Monday, November 16, 2009

Colorado Springs Gazette: 'time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis'

Today the Colorado Springs Gazette editorializes on leaving Iraq concluding, "It is time to leave Iraq to the Iraqis, though the process may be messy." Meanwhile Taz Patchen writes a letter to the editors of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin which includes:

I think this war is a waste of our time and money. We have other things more important than the war in Iraq, more important things that we could spend $3 trillion on, such as the poor people in the United States. Also, for schools all around the U.S. that don't have money to spend on new textbooks, desks, computers, white boards and other equipment needed today.

Sara Flounders (Workers World) observes, "The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now cost more than $1 trillion. The feeble health care reform bill that squeaked through the House, and might not survive Senate revisions next year, is scheduled to cost $1.1 trillion over a 10-year period. The bloated, increasingly dysfunctional, for-profit U.S. military machine is unable to solve the problems or rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq, and it is unable to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in the U.S. It is unable to meet the needs of people anywhere." We'll note Flounders in full at the end of this entry.

Staff Sgt Stephen L. Murphy died serving in the Iraq War on Sunday November 8th. There will be a funeral for him on Wednesday and the memorial service was held yesterday. WHDH offers video of the memorial. Melanie Plenda (Union Leader) quotes the fallen's mother Carol Murphy stating at yesterday's memorial, "I was blessed with something wonderful, but it was him time to go." And Plenda reports:

After the memorial, Carol Murphy said she still is waiting to hear what happened to her son in Iraq. She spoke of how she learned the news her son was gone.
"I got out of my bed, because there was someone at the door," she said. "I thought it was him. He was always surprising me like that. And all week I had this feeling with him. I had this feeling he was going to come home."
Instead, three Marines broke the news of his death to her.

Trent Spiner (Concord Monitor) reports, "Murphy loved to play guitar. When he first tried to join the Marines, he was turned down because he had dropped out of Monadnock Regional High School and was too small. So, at the age of 18, Murphy went back to school, eventually graduating from Conant High School with honors, according to Quade. To bulk up, he went to the gym twice a day." WMUR offers a video report of the memorial here and includes quotes from various mourners including Stephen Murphy's kindergarten teacher.

Meanwhile a lunch was held in Spc Jeremy Pierce's honor yesterday in Fairbanks, Alaska. Christopher Eshleman (Fairbanks Daily News Miner) reports that the Iraq War veteran "lost his lower leg in mid-August" while serving his second tour of duty in Iraq and yesterday:

Pierce downplayed the attention at Sunday's luncheon, asking the estimated 120 attending to remember the sacrifices of everyone in the armed forces.
"There are many people here who put their lives on the line," he said.
Pierce worked as a gunner and driver during both tours in Iraq. But he said he’d originally joined to get his hands on heavy machinery, work he expected would pay dividends if he went into contracting — his father is a carpenter -- later in life. Instead, he wound up earning a bronze star for service in combat and, later, a Purple Heart.

Wynne Parry (News Times) reports on a talk Iraq War veteran Lt Col Michael Zacchea gave Thursday about returning from Iraq with flashbacks, the inability to sleep, and other issues which led him into "counseling and therapy. Outreach to other veterans and to the rest of us, or 'being part of the solution,' has also been an important part of his path back towards a normal life."

Yesterday saw a ceremony for Connecticut National Guard members. Rinker Buck (Hartford Courant) reports, "The dispatching of the 1st Battalion, 102nd Infantry Regiment of New Haven to Afghanistan, and the 250th Engineer Company of New London, a bridge-building unit that is being sent to Iraq, is the largest single deployment of Connecticut Guard members since the Korean War. The send-off ceremony attracted so many family members, well-wishers and state dignitaries that the event had to be moved from the Hartford State Armory to the Connecticut Convention Center to accommodate the crowd." Freesia Singngam (Bristol Press) quotes the state's governor, Jodi Rell, stating, "We have never sent as many Connecticut National Guard troops out at one time as we do today. It means many more hard months." If you click here, you can see a photo essay by John Woike (Hartford Courant) of the send off.

Kim Murphy (Los Angeles Times) reports on the Fort Lewis GI coffee house, Coffee Strong:

"There's no way you can spend five years of your life being deployed in Iraq and be a normal human being when you come back to the United States. You're pretty far gone by that time," Seth Manzel, who spent two years in Iraq with the Army's 1st Stryker Brigade, said as he poured free drinks Wednesday in honor of Veterans Day. "We wanted to get involved in something that would help."
Business was light -- Ft. Lewis has 18,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many of the rest took advantage of the holiday to sleep in. But a typical morning at the coffeehouse sees tables filled with men and women in fatigues, sipping drinks, scanning computers free of charge and reading newspapers.
Schubert played over the sound system that sometimes features live folk concerts, hip-hop performances or someone banging on the piano under the "Support War Resisters" poster that spans much of one wall.
During the Vietnam War, GI coffeehouses sprang up to provide a support system for disillusioned veterans returning to a hostile public. Now they are making a comeback among active military and combat veterans frustrated with what they consider a lack of access to medical and counseling services, and former soldiers convinced that the best way to help their comrades is to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bonnie reminds that Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Gesture" went up last night.
We'll close with Sara Flounders "Why U.S. occupation cannot transform Afghanistan or Iraq" (Workers World):

Just how powerful is the U.S. military today?

Why is the largest military machine on the planet unable to defeat the resistance in Afghanistan, in a war that has lasted longer than World War II or Vietnam?

Afghanistan ranks among the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world today. It has one of the shortest life expectancy rates, highest infant mortality rates and lowest rates of literacy.

The total U.S. military budget has more than doubled from the beginning of this war in 2001 to the $680 billion budget signed by President Barack Obama Oct. 28. The U.S. military budget today is larger than the military budgets of the rest of the world combined. The U.S. arsenal has the most advanced high-tech weapons.

The funds and troop commitment to Afghanistan have grown with every year of occupation. Last January another 20,000 troops were sent; now there is intense pressure on President Obama to add an additional 40,000 troops. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. More than three times as many forces are currently in Afghanistan when NATO forces and military contractors are counted.

Eight years ago, after an initial massive air bombardment and a quick, brutal invasion, every voice in the media was effusive with assurances that Afghanistan would be quickly transformed and modernized, and the women of Afghanistan liberated. There were assurances of schools, roads, potable water, health care, thriving industry and Western-style “democracy.” A new Marshall Plan was in store.

Was it only due to racist and callous disregard that none of this happened?

In Iraq, how could conditions be worse than during the 13 years of starvation sanctions the U.S. imposed after the 1991 war? Today more than a third of the population has died, is disabled, internally displaced and/or refugees. Fear, violence against women and sectarian divisions have shredded the fabric of society.

Previously a broad current in Pakistan looked to the West for development funds and modernization. Now they are embittered and outraged at U.S. arrogance after whole provinces were forcibly evacuated and bombarded in the hunt for Al Qaeda.

U.S. occupation forces are actually incapable of carrying out a modernization program. They are capable only of massive destruction, daily insults and atrocities. That is why the U.S. is unable to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan or Iraq. That is what fuels the resistance.

Today every effort meant to demonstrate the power and strength of U.S. imperialism instead confirms its growing weakness and its systemic inability to be a force for human progress on any level.

Collaborators and warlords

Part of U.S. imperialism’s problem is that its occupation forces are required to rely on the most corrupt, venal and discredited warlords. The only interest these competing military thugs have is in pocketing funds for reconstruction and development. Entire government ministries, their payrolls and their projects have been found to be total fiction. Billions allocated for schools, water and road construction have gone directly into the warlords’ pockets. Hundreds of news articles, congressional inquiries and U.N. reports have exposed just how all-pervasive corruption is.

In Iraq the U.S. occupation depends on the same type of corrupt collaborators. For example, a BBC investigation reported that $23 billion had been lost, stolen or “not properly accounted for” in Iraq. A U.S. gag order prevented discussion of the allegations. (June 10, 2008)

Part of the BBC search for the missing billions focused on Hazem Shalaan, who lived in London until he was appointed minister of defense in 2004. He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the Iraqi defense ministry.

But the deeper and more intractable problem is not the local corrupt collaborators. It is the very structure of the Pentagon and the U.S. government. It is a problem that Stanley McChrystal, the commanding general in Afghanistan, or President Obama cannot change or solve.

It is the problem of an imperialist military built solely to serve the profit system.

Contractor industrial complex

All U.S. aid, both military and what is labeled “civilian,” is funneled through thousands and thousands of contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors. None of these U.S. corporate middlemen are even slightly interested in the development of Afghanistan or Iraq. Their only immediate aim is to turn a hefty superprofit as quickly as possible, with as much skim and double billing as possible. For a fee they will provide everything from hired guns, such as Blackwater mercenaries, to food service workers, mechanics, maintenance workers and long-distance truck drivers.

These hired hands also do jobs not connected to servicing the occupation. All reconstruction and infrastructure projects of water purification, sewage treatment, electrical generation, health clinics and road clearance are parceled out piecemeal. Whether these projects ever open or function properly is of little interest or concern. Billing is all that counts.

In past wars, most of these jobs were carried out by the U.S. military. The ratio of contractors to active-duty troops is now more than 1-to-1 in both Iraq and Afghanistan. During the Vietnam War it was 1-to-6.

In 2007 the Associated Press put the number in Iraq alone at 180,000: “The United States has assembled an imposing industrial army in Iraq that’s larger than its uniformed fighting force and is responsible for such a broad swath of responsibilities that the military might not be able to operate without its private-sector partners.” (Sept. 20, 2007)

The total was 190,000 by August 2008. (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 18, 2008)

Some corporations have become synonymous with war profiteering, such as Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater in Iraq, and Louis Berger Group, BearingPoint and DynCorp International in Afghanistan.

Every part of the U.S. occupation has been contracted out at the highest rate of profit, with no coordination, no oversight, almost no public bids. Few of the desperately needed supplies reach the dislocated population traumatized by the occupation.

There are now so many pigs at the trough that U.S. forces are no longer able to carry out the broader policy objectives of the U.S. ruling class. The U.S military has even lost count, by tens of thousands, of the numbers of contractors, where they are or what they are doing—except being paid.

Losing count of the mercenaries

The danger of an empire becoming dependent on mercenary forces to fight unpopular wars has been understood since the days of the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago.

A bipartisan Congressional Commission on Wartime Contracting was created last year to examine government contracting for reconstruction, logistics and security operations and to recommend reforms. However, Michael Thibault, co-chair of the commission, explained at a Nov. 2 hearing that “there is no single source for a clear, complete and accurate picture of contractor numbers, locations, contracts and cost.” (AFP, Nov. 2)

“[Thibault said] the Pentagon in April counted about 160,000 contractors mainly in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait, but Central Command recorded more than 242,000 contractors a month earlier.” The stunning difference of 82,000 contractors was based on very different counts in Afghanistan. The difference alone is far greater than the 60,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Thibault continued: “How can contractors be properly managed if we aren’t sure how many there are, where they are and what are they doing?” The lack of an accurate count “invites waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money and undermines the achievement of U.S. mission objectives.” The Nov. 2 Federal Times reported that Tibault also asked: “How can we assure taxpayers that they aren’t paying for ‘ghost’ employees?”

This has become an unsolvable contradiction in imperialist wars for profit, markets and imperialist domination. Bourgeois academics, think tanks and policy analysts are becoming increasingly concerned.

Thomas Friedman, syndicated columnist and multimillionaire who is deeply committed to the long-term interests of U.S. imperialism, describes the dangers of a “contractor-industrial-complex in Washington that has an economic interest in foreign expeditions.” (New York Times, Nov. 3)

Outsourcing war

Friedman hastens to explain that he is not against outsourcing. His concern is the pattern of outsourcing key tasks, with money and instructions changing hands multiple times in a foreign country. That only invites abuse and corruption. Friedman quoted Allison Stanger, author of “One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy,” who told him: “Contractors provide security for key personnel and sites, including our embassies; feed, clothe and house our troops; train army and police units; and even oversee other contractors. Without a multinational contractor force to fill the gap, we would need a draft to execute these twin interventions.”

That is the real reason for the contracted military forces. The Pentagon does not have enough soldiers, and they don’t have enough collaborators or “allies” to fight their wars.

According to the Congressional Research Service, contractors in 2009 account for 48 percent of the Department of Defense workforce in Iraq and 57 percent in Afghanistan. Thousands of other contractors work for corporate-funded “charities” and numerous government agencies. The U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development make even more extensive use of them; 80 percent of the State Department budget is for contractors and grants.

Contractors are supposedly not combat troops, although almost 1,800 U.S. contractors have been killed since 9/11. (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 30) Of course there are no records on the thousands of Afghans and Iraqis killed working for U.S. corporate contractors, or the many thousands of peoples from other oppressed nations who are shipped in to handle the most dangerous jobs.

Contracting is a way of hiding not only the casualties, but also the actual size of the U.S. occupation force. Fearful of domestic opposition, the government intentionally lists the figures for the total number of forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as far less than the real numbers.

A system run on cost overruns

Cost overruns and war profiteering are hardly limited to Iraq, Afghanistan or active theaters of war. They are the very fabric of the U.S. war machine and the underpinning of the U.S. economy.

When President Obama signed the largest military budget in history Oct. 28 he stated: “The Government Accountability Office, the GAO, has looked into 96 major defense projects from the last year, and found cost overruns that totaled $296 billion.” This was on a total 2009 military budget of $651 billion. So almost half of the billions of dollars handed over to military corporations are cost overruns!

This is at a time when millions of workers face long-term systemic unemployment and massive foreclosures.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now cost more than $1 trillion. The feeble health care reform bill that squeaked through the House, and might not survive Senate revisions next year, is scheduled to cost $1.1 trillion over a 10-year period.

The bloated, increasingly dysfunctional, for-profit U.S. military machine is unable to solve the problems or rebuild the infrastructure in Afghanistan or Iraq, and it is unable to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure in the U.S. It is unable to meet the needs of people anywhere.

It is absorbing the greatest share of the planet’s resources and a majority of the U.S. national budget. This unsustainable combination will sooner or later give rise to new resistance here and around the world.


Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

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



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





















Sunday, November 15, 2009

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Gesture"

the gesture

Isaiah's latest The World Today Just Nuts "The Gesture." As Barack Obama bows before Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko, Banty Rooster Rahm Emanuel explains, "So many have focused on the message the bow sent to Japan, they ignored Barack's message to America." On Barack's cheeks are written "KISS IT." Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts. And for more on the topic of the illustration, Isaiah refers you to Wally's
"THIS JUST IN! GROVEL IN CHIEF!" and Cedric's "So eager to please."














And the war drags on . . .

Provincial and municipal authorities, particularly those in heavily Sunni areas ignored by the Shiite-led Baghdad government, grew dependent on U.S. funds and expertise. They remain so today, even as the money and manpower start to dwindle. Samarra's mayor has no public budget, carries a revolver to work and, albeit graciously, punts more questions than he answers when the subject turns to security, politics and life after the American withdrawal. He's happy, though, to talk about how much the Americans have done for his city.
Other leaders are more blunt. "All those top leaders in power now, they each have an army on standby," said Wasim Hamad Hawas, the self-described founder of the first resistance group that fought the Americans in Samarra, only to eventually make amends and get on the U.S. payroll. "They will fight us as soon as the Americans aren't standing in the middle."
As Whitehurst and some of his men walked around the city shortly before leaving, residents flocked over, clamoring for micro grants, bundles of cash the U.S. military has handed out to thousands of Iraqis in recent years to jump-start local economies.
Even though Whitehurst was with one of his Iraqi Army counterparts, residents turned to him and his captains, identifiable by their rank patches, to air grievances.
Iraqi soldiers and police officers are omnipresent in Samarra these days. They respond buoyantly when asked about their readiness to keep things calm after the Americans leave.
"People don't like seeing American soldiers walking in the cities," said Gen. Rashid Muhammed Zahir, head of the Samarra operations command, who has warm relations with the Americans. "They want to see the Americans just stay in one or two bases."
But some U.S. soldiers express skepticism about how well the Iraqis will do when they're on their own. "They have the tools to protect their country. They have the equipment and the training," said 1st Sgt. Jeremiah Conachan, 33, of Milwaukie, Ore. "I just don't know if they have the heart. . . . The sun comes up; it's 8 in the morning. You can get an hour of work from these guys, and then they're done -- done for the day."
Was it worth it?
I posed that question to several of Whitehurst's men in August during a visit to their outpost near Samarra, which is now closed. Many said it was. Children no longer throw rocks at Americans. Attacks against U.S. troops are as low as they've ever been. They were leaving behind schools and clinics and small businesses that the soldiers hope years from now will be the cornerstone of the American legacy in Iraq.
There were skeptics in the crowd, too.
"We're sitting here in the middle of a little revolution between Iraqis, and we're sitting here being security guards," said Spec. Lorenzo Sanchez, 34, of West Covina, Calif. "We should let them do their thing and get out of their way."
I ran into Sanchez one night as he was emptying sandbags. He was being punished, he explained, because he tacked additional days to his two-week home leave to spend time with his 2-year-old daughter. Having been deployed three times to Iraq, he said, he was leaving "a lost man," with no hope for the country.
"How do you tell someone's parents that their kids died in Iraq?" he asked. "For what purpose? I mean, at the beginning, when we first invaded Iraq, it was for our freedoms, for our rights. . . . Well, here we are a few years later, and is it really for our freedoms and our rights?"
He continued, thinking of what a fallen soldier's mother might be told: " 'Your son died for, well we're not sure, but he fought a good fight.' "


The above is from Ernesto Londono's "Was the Iraq war worth it? A divided city tries to answer." (Washington Post) and there's not a great deal that anyone can point to, is there? Equally true, there's nothing the military can accomplish in Iraq. They've been kept on the ground in Iraq to allow those who ordered this illegal war some effort at saving face.

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4359. Tonight? 4362.


In other news of violence, Jenan Hussein (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 child and left five people wounded while another Mosul roadside bombing left three people injured.

The big news out of Iraq is the possible blocking of the election law Parliament passed last Sunday. Waleed Ibrahim, Michael Christie and Micheal Roddy (Reuters) reports Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, has stated the law needs to be changed to allow external Iraqi refugees to participate and to be represented. If the law is not changed (by Tuesday afternoon), he states he will veto it. (The Presidency Council is made up of Iraq's President and two vice presidents. After Parliament passes a law, it goes to the council which decides whether to implement it or not.)

Refugees are also in the news via AP which interviews professional liar Eric Schwartz who is a joke and also the Asst Sec of Population, Refugees and Migration at the US State Dept. He's apparently conveying the message that the US government has now washed its hands of Iraq and is instead focusing on forced returns for Iraqi refugees.

Despite the fact that various humanitarian organizations have issued studies this year pointing out how little the Baghdad government or 'government' has done for refugees, Eric's declaring 'strides have been made'. And the 'answer' is for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq.

Eric's so busy tasting his own ass that he forgets the UN and the Red Cross have both noted it is not safe for Iraqi refugees to return. In addition, any study of the refugee population in Jordan or Syria finds that the bulk of refugees (especially true of Sunni Iraqis) do not want to return. Not next week, not next year. They are done. They saw fathers, husbands, brothers, sisters, wives, mothers, children wounded and killed. They're not planning a return, they're only attempting to find a place (outside of Iraq) to live.

Eric's so busy lying and flapping his jowls and fat rolls to the AP that he forgets (and they never knew) that he promised 20,000 Iraqi refugees would be admitted in FY2009 -- FY2009 ended October 1st and, no, they didn't reach that number.

Instead of addressing that, instead of addressing US failures when it comes to the refugee population, Eric wants to push the problem off on Iraq where, restating, most external refugees are not planning to return to.

But he needs to wipe his hands clean and pretend they're not soaked with the blood of the Iraqi people. It's amazing that Barack Obama and his administration get away with all that they do until you grasp that Eric's little p.r. effort is based on the belief that people would rather accept a lie than address reality with bad news. So Eric gets out there and spins and hopes a weary public will just nod along in order to, as the administration wants, just be 'done with it.'


New content at Third:

Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: The silence said a great deal
TV: The nightly talk shows
Comics and the wars
The Nation endorses and amplifies sexism
Mailbag (Dona)
Bitches for Barack (Ava and C.I.)
The Bronze Boob goes to . . .
Iraq
ETAN calls for dialogue
Highlights

Isaiah's latest goes up after this. Pru notes this from Great Britain's Socialist Worker:

Millions more turn against Gordon Brown's war
As Gordon Brown's Afghan strategy lies in tatters, millions more people want the troops brought home now, writes Siân Ruddick
Something has changed in British politics. Gordon Brown and Labour ministers now appear almost entirely isolated in their support for the brutal war in Afghanistan.
A growing number of military families are adding their voices to the anti-war movement and casualties are continuing to rise.
Brown’s strategy appears more threadbare than ever. Some 232 British soldiers have now been killed in Afghanistan, 95 this year alone. Public support for the war is at an all-time low.
The war has brought death, destruction and misery to Afghans and led to greater destabilisation in the region.
People are not convinced that the war is worth the blood of British forces or the Afghan people.
A recent BBC poll showed that 63 percent of British people want the troops brought home as quickly as possible.
And more and more people within the military are raising their doubts too. The chief of defence staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, described the situation in Afghanistan as “painful, slow and halting” last week.
Gordon Brown is desperately trying to argue that we need more troops and more years of bloody war to turn the situation around.
But since 2001 the war has lurched from one disaster to another. Meanwhile the stated aims of the war—to fight the “war on terror” and bring “democracy” to Afghanistan—have been lies.
On Tuesday of this week the bodies of five British soldiers killed by an Afghan police officer were flown home. The killings have added to the sense of chaos and lawlessness in Afghanistan.
Brown should listen to the majority of people in Britain and bring all the troops home now before more British and Afghan people die in this endless and futile conflict.
The following should be read alongside this article: »
Eyewitness from Kabul—disillusionment is growing» Army arrests anti-war soldier Joe Glenton» Protest called at arrest of Joe Glenton, the soldier who has spoken out against Afghan war
© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.
Share this story on:
Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by »
making a donation.
» comment on article » email article » printable version

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




the washington post

mcclatchy newspapers