Saturday, June 06, 2015

Iraq snapshot

Saturday, June 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the lies about Iraq continue, the State Dept finally appears to offer an olive branch to Ammar al-Hakim, and much more.



As we were noting Friday, Diana Ohlbaum blew her chance to explore a serious topic via her own dirty whoring.  The Hill published her  "Republicans' revisionist history on Iraq" possibly in an attempt to open her up to the public ridicule she now so richly deserves.

In a tacky poly blend of fact and fiction, she offers this mouth dropper:


It was President George W. Bush who signed the security agreement with Iraq that set a date of Dec. 31, 2011 for all U.S. forces to withdraw from the country. 


Get it?

Because Bully Boy Bush did a treaty with Iraq, no one else can.

It's a liar posing as a child's view of the world.

By this 'logic'?


He left no time to regret
Kept his dick wet
With his same old safe bet
Me and my head high
And my tears dry
Get on without my guy
You went back to what you knew
So far removed from all that we went through
And I tread a troubled track
My odds are stacked
I'll go back to black
-- "Back to Black," written by Amy Winehouse and Mark Ronson, first appears on Amy's Back to Black album




So by the liar's 'logic,' since Bully Boy Bush got his dick wet, Barack must be a virgin, right?


In an either/or, dichotomous binary world, that is the only possible outcome, right?

By her 'logic.'

It's a 'logic' that's fact-free.



Here's Barack speaking about it on June 19, 2014:



Q    Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq?  Any regrets about that decision in 2011?
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.  We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.  We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.  That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. 




Huh?

Yeah.

That's right.  Barack tried to get a new agreement but failed.

A fact that a cheap whore who can't even get honest about her politics thought she'd lie about in an article slamming Republicans for lying.

I don't need cheap whores.


None of us who are trying to tell the truth need cheap whores 'helping' us.

All their lying does it obscure reality even further.

I am trying to be as honest about Iraq as I can be because the Iraqi people matter.

I'm not the whore Bob Somerby who announced this week that his entire reason for existence online is to elect Democrats (Ruth noted it here).

Lies are not helping the Iraqi people, lies have never helped the Iraqi people.

The lie that sanctions were a 'humane' way to avoid war didn't help the Iraqi people.

The lie that Iraq had WMD didn't help the Iraqi people.

Democratic politicians were the ones chiefly responsible for the first lie, Republican politicians were the ones chiefly responsible for the second.


A lot of politicians did a lot of lying and, thing is, politicians lie all the time.  It's only when whores enable them that their lies have traction.

It's only when filthy whores see themselves as something better than they are -- cheap tricks who will be used and tossed aside -- and lie for politicians. Diana Ohlbaum is just the latest whore to sling a tired ass.

She writes:


Third, it is clear that leaving U.S. troops in for longer, or returning them now, would not essentially change the fundamentals of the conflict. ISIS and other extremist forces are expanding, not for lack of powerful enemies, but because those enemies are themselves so abhorrent. The repressive, violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran are the chief antagonists and targets of ISIS. By inserting ourselves into this fight, we unavoidably strengthen the very regimes we find so repugnant and so threatening to U.S. interests in the region.



Is that clear?

No, it's not.

And you have to be a damn liar to claim otherwise.

I have been speaking out against the Iraq War since February 2003 -- one month before it started.

It is still going on and I am still speaking out.

But opposition to the illegal war or the desire to stop it does not give me the excuse to lie about it.

The drawdown of US forces is December 2011.

And immediately Nouri al-Maliki

From the December 12, 2011 snapshot:
 
CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism.  Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power.  However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator."  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "The arrest warrant puts Mr. Maliki on a possible collision course with the Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous region in the north and participate in the central government but have longstanding disputes with Baghdad over oil and land; and with Sunni Arabs in provinces like Anbar, Diyala, Nineveh and Salahuddin who have pressed in recent weeks for more autonomy from Baghdad with the backing of the Kurds."
 
What the hell is going on? 
 
Over the weekend, Nouri went for another power grab. 
 
 
It actually started before Saturday but the press was ga-ga over photo-ops.  'Last soldier out! No, really, last US soldier out! Except for the ones still there! Don't look behind the curtain!'   And apparently covering for Barack was more important than telling Americans what was taking place in Iraq.
 

Late Saturday night online (Sunday in print), Liz Sly (Washington Post) noted that the 'government' in Iraq is "unraveling faster than had been anticipated Saturday." Really?  All in one day.  Well,  no, not in one day.  She continued,  "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants will be issued for other Sunni leaders." 



And December 18, 2011 on All Things Considered (NPR), Kelly McEvers offered this take:

Kelly McEvers: Here in Kuwait, just having crossed over the border, we have all these US commanders telling us that they're leaving Iraq in a better place, that it's a thriving democracy. Yet in Baghdad it looks like you have Prime Minister Maliki -- who is a Shi'ite and whose government is Shi'ite -- going after his rivals who are Sunnis. Just yesterday, charges were announced against the Vice President who is Sunni and troops surrounded his house. The Maliki government accuses him of being involved in a terrorist plot. But Maliki's detractors say this is sectarian revenge. So you know we've got these promises from US commanders that things are going really well but this kind of national reconciliation government looks like it's unraveling.

This took place in the immediate aftermath of the US drawdown.

Had more US troops stayed -- Ted Koppel established that not all US troops had left, if you're late to the party, Google that -- would Nouri have pulled that nonsense?

Maybe not.

Maybe so.

It seems doubtful to me that he would have.

But we just don't know.

And that's what's called honesty.


Diana Ohlbaum is dishonest and lying when she writes:


Third, it is clear that leaving U.S. troops in for longer, or returning them now, would not essentially change the fundamentals of the conflict. ISIS and other extremist forces are expanding, not for lack of powerful enemies, but because those enemies are themselves so abhorrent. The repressive, violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran are the chief antagonists and targets of ISIS. By inserting ourselves into this fight, we unavoidably strengthen the very regimes we find so repugnant and so threatening to U.S. interests in the region.


Would US troops on the ground in Iraq now -- as more than so-called 'trainers' -- make any difference?

I don't know and neither does Diana Ohlbaum.

My argument would be that any 'gains' that might result would be erased when the US troops left or decreased in number and Iraq would be right back where it was.  So maybe there's something to be said for allowing it to be sorted out now* and maybe there's not.

[*If the US government is going to 'help' with war planes, they can certainly help with diplomacy.]

But the "violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran" are not the reason the Islamic Society has a the strong foothold in Iraq today.  The reason for that is Nouri al-Maliki's second term and the actions he took.

Is Diana Ohlbaum even aware that Iraqis took to the streets in December 2012 in protests which lasted until January 2014 -- when Nouri began burning down protest camps -- over a year of steady protests?

If she is aware, she's not honest enough to admit it.

She's just another partisan liar pretending to give a damn about Iraq but actually trying to use it as a political football in order to influencing voting.

Her lies -- like other earlier lies -- do not help the Iraqi people.

Is Robin Yassin-Kassab a liar or just really bad at condensing and summaring?  Yassin-Kassab (Guardian) writes of Emma Sky's The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq:



In the 2010 election, with both Sunni and Shia support, the non‑sectarian, nationalist Iraqiya bloc won two seats more than Nouri al‑Maliki’s State of Law coalition. But many MPs were disqualified by the de‑Ba’athification committees, while Maliki demanded a recount and then manoeuvred to stay on as prime minister. To his military’s disgust, Obama ignored the deadlock for two months. Chris Hill, the new US ambassador, told Odierno that Iraq wasn’t ready for democracy and needed a Shia strongman. An opinion poll disagreed: only 14% of Iraqis thought Maliki should stay in power. But the Iranians lobbied hard to preserve him and thus to alienate Iraq from the rest of the Arab world. Obama’s acquiescence led one of Sky’s Iraqi informants to complain: “Either the Americans are stupid or there is a secret deal with Iran” – a view that is still more widespread today. Where Bush made democracy a totem, and thought it could be delivered via occupation, Obama gave up on it entirely. The results of this equally misguided (and orientalist) approach are painfully evident today.
Sky saw the start of Maliki’s slide into paranoid authoritarianism. His regime abandoned (or arrested) the Sahwa militias who had fought al‑Qaida, detained thousands of Sunnis without trial, killed dozens of peaceful protesters, and appointed loyalists rather than competent officers to the army.

In November 2013, Obama praised “a strong, prosperous, inclusive and democratic Iraq”. By July 2014, Islamic State had driven the Iraqi army out of Mosul and set about cleansing religious minorities from the north. 


Let's zoom in here where the trouble starts:


 But many MPs were disqualified by the de‑Ba’athification committees, while Maliki demanded a recount and then manoeuvred to stay on as prime minister.


Many MPs were disqualified -- before the election.

Not after.

Is that clear to the readers?

Saleh al-Mutlaq, for example, would go on to be Deputy Prime Minister in the 2010 to 2014 government.

But he was not allowed to run in the elections.

He was among the Sunnis disqualified (more than Sunnis were disqualified).

Ahead of the elections, he was a frequent guest on Al Jazeera's Inside Iraq where he discussed not being allowed to run.



The summary also implies that Iraqiya won by two votes before a recount.


Wrong, Iraqiya had a bigger lead and it was chipped away at when Nouri stomped his feet and demanded a recount.

Chipped away at but not destroyed.

And the political stalemate -- where Nouri refused to step down and brought the government to a standstill for eight months -- is that clear?

Nothing's clear.

Again, maybe the writer's just bad at summary or recap.

But lies don't help the Iraqi people.

The lies include pretending it's okay that Haider al-Abadi's doing nothing to reach a political solution in Iraq.

Frederic Wehrey and Ala' Albrababa'h's report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted:

The new Iraqi government of Haider al-Abadi initially took several steps to accommodate the tribes and temper the IS’s heavy-handed military campaign in Sunni areas. During his recent visit to Jordan, Abadi also met with several Sunni leaders from the Anbar Province to discuss support for a tribal struggle against the IS. But on balance, Iraqi government support for the tribes has fallen far short of what would be required to turn the tide against the IS in the province.


They noted that in December.


All these months later, it's still true.



    • Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) offers, "Reached late last year, the new Iraq-Kurdistan oil revenue sharing deal was supposed to be the centerpiece of a new rapprochement between the autonomous region and the central government, and new unity in the country. That deal is already in jeopardy, however, over disputes on revenue sharing."

    But it wasn't a deal and it wasn't followed and your first clue there was Haider's refusal to drop the lawsuit Nouri had brought regarding a tanker of oil the Kurds want to sell which has been stalled for over a year now.

    Your second clue that there was no deal was the fact that Haider was involved.

    Haider's a liar like Nouri -- pretending to make changes but never actually doing anything.

    Sunnis remain targeted.

    If you doubt it, Nour Malas (Wall St. Journal) reports:on how Ramadi refugees are not being allowed to enter Baghdad:


    On the outskirts of the capital and 50 miles southeast of Ramadi, Bzeibez is the only crossing over the Euphrates river between Anbar and the capital Baghdad. For five days after Ramadi fell to the Sunni extremists of Islamic State on May 17, the bridge was either completely or intermittently closed to those fleeing violence, officials at the bridge and in Baghdad said.
    [. . .]
    “When they came, yes there were women and children,” Mr. Bassem, the policeman, said on Wednesday. “But we see Daesh, and they have women and children among them so how can we be sure?”
    Behind him, teenage boys pushed steel wheelbarrows stacked with sacks of potatoes, sugar, and fabrics in both directions across the bridge, which was open for its usual working hours on Wednesday. Children, some of them residents of the area and others newly displaced, jumped into the Euphrates below to ward off the midday heat.




    Sunnis aren't welcome in Baghdad by Haider al-Abadi but he can't get enough of Qasem Soleimani.












    • Lastly, better late than never.  We've spent months noting that the US government has lost Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq -- a Shi'ite leader.


    We've also noted that the US government has done nothing to address that.

    Today the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted the following:
























    • at

    Friday, June 05, 2015

    The revisionary critic turns out to be a revisionist herself

    I was eager to read "Republicans' revisionist history on Iraq" at The Hill because this is taking place and a strong article on the topic is needed. Mitt Romney, for example, blew the 2012 election in many ways but never more so than in the October 2012 debates.

    So the topic is one that needs to be explored.  And when I saw the name on the byline, I thought, "Uh oh."  Diana Ohlbaum.

    Even more so when the credit at the end of the article failed to note her politics.

    She's not 'independent.'

    Nor is she objective.

    At Foreign Policy in Focus, you're either a Democrat or an 'independent' which is just code for Socialist.

    Reading the article itself, it was clear that she was just another partisan liar.

    Take this mixture of fact and fantasy:


     Let's start by remembering that the 2007 surge was intended as a temporary build-up to buy time, not as a prelude to permanent occupation. It was President George W. Bush who signed the security agreement with Iraq that set a date of Dec. 31, 2011 for all U.S. forces to withdraw from the country. And despite the U.S. success in holding up its side of the bargain — reducing levels of violence in order to create space for political progress — the Iraqi government remained unwilling or unable to do its part.


    She has the goal of the 'surge' correct -- she fails to note that's Barack's current strategy as well (bombs are being dropped to buy time).


    But this nonsense of 'set a date of Dec. 31' blah blah.

    She just might be stupid enough to know nothing about the UN mandate that existed prior to the SOFA.  The UN mandate covered the occupation of Iraq by all foreign countries.  It was a yearly mandate.  Once Nouri became prime minister -- Nouri al-Maliki -- he faced extreme criticism over renewing the mandate.  For 2007, the Iraqi Parliament was in an uproar that they had not been consulted.

    Nouri swore they would be the next time.

    But when the 2007 mandate was expiring and a 2008 one was needed, Nouri bypassed them again creating another huge uproar.

    The SOFA replaces the UN mandate (for the US, the UK had to -- and did -- negotiate their own agreement) and the point of the SOFA was to allow Nouri to escape the yearly slams by the Parliament.  This was done by doing a three year agreement for the occupation forces (US only in the SOFA) as opposed to the yearly one that the UN mandate had gone with.

    The SOFA was not intended to be the last word.

    Not by Bully Boy Bush, not by Barack.

    And here's Barack speaking about it on June 19, 2014:



    Q    Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq?  Any regrets about that decision in 2011?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.  We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.  We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.  That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. 



    There's Barack admitting he attempted to keep US forces in Iraq longer.

    So liars need to stop lying.


    Now for this part:

     Second, we must acknowledge our own role in giving rise to ISIS. Almost all of its higher-ups were members of Hussein's security forces, disbanded under the de-Baathification policy of the Bush administration. Set loose in society with arms, training and grievances, but no jobs or income, these sacked officers formed the core of the Iraqi insurgency. And it was in U.S.-run detention camps that terrorist leaders like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS, did their best recruiting.
    Third, it is clear that leaving U.S. troops in for longer, or returning them now, would not essentially change the fundamentals of the conflict. ISIS and other extremist forces are expanding, not for lack of powerful enemies, but because those enemies are themselves so abhorrent. The repressive, violent and corrupt regimes in Syria and Iran are the chief antagonists and targets of ISIS. By inserting ourselves into this fight, we unavoidably strengthen the very regimes we find so repugnant and so threatening to U.S. interests in the region.


    The role in giving rise to IS in Iraq has to do with Nouri's second term.  That's not the Bully Boy Bush people.  That's the 2010 election when the Iraqi people voted Nouri out but Barack refused to allow them to be heard and backed Nouri for a second term, backed Nouri for 8 months when Nouri refused to step down and had the US officials broker an agreement (The Erbil Agreement) that went around the Iraqi Constitution and the Iraqi people's vote to give Nouri a second term.

    If you can't talk about that, you really shouldn't be talking at all.

    On the third point, she's a liar again.

    I don't support any US troops in Iraq.

    But that's my opinion.

    We'll go over the third point in the next Iraq snapshot because it's a long one.

    The following community sites updated:



  • Mikey Likes It!
    Soul Kiss (Olivia Newton-John and Barry Gibb)
  • Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
    unicef
  • SICKOFITRADLZ
    Glen Ford on Bernie Fake Ass Sanders
  • Ruth's Report
    Poor Hillary
  • Oh Boy It Never Ends
    An appeal during a crisis
  • Like Maria Said Paz
    Rand Paul
  • Ann's Mega Dub
    O'Malley gets it
  • Trina's Kitchen
    Margaret Griffis frequently bothers me
  • Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
    Chafee versus Clinton
  • Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
    Nichelle Nichols
  • The Common Ills
    Iraq snapshot
  • Cedric's Big Mix
    She's no bachelor

  • The Daily Jot
    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY SAYS IT TAKES A DOORMAT!







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

    iraq




    at

    Thursday, June 04, 2015

    Iraq snapshot

    Thursday, May 4, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the civilian killed by a US air strike in Iraq are revealed just as Foreign Policy in Focus argues for less restraint when bombing in Iraq, the State Dept gets asked about the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report on the Islamic State which found the Pentagon drooling over the prospect of the rise of ISIS, a dumb Tweeter (redundant?) tries to blame Bully Boy Bush for installing Nouri while ignoring that it was Barack who insisted Nouri remain prime minister of Iraq in 2010 despite Nouri losing the election, and much more.



    Today as the US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Marie Harf was asked about the US intent regarding ISIS in 2012.
    QUESTION: On Iraq, actually, could you give us a sense of the significance of the pledge of allegiance from various Sunni tribes in Anbar province to ISIL?
    MS HARF: Well, I appreciate the question, certainly. I think that, quite frankly, I’m not sure exactly what sheikhs or leaders you’re referring to specifically. We’ve said since the beginning of this crisis that the situation in Anbar is complex. Many top Sunni leaders are supporting the government in their efforts against ISIL; some don’t. So it’s pretty complex, and I wouldn’t want to categorize everyone, certainly, in one way.
    I think we’ve said the U.S. is supporting the plan that was announced by the Iraqi council of ministers to accelerate the training and equipping of local tribes in coordination with Anbar authorities. They announced that on May 19th. This also calls for expanding recruitment into the Iraqi army coming from Anbar. And we’re also encouraged by the announcement on May 27th by the Iraqis of the induction of 800 additional tribal fighters into the PMF, the Popular Mobilization Force.
    So again, the prime minister has been clear that this plan has to be centered around leaders in Anbar, and Anbari fighters being part of the solution here. I don’t know exactly who you’re referring to, but the situation in Anbar is, of course, a complex one, and there may be some people who support ISIL, but there are many who don’t.
    QUESTION: The al-Jumailis, I guess, is the main --
    MS HARF: I’m sorry?
    QUESTION: The al-Jumailis, I think, are the main tribe in the --
    MS HARF: Look, I’m happy to check on them specifically.
    QUESTION: It is striking, though, how similar – how what’s happening currently does chime in with the prediction we now know that the Defense Intelligence Agency made in 2012 that a Salafist principality might grow up in eastern Syria and western Iraq, and that – in fact, that was the policy. That’s what – the goal of the GCC countries, your allies in the region. Would you accept that that’s what’s happened?
    MS HARF: Well, I think you’re making a number of sort of sweeping generalizations.
    QUESTION: That was the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2012.
    MS HARF: Well, I haven’t read the whole DIA report. I’m happy to go back and pull that and take a look at it. There was a lot of assessment done at the time about the possible futures – directions that Iraq could take, certainly. So I’m happy to go back and look at those, but --
    QUESTION: You don’t think it’s the goal of the GCC to have some sort of Salafist area there to be a sort of bulwark against Iran?
    MS HARF: I think the fact that GCC and regional countries are taking direct military action against ISIL in the region now, I think, should make it pretty clear how they feel about ISIL.


    First, let's briefly note the pledge Marie was being asked about.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) explains, "Today, key Anbar sheikh Ahmed Jumaili read a joint statement from a number of key tribes in Fallujah, pledging loyalty to ISIS, and expressing their belief that the best way to return calm to the province was by backing ISIS against the 'infidels, apostates and Shias'."

    Now for the other point being raised,  the recently revealed 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report.  Brad Hoff reported on it at the end of last month:



    May 22, 2015 "Information Clearing House" - "Levant Report " -  On Monday, May 18, the conservative government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a selection of formerly classified documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense and State Department through a federal lawsuit.
    While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.
    Astoundingly, the newly declassified report states that for “THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.
    The DIA report, formerly classified “SECRET//NOFORN” and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.
    The document shows that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset.
    While a number of analysts and journalists have documented long ago the role of western intelligence agencies in the formation and training of the armed opposition in Syria, this is the highest level internal U.S. intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see ISIS as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The document matter-of-factly states just that scenario.



    Yesterday, Seaumas Milne (Guardian) also noted the DIA report:



     A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.
    Raising the “possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality”, the Pentagon report goes on, “this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)”.
    Which is pretty well exactly what happened two years later. The report isn’t a policy document. It’s heavily redacted and there are ambiguities in the language. But the implications are clear enough. A year into the Syrian rebellion, the US and its allies weren’t only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of “Islamic state” – despite the “grave danger” to Iraq’s unity – as a Sunni buffer to weaken Syria.


    The report has received little attention despite the fact that it outlines a possible outcome (which appears to be coming true) which, judging by the White House inaction on Iraq in the year of the report and the two years that followed, Barack Obama did nothing to alter or combat.

    David Mizner (ICH) reminds:


    The report concerns a period in time when the escalating violence in Iraq had ceased to be a prominent topic in the US press and when its coverage of the war in Syria — mirroring the discussion in Washington — focused on the Assad government, not the forces aligned against it. This may be hard to imagine now that ISIS has become the US government’s favorite monster, but during these months President Obama and his team gave major speeches on Syria that didn’t even mention the group.
    Even after ISIS took Fallujah in January 2014, discussion of the group in establishment outlets was scarce. It wasn’t until later in 2014 — after continued battlefield victories and heavily publicized beheadings of westerners — that Islamic State became Public Enemy Number 1.

    American officials claimed the ascendancy of ISIS had caught American intelligence by surprise. Yet in the 2012 report — which was circulated widely through the US government — the DIA foresaw the creation of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria. It also said that Islamic State of Iraq could “return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi” and declare an “Islamic state” in western Iraq and eastern Syria.

    Dahlia Wasfi (ICH) puts the 2012 DIA report into some context of earlier actions in the Iraq War observing:

    Once Iraq’s secular government - known for its ruthlessness - was deposed via the “Shock and Awe” invasion, US administrators installed sectarian Shia leaders with strong ties to Iran into power.  Many of these new Iraqi officials had been forced into exile by Saddam Hussein decades earlier because of their theocratic political ambitions.  They found safe haven in Iran, where their parties were supported by the government.  Some of these men served in the Iranian Army during the Iran-Iraq War. These Shia conservatives have remained in power in Iraq through several rounds of controversial elections.  For example, current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, like his predecessors Nouri al-Maliki and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is a member of the conservative Shia Dawah Party based in Iran.  Their rule in Iraq has been characterised by brutal repression of the population, including the use of death squads to eliminate opposition.
    The “new” (since 2003) Iraqi Army has also been shaped by Iranian influence.  Former Badr Brigades commander, Bayan Jabr, organised the Army’s ranks when he served as Iraq’s Minister of the Interior.  Since its inception, the new Army has consisted of young Iraqi recruits desperate for paying jobs, as well as members of conservative Shia party militias from Iran. This fighting force - armed, trained, and funded by the US - is today led by General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

    The repressive theocratic Shia regime imposed on Iraq by US occupiers inevitably spawned a counter movement: a sectarian Sunni opposition faction which in the last several years has morphed into ISIS.  Like the Iraqi Army, ISIS is also comprised of foreign fighters and young Iraqis desperate for paying jobs and an end to their oppression.  According to journalist Nafeez Ahmed, Western powers predicted the rise of a dangerous extremist group such as ISIS in 2012.  But not only did Western powers predict ISIS, they supported its creation via funding and arms to extremist “rebel groups” in Syria to serve as a check on Shia power in the region - power that expanded as a result of US policy in Iraq in the first place.  Now in 2015, President Obama is not about to destroy the terror group that he and other Western governments and regional allies helped to create. 




    Changing topics, this morning we were noting the sad and disgusting position of Foreign Policy in Focus which now apparently supports the bombing of civilians:

    And it serves no one.
    Nor does Russ Wellen's latest insta-expertise where he knows everything thanks to a Mitchell Prothero article.
    Wellen repeats this:


    “Requests for air support,” Prothero continues, “which already go through an overly cumbersome process before the U.S.-led coalition will act—went unnoticed or ignored, and most of the units in Ramadi were unable to coordinate with one another because of deep-seated distrust among units composed of soldiers from different sects.”


    And you know he [Wellen] thinks it's awful because he adds "Even worse" immediately after.
    Did you ever think you'd see the day where Foreign Policy in Focus would publish an article whining that bombs were not being dropped fast enough on a country?
    First off, Iraq is not an empty field.
    It's an occupied country.
    The process should be "cumbersome."
    These air strikes have killed civilians.
    They could kill many more if they were less "cumbersome."
    Second, they have to be "cumbersome" because otherwise -- as Congress and the administration have both noted -- the US bombings could be used by various Iraqis to take out their political rivals.
    It really is appalling that Foreign Policy in Focus has published an article bemoaning a process for bombing that they find too rigorous.
    But I guess when a Democrat's in the White House a number of supposed activists let their inner whores work the street corner.

    Shameful and when whores do what Wellen did, events always slap them in their ugly faces.  See previous efforts at Operation Happy Talk and this is how it always ends, Iraq and karma get the last word.

    Hours after Wellen's embarrassing war propaganda went up, AFP was reporting, "An airstrike by a U.S.-led coalition flattened an entire neighborhood of a northern Iraqi town controlled by ISIS, killing dozens of people including civilians, witnesses and security sources said."  An estimated 70 civilians were killed in the bombing of Hawija. AFP quotes Hassam Mahmoud al-Jubbouri stating, "I ran with my sons and wife and took cover under the staircase. Three to four powerful explosions followed the first blast and I felt the roof of my house was about to collapse over our heads."

    But Russ Wellen wants more US air strikes on Iraq.  He wants more and he wants them to be "less cumbersome."

    Again, this is a very sad day in the history of Foreign Policy in Focus.

    You can't walk it back when you've come out as a War Hawk.  When you've come out in favor of bombings and of relaxing even the most tiny efforts of constraint on those bombings, you really have nothing to left to say, not on the left.



    Now's a good time to note Margaret Kimberley's observations this week at Black Agenda Report:

     Most people who call themselves progressives or who protested the war in Iraq didn’t really want fundamental change. They don’t have the stomach to challenge the assumptions upon which American aggressions are based. That is why they so quickly forgot their supposedly antiwar sentiments and clung so fiercely to Barack Obama. They want to wrap themselves in the flag or in being on a winning team but that means being a part of America’s horrendous tale of conquest, race based terrorism and numerous other oppressions.
    The siren song of American superiority is strong. How often did antiwar activists or other progressives claim that a particular atrocity or outrageous act was “un-American.” Of course enslavement and genocide were very American so the claim always rang hollow, but the urge to want to be the good, patriotic American is still there and very, very strong.
    Exceptionalism is a concept that is rarely questioned. Manifest Destiny and the violence that comes with it are still considered not just acceptable but noble and benevolent. That explains why Obama’s wars are accepted by the same people who protested against Bush.
    It can be difficult to remain in opposition to the American state. It requires an ability to oppose not just war, or economic policy, but a desire for inclusion in a rotten system. The yearning for freedom expressed in the liberation movements was often little more than a yearning to be accepted or to have a seat at the table.

    Yes, the whores are always among us.  Telling lies to curry favor and to support their lying heroes.

    Take for example this one with the fat face and the shoulder length hair that only makes the face look fatter:






    • Do you think you have a point?

    I'm sure the other whores agree with you.

    But reality does not.

    Yes, Bully Boy Bush installed Nouri al-Maliki in 2006 as Iraq's Prime Minister.  Among the reasons he did so was the CIA profile of Nouri which noted the man's intense paranoia and argued it could be used to control and manipulate him.

    That was the primary reason Bully Boy Bush supported him.  It wasn't the sole reason.  And the second biggest reason was that the Iraqi Parliament wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari for the post but Bully Boy Bush was concerned that giving al-Jaafari a second, consecutive term could turn it into a lifetime post -- as it was with Saddam Hussein.


    And if that's where it started and ended, a whore like Ali Gharib might have a reason to crow.

    However, there's also 2010.

    When the Iraqi people went to the polls and voted, over extreme obstacles.

    And they voted for change.  Nouri's State of Law lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.

    And what happened?

    Barack supported the loser.  And with Barack's support, loser Nouri refused to step down.  And Iraq entered an eight month political stalemate as a result where Parliament didn't meet, the government came to a standstill.

    Nouri could have only brought the entire Iraqi government to an eight month standstill with the support of Barack.

    And the standstill did not end with Nouri stepping aside so that the rightful winner could become prime minister.

    No, it ended with the US-brokered Erbil Agreement.  The US officials went to the leaders of the other political blocs in Iraq and said, 'Look, Nouri's held out for 8 months.  He could keep the government blocked for another 8.  Do the right thing for Iraq, help it move forward.  We'll give Nouri the post of prime minister and, in exchange, we'll get you the things your people need.  We'll put it into the contract, it will be legally binding and Nouri will honor it because he wants a second term and because this contract will have the full backing of the United States.'

    So they signed off on it.

    November 10, 2010, The Erbil Agreement is signed.  November 11, 2010, the Iraqi Parliament has their first real session in over eight months and finally declares a president, a Speaker of Parliament and Nouri as prime minister-designate -- all the things that were supposed to happen in April of 2010 but didn't.

    And now that he had been named prime minister (the "designate" did not matter since he won the post by contract and not by the polls), Nouri insisted he'd have to wait to honor his promises in the contract.

    And the US government and the press treated that as acceptable.

    Only Ayad Allawi had the foresight to publicly note that, by delaying at that point,  Nouri was signaling that he would never honor his part of the contract.

    And that's what happened.

    We could go all over this again and go step by step on how the political process crumbled as a result but that's the reality.

    Nouri would not have had a second term if the will of the Iraqi voters had been honored.

    Instead, Barack Obama wanted a second term (because Nouri would be agreeable to Barack's aims regarding a drawdown) for Nouri.

    So it really doesn't matter, dirty whore Ali Gharib, that Bully Boy Bush installed Nouri in 2006 when, in fact, Barack overturned the votes of the Iraqi people, went around the Iraqi constitution and trampled on what might have been an emerging democracy to install Nouri for a second term.


    The Latin American Herald Tribune notes, "At least 29 members of the Iraqi security forces were killed in a series of attacks by Islamic State militants in the western Iraqi province of al-Anbar, security officials told Efe." Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 309 violent deaths across Iraq today.




    Lastly, we  noted Sunday that the United Nations is being hard in terms of needed money to continue important programs in Iraq. That has not changed.






  • 39 minutes ago
    6.95m in in need of healthcare and nutrition services. 1.3m children at risk of disease
    50 retweets 31 favorites

























    • at