spirit of that decision by formally ending the war. Sen. Paul will push for a vote on this measure during consideration of the Defense bill. Under existing laws, necessary actions to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq (such as at the embassy) will still be allowed.

"Americans should celebrate the safe return of our soldiers, thank those who served, and mourn those we lost. We should honor them by committing to a return to a more rational and constitutional foreign policy," Sen. Paul added.

###




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

































How stupid is Pew? How stupid do they think America is?

Maybe Pew Research Center's really stupid or maybe they just think America is?

They have a new study and they introduce it with:


A majority of Americans (56%) say the United States has mostly succeeded in achieving its goals in Iraq. And the public is overwhelmingly supportive of winding down U.S. military involvement in the country: Fully 75% approve of Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year. Just 21% disapprove of Obama’s decision.

All US troops are not leaving Iraq -- see Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot," Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot," Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" and at Trina's site, Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," at Rebecca's site, Wally's "The costs (Wally)" and Kat's "Who wanted what?" for coverage of this week's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing -- and maybe Pew, grasping that, thought they'd go with "all U.S. combat troops."

Funny, I thought combat troops were like gallbladders, you could only remove them once.

For those who've forgotten, the night of August 31, 2010, Barack gave a speech announcing all US combat troops were leaving Iraq.

Oh, okay. So Pew didn't promote that announcement as the departure of combat troops then? So now they are calling this the removal of combat troops? Nope. They promoted that as the withdrawal of combat troops -- and not just once after Barack's speech, but repeatedly for months and months after. They're cited on this in repeat news articles, in scholarly publications and popular ones.

Now they want to say "all U.S. combat troops" again.

It does allow them to be a little more accurate than those claiming "all US troops" but it's dishonest. You can only have your gallbladder taken out once, you can only have combat troops withdraw once (unless, of course, you send them back in).

It's amazing the way outlets and organizations will bend themselves into pretzels to avoid telling the plain spoken truth about what is known to be taking place in Iraq in 2012.

The Moderate Voice makes an interesting catch noting a column "For Sotal Iraq/aka Voice of Iraq, Qasim Al-Kafaji starts out this way:

In 2008, Iraq signed a convention with the United States that includes a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. But what’s really eye catching about the agreement is that it is free of U.S. obligation to fill any of the voids that will open when the time comes to pull out. The important and obvious question is: Why didn’t the agreement include a clause initiating the training in 2008 of the Iraqi Air Force on aircraft designed to protect post-withdrawal Iraq so that Iraq’s forces could be ready to take back their air space by the end of 2011?

America has done this deliberately because its plan to withdraw is anything but permanent. In fact, America doesn’t want to leave at all, so it must dream up reasons to stay. The Iraqi government – or to be more specific – the party or person who signed this agreement, bears the brunt of responsibility for signing a convention that disadvantages Iraq. Whoever signed the deal should have involved informed professionals to examine the treaty and expose its deficiencies.



That is interesting. It is also true that by 2007, the US government was openly discussing how Iraq's Air Force would not be ready to patrol the skies of Iraq until at least 2014. As was noted repeatedly in the hearing Tuesday, the US government, while negotiating the SOFA in 2008, expected that a they would renegotiate the SOFA in 2011 to extend it. That's a topic full of twists and turns and you might think columnists would explore that; however, as Bob Somerby has explained, several newspaper columnists are bored and have little to do other than repeatedly go to the well on Mitt Romney's dog.


The following community sites -- plus On The Wilder Side and Antiwar.com -- updated last night:




We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross:


SHERWOOD ROSS ASSOCIATES
Media Consultants

November 16, 2011 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Attention: Editors

There’s been much talk about how to cut the military budget. Here are some suggestions from a retired U.S. Navy captain who is now Dean of the new American College of History and Legal Studies, in Salem, New Hampshire.

Interview: Historian Michael Chesson (603) 458-5145.

CUTTING NAVY DEFENSE BUDGET
CAN BEGIN WITH OFFICER RATINGS
A U.S. NAVY CAPTAIN, RETIRED, SAYS


The U.S. Navy defeated the powerful Axis navies of World War Two with just 18 admirals but today it has 216 admirals even though it faces no comparable enemy on the high seas.



What’s more, today’s admirals have far fewer warships and sailors to supervise. There are a total of just 333,000 sailors today compared to 3.4 million in 1945, and the number of warships today is just 286 compared to 6,700 in 1945.



The reason for the explosion of admirals, says U.S. Navy Captain Michael Chesson, Retired, is “grade creep,” the tendency in the Pentagon to increase the rank for a particular job.



Chesson, now founding professor and dean of the new American College of History and Legal Studies, Salem, N.H., writes that the Navy could get by with only one four-star admiral as Chief of Naval Operations.



When the terms of other four-star admirals are up, replace them with with officers “who will have only the three stars of a vice admiral,” Chesson writes. Slots currently filled by (three-star) vice admirals will be filled instead by rear admirals, and the work of one-star admirals would be done by captains.



“Each job designated for a commissioned officer, and especially those in the gigantic shore establishment, whether in the Pentagon, at a base, academy, or whatever, will all be downgraded by one rank,” Chesson suggests.



He goes on to call for the elimination of all uniform boards to eliminate “the countless hours wasted in tinkering with and tweaking various modifications to the enormous variety of uniforms in each branch of the service for male and female personnel.”



“Eliminate service on a uniform board as a career enhancer. Ditch the contracts with civilian consultants, or shoot them. Put the officers who seek this kind of duty in the field chasing terrorists (and) if female personnel don’t like the way a current uniform makes them look, (let them) get a job as a fashion consultant.”



What’s more, he’d ditch “expensive and wasteful efforts to foist corporate group think on officers and the American military in general, so says goodbye to boondoggles like the late and unlamented Total Quality Management, which transmogrified into the Navy’s Total Quality Leadership program.” Chesson adds, “Countless officers spent tens of thousands of hours pushing red and white beads around a sand board...That might work on the playing fields of Walden University but it’s not likely to prove useful in a free fire zone. The military is not a democracy or a commune and it certainly isn’t a college campus filled with aging tenured radicals.”



Chesson says none of his proposals would save big bucks “but if projected over the next 10 years would add up to an amount of dollars that could be spent on our troops, or our wounded veterans in VA hospitals....”



Prior to assuming his position at the American College of History and Legal Studies, Chesson was Chair of the History Department at the University of Massachusetts-Boston. He earned his Ph.D. in history at Harvard. Chesson had 30 years of service, active and reserve, in the U.S. Navy, where he attained the rank of Captain.

#



(To arrange for interviews with dean Chesson, please contact him directly at (603) 458-5145 or Sherwood Ross, Ross


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

































Thursday, November 17, 2011

I Hate The War

So what did we learn this week from the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday?

A great deal about the press.

Including that they are lazy (there were exceptions, we noted them), that they'd rather all be wrong together than be right all by themselves (again, we noted exceptions) and just how stupid they can be -- All Things Media Big and Small.

Here's the first thing to jot down: Most 'covering' hearings don't know what was said.

What they do is they use prepared remarks. Witnesses provide prepared testimony in writing -- their opening statements (which bad witnesses read word for word aloud) -- and these are embargoed until the hearing but available. The press can get access to them before the hearing starts but the embargo means: "Please, please, don't publish on this until after the hearing starts." The Chair and the Ranking Member usually have their opening statements written out ahead of time and their staff freely distributes them.

With that, most of the 'reporting' you read is done.

What was the big story about the Tuesday hearing?

That John McCain and Leon Panetta had sharp words.

That was the first round of questioning and that was passed off as news because it was gossip. That's what the DC press corps runs on. But anyone really present for the first panel would have been aware that McCain and Panetta had no personal problem and were laughing with one another and thanking one another in the second round. That didn't get slipped into the story because most 'reporters' weren't aware it happened.

Just like they didn't know what was said about Camp Ashraf residents or what was said about drones or that the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs referred to US bases in Iraq that will be used by the US next year as "enduring" bases. His term. He emphasized it and noted it. But the press didn't tell you that.

See, you can write a full story, you can tease it out and pretend like you were there covering the hearing just by a quote from this opening statement of the Chair and that opening statement of a witness and toss in the gossip of the hour and -- BOOM! -- instant story for hearing you don't even know what they discussed.

Leon Panetta.

I like Leon. I've known him for years.

But I've never cast him as a peace-nik. Nor as someone that antiwar types should be applauding. Why would I? Though the press glommed on "Barack's women" with the Libyan War -- Leon was right in there screaming for it as well. He was at odds with Robert Gates. Gates is a Hawk -- so is Leon.

So it's really funny to reflect on the garbage Antiwar.com churned out which paints Leon as the great defender of peace and national soveriengty.

They read the bad reporting presumably.

But they weren't at the hearing so they were unaware that the 'answer' Leon gave wasn't thought up on the spot. Leon came into the hearing with a series of possible remarks to use.

So when John McCain (first round) was hitting on what he saw as the administration's failure to close the deal with Iraq despite the fact that the Iraqi politicians wanted it and were asking McCain and other senators why the White House wouldn't present a plan -- not in May, not in July, never. As the clock ticked down, no plan. To that, Leon pipes up, looking down at his sheet of prepared responses, that Iraq's an independent country.

And Antiwar.com 'reports' that McCain was saying the Iraqi government should be ignored and Leon was defending the Iraqi government's right to decide.

Great.

So now Anitwar.com feels they can 'report' on hearings without knowing what was said or what the exchange was? Great.

Just as lazy as every other outlet, in case you didn't notice.

I don't get it. I don't get why a variety of outlets didn't have press present for that hearing on the status of US and Iraqi relations.

The Progressive, The Nation, Democracy Now!, et al weren't going to be there because they just whore for Barack. We got that in 2008 when they could and did offer that Ralph shouldn't run and they ignored Cynthia McKinney's run and they lied about Barack while treating Sarah Palin as if she were running for president. Even Dan Quayle didn't get that treatment.

They exist to whore and to treat you as cattle that they control and herd. That's why they get the money they get. And that's why they have no real independence.

So we knew the useless whores -- for all their pretense four years ago to give a damn about the Iraq War, for all the times they used the Iraq War to drive up subscriptions, to drive up donations, etc. -- didn't give a damn about Iraq. How many of them ever even did a story on Iraqi women?

No, they weren't going to be at the hearing because they're not planning on telling their audiences the truth about the Iraq War and occupation (which continues, check out the hearing, it's not over).

But Antiwar.com? They weren't going to send someone to the hearing?

And then they 'cover' the hearing with this awful article which ignores all the big events of the hearing -- the ongoing negotiations; the expectation that, as 2012 starts, a deal will be struck between the two governments for trainers; that the US will maintain ten bases; that these bases will have US troops under the DoD umbrella (no, all US troops in Iraq will not be under the State Dept banner as we've been told), the staging platforms outside of Iraq, and so much more.

None of that made it up in the 'report' Antiwar.com did.

But Leon Panetta was presented as somoene who puts respect for another goverment's right to decide ahead of US wishes. Do they not know Leon's history? Seriously?

What we learned is that, with the press, always the lazy students. Always the ones who do as little as possible. Attend a hearing? That might tear them from X-Box and what if it ran into lunch? Just grab the prepared remarks, repeat one anecdote from AP or Retuers repeat filings throughout the hearing and call it a 'report.'

All Things Media Big and Small demonstrated yet again that, with the press, it's not the event itself that matters, it's how the press can do the bare minimum while serving the pretense that they covered the event, that they did their job. W

We covered the hearing in Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot," Wednesday's "Iraq snapshot" and today's "Iraq snapshot" and, in the community, at Trina's site, Ava covered an exchange with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," at Rebecca's site, Wally covered economic concers expressed over the use of contractors "The costs (Wally)" and Kat offered a look at various claims about the administration's negotiating goals and what Iraqi leaders supposedly sought with "Who wanted what?" And even with all of that, I could still easily cover the hearing again in tomorrow's snapshot with parts that were newsworthy but that we didn't have space of in the snapshots so far.

This was an important hearing. Very few people treated it as such.

The ones who are going to regret ignoring it the most (or focusing on the trivia from it) will be the likes of The Nation, et al. That's because John McCain had an eye on history and was doing his draft. He invoked history in the hearing. So all of these members of the Cult of St. Barack who just knew they were doing him a favor by ignoring it have instead allowed McCain's judgments, calls and, yes, his facts (he did offer some facts) to stand as the official judgment, unchallenged. Unless the world stops spinning sometime in the near future, this hearing will be remembered and it's a real shame the left chose to take a pass on it. It's a shame because Iraqis remain under occupation and they do matter. But 'independent' media never really thought that, they thought only Barack mattered. (Which is why they're okay with Guantanamo and with the assassination of American citizens and so much more.) If they really wanted to defend Barack, they would have paid attention to John McCain's actual remarks and offered some counter-narrative to them. Of course, that would be actual work and they don't work at The Nation, et al, do they?






It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4485. Tonight it remains [PDF format warning] 4486. Here's the screen snap:

111711


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




Iraq snapshot

Thursday, November 17, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq executes 11 people, Camp Ashraf residents get attention from the US Senate, Political Stalemate II continues, Nouri prepares to target more political opponents, Nouri launches secret arrests on Iraqi youths who had the 'nerve' to complain about the lack of employment in their country, and more.
 
Camp Ashraf is one of the worst reported subjects in the US press.  We do get articles so slanted that even a paper's public editor calls out the slant (against the residents of Camp Ashraf) and we get hurled insults at Howard Dean, Wesley Clark and others for speaking out on behalf of the residents.  But very little attention is given to the issue of their support.  A US military official used the New York Times to smear Clark and Dean and suggest that they have sold their voices out to the highest bidders.  US House Rep Bob Filner has not been paid on behalf of anyone to speak out for the residents of Camp Ashraf (a number of family members of the residents live in California, including in Bob Filner's district).  You don't read about that.  You don't read about hearings on topic or Congressional statements.  This week, Camp Ashraf, yet again, came up in a Committee hearing.  We're going to note the remarks.  But first, let's provide some background on Camp Ashraf.
 
Camp Ashraf houses a group of Iranian dissidents (approximately 3,500 people).  Iranian dissidents were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize.  In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf.  The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents.  Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp attacked twice.  July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten.  They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8th of this year Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place).  Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them.  Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Nouri al-Maliki is seen as close to the government in Tehran.  They have made it clear that they want the dissidents out of Iraq and returned to Iran -- where they would face trial at best, torture most likely.  Nouri has announced he will be closing Camp Ashraf at the end of this year.  UK MP Brian Binley (Huffington Post) writes, "As things are evolving and if Maliki gets away with his plan to impose the deadline, just as the Christmas and New Year holidays are in full swing, the prospect is that the world will sit and watch while men and women are killed in cold blood or mutilated, crushed by US-supplied armoured personal carriers."
 
 
"The status of the residents at Camp Ashraf from the Iranian dissident group MEK remains unresolved," Senator Carl Levin declared Tuesday. "As the December 2011 deadline approaches, the administration needs to remain vigilant that the government of Iraq lives up to its commitments to provide for the safety of the Camp Ashraf residents until a resolution of their status can be reached.  We need to make it clear to the government of Iraq that there cannot be a repeat of the deadly confrontation began last April by Iraqi security forces against Camp Ashraf residents."
 
He was speaking Tuesday morning at the Senate Armed Services Comittee hearing while delivering his opening remarks as Chair of the Committee.  Senator John McCain is Ranking Member on the Committee.  The first panel the Committee heard testimony from was composed of US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsy.  Camp Ashraf came up in Chair Levin's opening remarks and it came up later during the first panel.
 
 
Senator Lindsey Graham: Do you think -- do you think the people in Camp Ashraf, do you think they're going to get killed? What's going to happen to them?
 
General Martin Dempsey: The, uh, as you know, Senator, the State Department is leading an effort to ensure that -- work with the Iraqi government ---
 
Senator Lindsey Graham:  Can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed has gone up greatly if there are no American forces up there policing the problem? 
 
General Martin Dempsey:  I won't say anything to those people because I'm not involved in the outcome.
 
Senator Lindsey Graham: Fair enough. 
 
 
In what was now the second round, John McCain went on to laugh with Leon Panetta and to thank him for appearing before the Comittee and putting up with pointed questions.  He brought up a request that Panetta had made to him and Senator Graham (formally, in a letter) and noted they were working on that issue (defense funding).  We're not going to excerpt that but since so much was made of the first round of questioning between Panetta and McCain, we will note that both laughed with one another in an exchange in the second round.  (The hysterical gossip corps portrayed McCain being testy as new or novel and may have left many with images of poor Leon struggling for the vapors.  Neither person was harmed by the exchange in the first round nor appeared to hold a grudge or ill will towards the other.)  Near the end of his second round, McCain did bring up the issue of Camp Ashraf.
 
Ranking Member John McCain: Could I just say finally on the Camp Ashraf issue, I know the Secretary of Defense -- I mean, Secretary of State is addressing this issue, but it is American troops that are protecting them now. I hope that you can give us some idea of what disposition is going to be because I think it's -- I think it's very clear that the lives of these people are at risk and I thank you, Mr. Secretary.
 
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: I appreciate that.
 
Chair Carl Levin: Well, just on that, to turn it into a question -- and, maybe, General, this needs to be addressed to you too -- what -- There's obviously a greater risk to folks there unless the Iraqis keep a commitment.  What's going to be done to make sure, to the best of our ability, that they keep that committment and what about the question of removing them from the list of -- not them, the organization from the terrorist list?
 
General Martin Dempsey:  Well, Senator --
 
Senator Carl Levin: We're all concerned about this --
 
General Martin Dempsey:  And we share your concern. [General] Lloyd Austin shares your concern.  And I know that Ambassador Jeffreys shares the concern and there is no  -- we're not sparing any diplomatic effort to encourage the Iraqis to do what we think is right in this regard to ensure the protection of those folks in Camp Ashraf.  But right now, actually, the Iraqi security forces guard Camp Ashraf with our advisory and assistance group with them.  And so the concern, when we do leave that capacity, is a real one.  And  But I actually think we've got to put the pressure on the Iraqi government diplomatically to have the outcome that we think is correct.
 
Senator Carl Levin: Just assure them if you would that there's a real strong feeling around here that if they -- if they violate a committment to protect those people -- assuming that they're still there and that they haven't been removed from the terrorist list so that they can find other locations -- that if they violate that committment to us, that is going to have a severely negative impact on the relationship with the -- I think I can speak here -- the Congress although I'm reluctant to ever say this. I think there's a lot of concern in the Congress about it and this will, I believe, in my opinion, will severely negatively impact their relationship with the Congress. Let me leave it at that.
 
Secretary Leon Panetta:  Senator, I want to assure you that Ambassador Jeffrey has made that point loud and clear, loud and clear the Iraqis.
 
Senator Carl Levin: Senator Lieberman?
 
Senator Joe Lieberman:  Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And add my voice and I think you can speak for Congress members of both parties in both houses in expressing our concern about the safety of the people in Camp Ashraf.
 
 
Our gossip corps masquerading as a press corps missed that too, didn't they?  The Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee declared that if the Iraqi government did not keep their promise to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf -- residents that the Iraqi forces have already twice attacked -- there would be serious damage to the government of Iraq's relationship with the US Congress.
 
Sounds like a headline to me.  In fact, sounds like a first page, opening segment of the evening news type story.  And that's before you factor in the remarks of the others or the consensus that Levin did speak for Congress in his remarks.  Yes, independent Joe Lieberman did agree with Democrat Carl Levin who agreed with Republicans Lindsey Graham and John McCain but there were other Democrats present (Ben Nelson, Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen) and other Republicans present (Jeff Sessions).  No one lodged an objection.  It would appear that the US Congress -- at least the Senate -- pretty much universally (if not fully) backs the protection of Camp Ashraf residents.  That's a story you really don't get.  But news outlets can make time and will make time to run stories implying that Howard Dean and Wesley Clark are only concerned with the protection of Camp Ashraf residents because they've been 'bought' and that no one would care about these people unless they were being paid to.  The implication being not only that Dean and Clark are 'on the take' but also that the residents of Camp Ashraf are so low on the human chain or so digusting or so whatever that no one in their right mind could ever think these people were worthy of defending.  That's a really ugly thing to suggest about Dean and Clark and it's extremely ugly and phobic to suggest that of the residents of Camp Ashraf.
 
If you need an example of this ugliness, you can refer to Josh Rogin's Foreign Policy piece.  Tonight or at Third on Sunday, I plan to write about how people get hearings so wrong.  You can find part of the answer in Josh Rogin's quote from Carl Levin.  Yes, Levin did declare what Rogin quotes him stating -- but that's all Rogin quotes him stating and misses the exchange that we've quoted above.  That's because like a lot of 'reporting' on this hearing, people didn't bother to attend the actual hearing.  But we'll save that for tonight or I'll take it over to Third on Sunday.
 
Gary Feuerberg (Epoch Times) reports, "The Ashraf residents fear that they will be sent back to Iran, where they were an opposition group, and could be executed. Three Iranians visiting their sons in the camp, upon returning home, were each executed in Dec. 2010 - Jan. 2011. In the last few days, Iraqi troops in larger numbers have been outside the gates, awakening the residents early in the morning with taunts broadcast through loud speakers.  The residents remember April 8 this year, when this kind of harassment was a prelude to the Iraqi military firing on unarmed residents, killing 36 and wounding scores that outside observers called a massacre."  Outside observers include US Senator John Kerry who termed that assault a "massacre."  British MP David Amess writes at the Independent of London's Foreign Desk blog:
 
At Camp Ashraf in Iraq, 3,400 residents are encircled. Loud speakers have been placed around the town's perimeter as part of a campaign of psychological intimidation. They blast out insults and threats in the early hours of the morning.  The aggressors, Iraqi forces, are taking orders from the Iranian regime. They want Camp Ashraf cleared out and shut down because the residents are members of the People's Mohjahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), the main Iranian opposition group.
No-one is allowed out of the Camp to receive medical attention.  Foreign observers, including Euro MPs, US congressmen and journalists, are not allowed to enter.  In the latest sign that the siege is tightening, Ashraf's fuel supplied have been cut off. There have been no gasoline deliveries for almost a year, and very little diesel fuel and kerosene.  Now that temperatures are dropping, Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has ordered an end to deliveries of coal and wood.
 
Iraq's Christian community has been repeatedly targeted.  They were raised twice in Tuesday's hearing.  Both times by Chair Carl Levin.  First, he noted in his opening statement, "Our concern about the security of the Christian minorities is very strong. We need to work with the government of Iraq to ensure it has the will and capability to protect Iraq's religious minority communities from targeted violence and persecution."
 
 
Then he brought up the issue again when the first round of questioning started.
 
Chair Carl Levin: Let me ask you about protection of religious minorities, since our invasion of Iraq in 2003, I have worked with many members of the Congress and many members of Congress have worked with our military and civilian leadership both here and in Iraq to ensure that the small religious minority community in Iraq are protected from targeted violence and persecution.  Give us your assessments, first Secretary and then perhaps general, of what the Iraqi government's willingness and ability to protect the religious minorities in Iraq, particularly the Christians?
 
Secretary Leon Panetta: I-I believe that, uh, Ambassador Jeffrey and the State Department continue to work very closely with the Iraqis to ensure that, uh, religious minorities are protected there. It is -- it is a problem.  It's a concern.  I think it's something that's going to demand continued vigilance by all of us, continuing pressure by all of us, on the Iraqi government that they do everything possible to recognize both human and religious rights.  There's a lot of history here and a lot of challenges here but I am absolutely convinced when you talk to the political leadership in Iraq, uh, they -- they don't want to have these kind of divisions, they don't want to have this kind of discrimination take place within their country but it's going to require constant vigilance to make sure it doesn't happen.
 
Chair Carl Levin: General, do you have anything to comment on that?
 
General Martin Dempsey:  No, just the -- just the comment, Senator, on the fact that in the pre-surge period, which many of us remember, it was very common for state sponsored militias out of the security ministries to be conducting  these kind of attacks against uh-uh those religious groups that didn't agree with their particular faith. We haven't seen anything like that since the surge -- meaning the security ministries have become responsible agents of government. And though not discounting the continued pressure on the small religious communities, at least it -- there's no evidence that it will be state-sponsored.  And that's a -- that's a significant change.
 
 
Yes, you did just hear a US general cite as "significant" progress that the Iraqi Christians were not being attacked by government forces.  Which brings up the very real issue of why, in real time, we weren't told this?  It's so wonderful as they reflect back on 2006 through 2008 and suddenly want to share with the world events that, when the US military appeared before Congress during those same years, they never raised.  But, just like Dempsey on Tuesday, they always managed to insist Iraq was coming along nicely. 
 
The reality for Iraqi Christians isn't pretty. Take Kirkuk where the Syriac Orthodox Church has now been bombed three times in five years. Most estimates on Christians in Baghdad are at 4,000 or under.  That number was said to be at least 300,000 of Iraq's estimated 800,0000 Christians in 2002.  Many have left Baghdad for other countries or to move to the Kurdish north which is thought to be a safer area for Iraqi Christians.  So, when the Baghdad population is no longer targeted by Nouri's Iraqi security forces, it's not "significant," despite what Dempsey says.  What's signficant is that a large number of them were killed, a large number of them left Baghdad for other countries (Iraqi Christians make up at least 25% of the Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan and Lebanaon) and a large number moved to the KRG where Nouri's forces can't get to them.  (The semi-autonomous KRG has its own security forces including the peshmerga.)
 
 
This week, Mark Pattison (Catholic News Service) reported Youngstown, Ohio's Bishop George V. Murry, just returned from Iraq, is calling for an increase in US financial aid to Iraq, what he terms a "modern-day version of the Marshall Plan, which helped to rebuild Europe after the Second World War. [. ..] Iraq is suffering from the results of the war. The United States and the nations that joined with it in the war can help Iraq rebuild their infrastructure and rebuild their country." Joan Frawley Desmond (National Catholic Register) quotes the bishop stating, "We visited the Church of Our Lady of Salvation, where the militants entered and killed the faithful, including two priests. One still sees bloodstained walls." Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked October 31, 2010. An Iraqi Christian told the bishops on their visit, "We used to live in the Garden of Eden, and now we live in hell."  As Jim Muir (BBC News -- link is text and video) observed after that attack, the Islamic State for Iraq declared "that all Christians in the country are now a legitimate target."
 
Levin was the only one to explore the issue of Iraqi Christians in the hearing.  That might actually be a good thing when you notice how efforts were made to spin the KRG.  For background, we drop back to Monday's snapshot:
 
AFP reports John Kirby declared at the Pentagon today that the US was deploying some of the predator drones in Iraq to Turkey to give "support to the Turkish military to deal with the specific threat posed by the PKK on their southern border." Reuters adds that the program "involves four US predator unmanned aircraft". Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) observes, "Moving them to Turkey could strengthen the diplomatic alliance with the United States, but it also risks putting the United States in the middle of a regional conflict between Turkey and Iraq, two putative allies. Pentagon officials declined to say whether the four Predator drones being flown out of Incirlik Air Base, a joint U.S. - Turkish military installation, would be allowed to cross into Iraqi air space." And how is Iraq going to feel knowing Turkey has a spy view on them?  Not the US which is bad enough.  But Turkey's a neighbor.  There's really no chance Turkey won't use the drones to their own advantage?  John Reed (Military.com News) adds, "In what could be an effort to head off the popular discontent seen in other countries that have hosted U.S. drones, Davotugu claimed that the American UAV missions would be overseen by the Turkish military."
 
The following day, at Tuesday's hearing, this issue was raised in the hearing. 
 
Senator  Jeanne Shaheen: [. . .] we have cooperated with Turkey in the past -- specifically with Kurds in northern Iraq. And we're seeing that violence between Turkey and the Kurd rebels has escalated since the summer. We saw a major Turkish operation into Iraq.  And, yesterday, there were reports that US drones had deployed into Turkey from Iraq for surveillance flights.  So can you just give us an update on that situation?
 
General Martin Dempsey: I can, thank you, Senator. You know each combatant commander has a theater security cooperation plan that supports both building the capability of our partners allows us to make ourselves better and deters potential adversaries.   And so in Turkey, for example, we have, uhm, we've-we've recently, as you've described, taken the ISR platform that was apparently flying out of Balad Air Base and is now flying out of Incirlik in Turkey to support the Turks in their fight against terrorism. The Turks recently agreed to put the TPY-2 radar [Army/Navey/ Transportable Radar Surveillance] as part of the European phase adaptive approach, integrated air defense, against the possibility of a rogue missile strike from Iran if they develop that capability.  So -- And then if you walk down the Gulf Cooperative Council, we have bi-lateral agreements with each of them -- some of which are multi-lateral, for example, air defense; some of which are exclusively bi-lateral. And then the other thing we do is exercises as well as this foreign military sales program, it becomes a significant cornerstone to our relationship with these countries.
 
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Relative to the US - Turkey cooperation on the Kurds, how is Iraq responding?
 
Genearl Martin Dempsey:  Iraq has uh-uh consistently denounced the presence of the Kurdish -- the PKK on Iraq's soil and so too has the Kurdistan Regional Government. So there hasn't been any friction as long as there's been transparency about intent.
 
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: So we're cooperating with them as we're doing these kind of
 
General Martin Dempsey:  We are, Senator.
 
 
That was very far from the truth.  Not only have there been protests throughout Iraq -- not just in the KRG -- against Turkey's latest bombing campaign which began August 17th, but members of Parliament have called out the bombing campaign -- called out publicly. Wednesday, Al Mada reported on the objections which include that Turkey, "under the pretext of attacking the PKK," has launched one of the most dangerous assaults on civilians and the transfer of drones is called "extremely dangerous" and attempt by the US government to curry favor with Turkey. If you're missing it, Iraqis are not dancing in the streets with joy over the use of drones to monitor their country and provide the results to Turkey.
 
Violence continued in Iraq today. Reuters notes a Tuz Khurmato sticky bombing (to a bulldozer) claimed 1 life.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds a Mosul bombing this morning claimed the life of police officer Lt Col Jabbar Rasheed and left three more police officers injured while a Mosul roadside bombing left nine people injured and a Mosul roadside bombing attack (three bombs) left ten people injured and a Mahmoudiya car bombing left six people injured.

In addution, Al Rafidayn reports that 11 people were executed today and quotes a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice stating that this incuded a woman and a Tunisian.  (Mohammed Tawfeeq covers the issue here for CNN for those who'd like a report in English.)   Amnesty International notes:
 
The Iraqi authorities must commute all death sentences and ensure verdicts
are not based on forced confessions involving torture, Amnesty International
said today, after 11 people convicted of terrorism-related offences were
hanged in Baghdad.
The execution of the 11, including one woman, took place yesterday in
spite of attempts by the Tunisian authorities to obtain a pardon for a Tunisian national, Yosri Trigui, who was sentenced to death for his alleged
involvement in an attack against the al-'Askari Shi'a Muslim Shrine in
Samarra in 2006. The attack sparked an eruption of sectarian violence.
Trigui, who had been living in Iraq since 2003, was arrested in 2006 by
US forces for his alleged involvement in terrorist acts. He was also convicted
of the killing of a female Iraqi journalist from the Al Arabiya TV channel,
Atwar Bahjat. Amnesty has previously voiced concern that Trigui's trial
did not appear to meet international standards.
Meanwhile, a further 10 people are reportedly due to be executed in Iraq
today.
Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Acting Director
Philip Luther said:
"While the Iraqi government has the right to bring to justice those
responsible for serious crimes, the death penalty violates the right to life
and should not be used in any case.
"Given the appalling state of Iraq's justice system, it is questionable whether
these 11 people received a fair trial.
"Iraq must immediately commute the death sentences of the hundreds of
people remaining on death row in the country. The authorities must also
ensure that trials meet international standards for fair trial, and are not based
on confessions extracted under torture and other ill-treatment."
Trials in Iraq consistently fall short of international standards for fair trials. The Central Criminal Court of Iraq (CCCI), established by the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 after the US-led military invasion of the country, is the main criminal court, which handles crimes relating to terrorism, sectarian violence, organised crime and government corruption. The court has handed down the vast majority of death sentences.
Defendants in Iraq frequently complain that "confessions" are extracted under torture and other ill-treatment during pre-trial interrogation, often when they were held incommunicado in police stations or in detention. Defendants are often not brought before an investigative judge within a reasonable time and not told of the reason for their arrest. "Confessions" extracted from them are often used as evidence against them at their trials and accepted by the courts without taking any or adequate steps to investigate defendants' allegations of torture. Such "confessions" have also frequently been broadcast on the Iraqi government-controlled satellite TV station Al Iraqiya. This practice undermines the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental human right.
Trial proceedings before the CCCI are very brief, often lasting only a few minutes before verdicts are handed down.
 
 
 
Staying on legal, Nouri's been crying 'Ba'athist!' to take out political opponents. This issue was even raised in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday -- Senator Scott Brown raised it and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated the White House was concerned over the arrests.  From Ava's report at Trina's site Tuesday night:
 
Brown noted the crackdown taking place in Iraq on Nouri's political opponents, them being arrested and held without charge. He asked Panetta, "Are you concerned with these types of arrests and whether it will either require us to have a larger foot print or how it's going to be effected by our footprint being reduced?"

Panetta responded, "I am concerned by the actions the Prime Minister took with regards to arresting the Ba'athists." Love how he just went with Nouri's language. These are, by all accounts, ex-Ba'athists.

Panetta then stated, "I think that -- and they're being held at this point without charges and that raises concerns about due process. At the same time, I have to say that the Sunnis -- and it's a reflection of what's happened in Iraq -- that the Sunni population there recognizes that even in light of that that their actions ought to take place through the actions of government. And they're bringing their pressure through the Parliament and through the government to try to change that behavior and I think that's what democracy should do." Yea! A victory!

Reality: Nouri is fighting those moves.

Panetta wants to sell political targeting as evidence of a democracy. He clearly thinks the Committee is composed of idiots.



 
 
 
Al Sabaah reports that security sources are stating there is another list of 'Ba'athists' to be arrested in Dhi Qar. Al Rafidayn adds that the list has approximately 50 names on it. In other disturbing news, Al Mada reports that Iraqi security forces in Baghdad arrested a group of youths who were speaking to one another about the unemployment problem while eating a meal at a restaurant. The forces follwed the young people home and arrested them -- after forcing their way into the youth's homes. At least six people were arrested. One is Ashraf Mohamed whose mother states who explained that she was worried about her son's where abouts and after checking with the hospitals and police was told he was being held in detention. The secret arrests are being compared to the Iraqi security forces February 25th attack on four journalists who were at a restaurant eating lunch after covering the protest in Baghdad's Tahrir Square -- they were publicly beaten, hauled off and then tortured. One of the four was Hadi al-Mehdi who was assassinated September 8th and the government has made no effort to find his killer.

 
 
 
Political Stalemate I was a period in Iraq following the March 7, 2010 elections. It ended in November of 2010 only as a result of a meet-up in Erbil and the political parties signing off on an agreement in which all but State of Law made political concessions. The results of the March 7th elections, even after Nouri al-Maliki bitterly contested them and stamped his feet until a few post-election votes were tossed his way, were that Iraqiya came in first and Nouri's political slate State of Law came in second. Iraqis do not elect their prime minister, the Parliament does. Per the Constitution, Ayad Allawi, the leader of Iraqiya, should have had first crack at forming a government. First crack? You become prime minister-designate and then have thirty days to name a Cabinet (nominate people for positions and have Parliament vote in favor of them). If you can't accomplish that in 30 days, per the Constitution, a new prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.

Nouri al-Maliki refused to surrender the post of prime minister. So the March 7th elections were followed by over 8 months of gridlock, Political Stalemate I. The Erbil Agreement found all but State of Law making major concessions so that the country could pull together. (During that eight month period, Parliament had one session which was little more than roll call.) Iraqiya, the winner in the elections, was supposed to see their leader (Allawi) head an independent security commission, the KRG was promised Article 140 would finally be followed (Article 140 of the Constitution addresses disputed territories such as Kirkuk -- it calls for a census and referendum to be held in Kirkuk by the end of 2007. Nouri was prime minister then and refused to implement Article 140.) Many promises were made but the only one that concerned Nouri was that he would remain prime minister.

With all sides signing off on the Erbil Agreement, it appeared that Iraq would be moving forward on a national level. Nouri was named prime minister-designate (unofficially named, Jalal Talabani would wait two weeks before making it official to give Nouri 30 days plus two weeks to form a Cabinet). Before November drew to a close, Nouri would announce the planned census to take place in December was off. He would claim that the national security commission had to be put on hold but would be created earlier. By the time he was illegally moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister, Iraq was in Political Stalemate II. And that's where it has remained. Illegally moved from prime minister-designate to prime minister? The Constitution says 30 days to name Cabinet. That's not 'partial' cabinet, that's the full Cabinet. Nouri did not name a full Cabinet. Most importantly he said he would 'temporarily' fill the security ministries -- Defense, National Security and Interior.

The Kurds, the National Alliance and Iraqiya have all called for the Erbil Agreement to be followed ("the Kurds" does not include Goran). Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) reports that Nouri and Iraqi president (and Kurd) Jalal Talabani have met and that steps are being taken to resolve the issues -- of course this has repeatedly been reported for months now with no resolution as of yet. Nouri and Talabani are said to be on the same page regarding the issues. If true, this should be a big surprise to the Kurdish delegation that visited Baghdad weeks ago and found no resolution or mutual understanding with Nouri. Dar Addustour adds that supposedly the two agreed that the three security ministries must be filled. Iraqiya tells Dar Addustour that Ayad Allawi is due back in Iraq and that there will be some important developments shortly. All options are open, their spokesperson states, including a vote of no-confidence for Nouri.

Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports that Nouri held a press conference yesterday announcing and promoting a bill that, if passed, would give the provinces more say in their own affairs -- such as implementing water and health projects. Nouri's always so good about making statements to garner support. It's following up those statements with actual action that Nouri has problems with.

Moving over to England where Murray Wardrop (Telegraph of London) reports, "The panel, led by Sir John Chilcot, had been expected to deliver its initial conclusions by the end of the year, but yesterday announced that it was postponing the draft report until 'at least Summer 2012'. The inquiry is being held up in delivering its findings as it is locked in negotiations with Whitehall officials over how much information it can release in classified documents." The Iraq Inquiry. An official inquiry -- promised by Gordon Brown -- a government inquiry in fact. And the results are delayed again due to, yes, government secrecy. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) adds, "The inquiry makes it clear that Whitehall departments are continuing to block the disclosure of documents about the circumstances surrounding the invasion of Iraq." BBC News reminds, "At one hearing in early 2010, inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot expressed his frustration about his committee's inability to publish certain classified documents relating to Iraq policy. Although the committee could see these documents, their public release had not been sanctioned by the government - a move also criticised by Lord Goldsmith, attorney general in the run-up to war."