The Common Ills: Ivan Eland: Idiot or Liar -- your pick

Tuesday, November 05, 2013

Ivan Eland: Idiot or Liar -- your pick

Ivan Eland writes for Antiwar.com. We don't note him often here. It has nothing to do with his being a Libertarian. I am left, yes, but we've happily noted Libertarians when they have something worth saying. We've put CATO statements into the snapshots, we've quoted Eland's boss Justin Raimondo. We probably quoted Eland the most on the issue of the Ashraf community. But then he dropped that issue -- apparently because the policy at Antiwar.com, was to attack the Ashraf community with insults -- despite the fact that they were already being attacked by Nouri with bullets. Nothing, apparently, says "antiwar" like rejoicing in the hunting of people. Well, in my day, we didn't say "anitwar," we said peace -- because we were for something (peace), not just whiners against something ("anti" "war").

But that's a debate for another day.

Huffington Post e-mailed a column to the public account. If they hadn't, I wouldn't have seen it because Ivan Eland is so far from the facts that I make it a point not to read him.

What was e-mailed was Eland's column entitled "A Slipper Slope Back Into Iraq?" and I wasted my time by reading:

Despite having an increasingly autocratic and sectarian Shi'ite government that allows overflights of Iranian arms to a Syrian government opposed by U.S.-supported rebels, President Obama has pledged to increase military assistance to Iraq -- reversing a five-year trend of disengagement and aid reduction. The Obama administration will increase intelligence support to the Iraqi government and push Congress to send it missiles, helicopter gunships, and other military equipment.

"A five-year trend of disengagement and aid reduction." Let's set aside that the 'aid' (US taxpayer dollars) the State Dept was given for FY2011 and FY2012 and this fiscal year is in the billions and will only be dwarfed by the money State will receive for Afghanistan as a military drawdown (not a withdrawal) takes place there. The State Dept's requested funds for Iraq for FY2014 is 1.18 billion)

Let's just focus on the reality of Special-Ops and what Tim Arango reported for the New York Times in September 2012:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.

I'm sorry, 2012, Barack -- at Nouri's request -- send "a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers" into Iraq -- as Gen Robert Caslen admits. That's a "trend of disengagment"?

Does Eland speak English?

October 23rd, Eland was pimping his lies and got busted by our own Ann. She left a comment on the article which she reposted at her own site:

Ann Wilson · less than 1 minute ago

This is a bad article and I don't understand how it made it up at Antiwar.com.
I have my own site and I write about trivial things most days -- being the mother of a newborn doesn't leave room for much more. But when I write about Iraq, I write about reality.
The problem with this piece may not be Eland's. If he didn't write the headline, it's not his fault. But when you start with a lie - "As in Iraq, Completely Withdraw US Forces from Afghanistan" - you don't stumble your way onto the truth.
There was never a complete withdrawal. Contractors didn't leave, a handful of troops remained as 'trainers,' Special Ops and others remained (as Ted Koppel outlined in a December 2011 report) and over 15,000 troops were stationed in neighboring countries (the bulk in Kuwait).
Most importantly, US troops have gone back in.
I consider it appalling that for over a year Antiwar.com has played dumb on this.
Fortunately The Common Ills hasn't played dumb.
At the end of September 2012, right before the presidential debates started, Tim Arango reported on Syria for The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/world/middleeas...

In the middle of his report on Syria, Arango slipped this in:

"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence. "

That should have been front page news at Antiwar.com and it wasn't. Nor was the December military agreement for joint-patrols in Iraq.

I'll be reposting this comment at my site -- just in case it doesn't make it up here. Seems a whole lot about Iraq hasn't been making it up here. And Thursday night, I'll be blogging specifically about Antiwar.com. Can't tonight, doing the blog on The Mindy Project. But I'll include my comment in tonight's post because my Mindy blog post is always the most read post at my site each week.

Ann's comment did make it up. It's one of only three comments on the article, so it's difficult to say, "Maybe Eland missed it."

We're pretty much left with the choice that he does know reality but he just prefers to lie.

After she posted about her comment, Ann posted about "Antiwar.com" and it's problems when it came to covering Iraq. In her post, she quoted this statement I use all the time in the snapshots:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

Let's go to the December 10th snapshot. Didn't know we'd have to, thought we were all at least semi-computer literate but apparently clicking on link requires 'computer mastery' that most people (maybe they work for USA Today?) are unable to handle. We quoted the agreement in the December 10th snapshot. Everything in bold that follows? It's what Eland and others find so 'new' and 'novel' but was outlined almost a year ago. What you really need to pay attention to -- I know reading is hard for some -- is clause L ["l)"] -- that's the one about "joint-exercises."

The Participants intend to undertake the following types of defense cooperation activities:

a) reciprocal visits and meetings by high-ranking delegations to military facilities and institutions;

b) exchanges of instructors, training personnel, and students between Participants' military academies and related institutions;

c) counterterrorism cooperation;

d) the development of defense intelligence capabilities;

e) cooperation in the fields of defense-related research and development and technology security;

f) acquisition and procurement of defense articles and services;

g) exchanges of information and experiences acquired in the field of military operations, including in connection with international humanitarian and peacekeeping operations;

h) training and exchange of information regarding the development of military health services, military health facilities, and military medicine training opportunities;

i) training and exchanges of information regarding staff organization and human resources for regulation and management of defense personnel;

j) cooperation for the development of logistics support and sustainment systems;

k) defense planning;

l) joint exercises; and

m) cooperation in the area of social, athletic, and military culture activities.

In case that was too confusing, let's quote from the December 11th snapshot:

In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America. Angry, dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more. It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon. Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises. The tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger numbers. Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.

This shouldn't be surprising. In the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper published, the actual transcript. We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'" at Third. Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after "troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force." What did he say this residual force would do? He said, "I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."

This is not withdrawal. This is not what was sold to the American people. Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election, right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed potatoes passed off as a report. In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."

So when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of peace.

In Section Four of the Memo, both parties acknowledge that to achieve these things they may need further documentation and that such documenation will be done as attachments "to this MOU." Thse would include things like "medical reports" for "dispatched personnel." Oh, some idiot says, they mean State Dept personnel. No, they don't. The US is represented in this Memo by the Defense Dept. This refers to DoD personnel. They may also need an attachment to go over "procedures for recalling dispatched personnel," and possibly for covering "the death of dispatched personnel with the territory of the host country." The Memo can run for five years from last Thursday (when it was signed) and, after five years, it can renewed every year afterwards. US troops could be in Iraq forever. The kill clause in this differs from the SOFA. The 2008 SOFA had a kill clause that meant, one year after notification of wanting out of the SOFA, the SOFA would be no more. The Memo doesn't require lead time notice. Instead, "Either Participant may discontinue this MOU at any time, though the Participant should endeavor to provide advance notice of its intent to discontinue the MOU to the other Participant."

Again, Barack got what he wanted. He'd stated what he wanted in 2007. He got it. If your life's goal is to cheer Barack -- that is the goal of the Cult of St. Barack -- start cheering and stop whining that Barack's been misrepresented. The Memo gives him everything he wanted so, for Barack, it's a victory. For those who believe in peace, for those who believe the US military should be out of Iraq, it's a tragedy.

December 10th and 11th, the snapshots? They resulted in a record number of hate mail dispatches to the public e-mail account from visitors who belonged to The Cult of St. Barack.

I believe those e-mails can best be summed up as, "Bitch, you don't know what the f**k you're talking about. I wish you'd die!"

Such sweet words from such sweet people. Remember, the truth can cause violent reactions.

And maybe Eland lies because he can't take angry e-mails. Who knows?

What we do know is that the US Congress has its own think tank: the Congressional Research Service. And the think tank prepares reports. It does so regularly on Iraq. This is from [PDF format warning] Kenneth Katzman's "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights."

Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during

December 5-6, 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under

Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five

year MOU provides for:

• high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges

• professional military education cooperation

• counter-terrorism cooperation

• the development of defense intelligence capabilities

• joint exercises

The MOU appeared to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing

the its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put

forward, such as joint exercises.

The concept of enhanced U.S.-Iraq cooperation gained further consideration in mid-2013 as the

United States sought to prevent the violence in Syria from affecting neighboring states, including

Iraq. In late June 2013, General Dempsey said that the United States is looking for ways to

improve the military capabilities of Iraq and Lebanon, two countries extensively affected by the

Syria conflict. According to Gen. Dempsey, enhanced assistance could involve dispatching

training teams and accelerating sales of weapons and equipment

I have no idea why Ivan Eland can't tell the truth.

But as this continues and continues, I think people need to start asking what's the real purpose of Antiwar.com?

I have no idea what their purpose is but if they're really "antiwar," seems to me that they wouldn't bury the US signing a contract to conduct joint-military patrols in Iraq.

And that call? I don't see it as controversial. If you're against war, why are you covering for an administration?

You could say, "They don't know about the MoU and this missed Arango's article!"

You could say that but it's not true. Ann's one of many who've left posts. Community members have e-mailed various Antiwar.com writers about this issue -- when the writers get it wrong. What's the reply? I know because they get forwarded here. The reply is didn't-know-that.

But that's been going on forever and they still can't put the truth up in their Antiwar.com writings.

I have no idea why.

Maybe that's a column Justin Raimondo should write?

Maybe he should have written it months ago before this became an even bigger issue?

We're in a hearing right now, Wally's not sure when he and Cedric will do their joint-post so I'll note that the following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Pacifica Evening News, Black Agenda Report, Adam Kokesh, the ACLU, the White House and Jody Watley -- updated last night and this morning: