Monday, April 09, 2018

Iraq snapshot

Monday, April 9, 2018.  Elections approach but not a lot of optimism about them in Iraq.

May 12th, Iraq is scheduled to hold elections.  In a sign that the campaigning has already begun, violence has already started.  AFP reports:

 A suicide attack targeting a political party headquarters in western Iraq has killed four people and injured seven others, including a candidate in polls set for May, officials said Sunday. On Saturday evening "two suicide bombers disguised as soldiers entered the Al-Hal Party headquarters", one of most prominent parties in the Sunni-majority province of Al-Anbar, a local security official told AFP on the condition of anonymity. 


A lot of countries are interested in the elections -- or, in the case of the US and Iran, 'interested' (the governments of both countries have always felt they could dictate the outcome to Iraqis).


The al-Fateh electoral coalition, composed of backed Hashd al-Shaabi militia factions running for the Iraqi parliamentary elections in May, held a meeting on Sunday in with the participation of an Iranian military and diplomatic delegation 📸
‪The al-Fateh electoral coalition, composed of #Iran backed Hashd al-Shaabi militia factions running for the Iraqi parliamentary elections in May, held a meeting on Sunday in #Baghdad with the participation of an Iranian military and diplomatic delegation‬
‪#Iraq‬
‪📸‬



The elections for 2018 look a lot like the elections for 2014 and for 2010.



And you will find
while in the wind
something that you lost
The dream was never over, no
The dream was only lost

"Straight Back," written by Stevie Nicks, first appears on Fleetwood Mac's MIRAGE

And, yet again, it appears to many that the election will be lost again.  Majed al-Samarai (ARAB WEEKLY) explains:



In the race for the 2018-22 parliament, we still find the same old figures who refuse to withdraw from the playing field. All the big names, such as Nuri al-Maliki, Haider al-Abadi, Iyad Allawi, Ammar al-Hakim, Osama al-Nujaifi and Muqtada al-Sadr (even though the latter has a special status) are present.
Of course, some new faces, always from the Shia house, have been injected into the tired and boring game. These new elements usually give a hint about the identity of the most influential playmaker in Iraq, namely Iran.
The game was rigged right from the beginning, following a well-timed plan and with the consent of a former partner in the crime, namely the Americans.
In perfectly choreographed speeches, the different stars play their cards. Maliki still holds to his old religiously inspired political programme. He never tires of repeating “Election Day is like judgment day.”
Hakim has the wisdom to call on young Iraqi Shias to step forward and bear the responsibility of the coming phase but seems to have overlooked that those young people are ravaged by unemployment and drugs.
In a surprising move, Allawi chose to innovate by striking alliances with traditional Sunni leaderships. His discourse, however, has not changed. He is still pushing to move to reforming the political system.
Finally, Abadi is still trying to cash in on the victory over the Islamic State but his promises of fighting corruption produced no tangible results.


Hayder al-Abadi staked his future on the premature claim that he vanquished ISIS in Iraq.  That, of course, hasn't proven to be the case.  XINHUA reports, "At least two security forces members were killed and seven others injured Monday in a clash with four suicide bombers from the extremist Islamic State (IS) group in the western Iraqi province of Anbar, a local security source said."  ISIS was supposed to be Hayder's big claim to fame.


Instead, his biggest claim to infamy is just how ineffective he can be.  MEM reported last month, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi yesterday ordered an immediate investigation into allegations that fake jobs in the public sector were being offered to citizens by political parties in order to win votes in the country’s upcoming general elections."  ALSUMARIA reported last week that the Badr Organization's Hadi al-Amiri stated they would eliminate corruption.  He stated that they would create needed jobs and punish those who had stolen Iraq's wealth.  Hadi is a militia thug and he's also one of the corrupt -- most infamously, he ordered a plane  to remain on the runway and wait for his spoiled son Mahdi to make the flight but the plane left Lebanon without Mahdi on board so al-Amiri, then-Minister of Transportation in Iraq, refused to allow the plane to land.  It caused quite an uproar -- as CNN noted in real time.

THE BAGHDAD POST reports, "Candidates in the upcoming elections' behaviors will make the elections process the worst in Iraq's history, MP Kazim al-Sayadi said on Saturday.  In a press statement, Sayadi said the candidates are trying to bribe voters or intimidate them and that will produce a weak and corrupt parliament."


Corruption also includes the seeling of voter cards.

The price of the voter card in Nineveh is "$200" . According to the MP Nahla al-Hababi. .





Adnan Hussein (AL ARABIYA) offers:

Now that we are ahead of parliamentary elections, reasonable men must realize that those who caused all this damage to the country and its people cannot be counted on and granted confidence again.
These representatives have had their chance and much more, and they do not even feel guilty for not improving the situation and they have not admitted to their mistakes. This signifies stubbornness and arrogance. Saddam Hussein himself was stubborn and arrogant thus leading to Iraq’s destruction. The damage of the past 15 years due to political Islam groups is a result of Saddam’s destruction and it further completes it.


With elections weeks away, IRAQI SPRING MC lists the voters' concerns:

  1. The anniversary of the occupation of Iraq: The concerns of the Iraqis have focused on the services enjoyed by our ancestors in the last century, such as drinking water, electricity and hospitals. Press reports
  2. On the occasion of the anniversary of the occupation of Iraq The Security is still the primary concern as for the citizen. Press reports



The people who have been in charge of Iraq post-2003 invasion have not been Iraqis.  They've been exiles, cowards who fled and only returned after the US invasion.


Fa'iq Al-Sheikh Ali :The overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein is a great effort achieved by America and not by those who are ruling Iraq now because they did not offer anything to people.
.
-1:20
649 Views
Iraqi Spring Media Center
فائق الشيخ علي: اسقاط نظام #صدام_حسين انجاز كبير والفضل فيه يعود لامريكا وليس لمن يحكم #العراق الان لانهم لم يقدموا اي شيء للشعب
LikeShow more reactions
Comment




The government has so little legitimacy among the people because it is not of the people.  It is a government of exiles who chose to leave Iraq and live outside it for decades.  They were installed as puppets by the US after the invasion.

The reason US troops remain on Iraqi soil is to prop up this government.

It's a point few appear willing to concede.  (They grasp it, even if they pretend otherwise.)


Marc Thiessen spent the lead up to the Iraq War writing speeches for Bully Boy Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.  That alone should leave him sidelined today.  Instead, THE WASHINGTON POST has made him a syndicated columnist.  Does he use that platform to atone for his actions?  Nope.  Does he try to learn from his mistakes?  No.

He just calls for more war.  In his latest piece of garbage, he's saying that President Donald Trump would be making a mistake if he pulled US troops from Syria.  He says this is the mistake Barack Obama made while president with regards to Iraq.  Here's Thiessen:


What should Trump be doing in Syria? He should maintain a U.S. presence to secure our military’s gains, protect our Kurdish allies, keep the Islamic State down and prevent al-Qaeda from capitalizing on the Islamic State’s demise. He should prevent Iran from entrenching itself in Syria, expanding its military presence and threatening Israel. And in the longer run, he should work to separate the Sunni population from al-Qaeda by cultivating Sunni partners in Syria who are allied with the United States against the Salafi-jihadist cause, as well as the growing Iranian-Russian-Assad-Hezbollah alliance.
The temptation to declare victory in Syria and withdraw is understandable. But before he does so, Trump should ask himself:
What would Obama do? Then, he should do the opposite.

Barack's mistake was not pulling (most) US troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011.  His mistake was not doing it in his first ten months (as promised) if not sooner.

What happened was not surprising.

It will happen when the US pulls out.  It happened when the US left Saigon.

Unless the American people are willing to allow their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers to spend forever on the ground in Iraq, Americans have to come home at some point.

The hope of the John McCain crowd (he was okay with US troops in Iraq for 100 years -- he said while campaigning for president) is that the longer US troops are in Iraq, the more the government sinks in and the will of the people cannot triumph.

ISIS rose in Iraq not because US forces pulled out of Iraq.  It arose because the US government refused to honor democracy.  Barack gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term that the Iraqi people didn't want him to have.  In that second term, Nouri really nursed his grudges and screwed the country over.

The Islamic State might have taken Baghdad in 2014, it might not have.  There's no indication it was going to.  But what if it had?

The Iraqi people would either fight it or they wouldn't.

That's for them to determine.  It's their country.

The United States is not leasing Iraq to the Iraqis, it's their country.

And their will is what should determine the future.

When the US finally leaves Iraq, things will be different.  But staying isn't saving anyone and is only preventing the will of the people.  That's what happened with Vietnam (which is still recovering).  It's what happens with any occupied country.

Here, we advised Barack Obama to pull out immediately upon becoming president.  Why?  We stated he was voted into office in order to do that.  By doing it immediately, when the collapse came (and we knew it would), he could say, "That's on Iraq.  The American people spoke in the 2008 election."

But he just knew so much better than anyone.  He just had to dabble with Iraq.  Move a few pieces around.  And pretty soon, he owned Iraq.  It's as much his failure as it is Bully Boy Bush's failure.  The smart thing is to get out of Iraq and Syria and let their people determine their future.





Sunday, April 08, 2018

There's no excuse

This really says it all.

Search results
  1. After 15 years of repudiating claims that the invasion of was only initiated to seize Iraqi resources, large oil corporations fronted by former architects of the war who vacated to the private sector are flagrantly advertising their contracts.





They believe the crime's far enough in the past that they can flaunt and parade today.

Arthur McMillan (THE NATIONAL) reminds that freedom was only the 'reason' for the war after it began and after every other excuse fell apart:



Iraqis instead got Paul Bremer, who had left the US diplomatic service in 1989. It says a lot about the misadventure Iraq would become that a man from the private sector would be chosen to head the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq rather than a serving diplomat. 
 With his desert boots, dark glasses and renown for not listening to anybody, Mr Bremer was permitted to rule Iraq by decree. This he did by immediately banning the Baath Party in any form and, fatefully, disbanding the Iraqi Army. No orders that Mr Bremer would later issue are thought to have been more responsible for creating the conditions for the maelstrom Iraq would become. 
 Overnight, millions lost their jobs in the institutions of Saddam’s government. Many thousands of them were military men with access to weapons. An Interim Governing Council was chosen from a list of Iraqi groups and individuals that had supported the invasion. Mr Bremer retained the power to veto any decision made by those he had hand-picked. All along he conveyed an image of the occupier, a figurehead unacquainted with a complicated region, combined with a transparent lack of cultural sensitivity. If the potential for discord was not discernible then, it at least is understood now.



There is no excuse for the Iraq War -- not for the start of it, not for the continuation of it.

Any real sense of belief in the United States would have Americans demanding democracy and self-rule be honored in Iraq.  Self-determination would mean the Iraqi people would protect their government -- if they supported it.  And if it didn't?  It would fall.

US troops should not be used to prop up a government.  That's not the mission of the military -- the stated mission.  That's the mission of empire.

Betty's "They won't let go of war on Syria" went up earlier.

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















Why the Google Protest of War Work Is Wonderful

By David Swanson
http://davidswanson.org/why-the-google-protest-of-war-work-is-wonderful/
The fact that 3,100 Google employees signed a letter opposing Google doing work for the U.S. military is wonderful for what it reveals.
It does not reveal that a major company exists that has not long been a contractor for the U.S. military. Google, whether its employees know it or not, has — like every other major U.S. company, as far as I know — long been a contractor for the U.S. military.
It does not reveal that any significant number of people exist who can name every current U.S. war or who want them ended or who believe that war should be banned or who know that it long since has been or who recognize the normalization of militarism as the gravest danger the world faces.
But it sure is an amazing and stunning step in that direction, because it does reveal this: 3,100 people think and — far, far rarer — are willing to say that war is evil, that they don’t want to work on war machinery, and — this is the most staggering bit — that they believe that working on war machinery would “irreparably damage Google’s brand and its ability to compete for talent” [bold in original].
Unless these 3,100 people are completely delusional, they must have some reason to believe that there are talented people who don’t want to work for companies that work on war.
In the United States.
In 2018.
In waking reality.
In the same country where teachers are fired for speaking ill of the military, and where the Army trains a high school student to kill in the cafeteria of his Florida school, and he kills his classmates, and survivors gain national media but decline to mention the existence of JROTC at all — in fact they promote militarism while trying to oppose gun culture.
Apparently Google management tries to distinguish the new project under dispute from actual war work. And perhaps the employees themselves distinguish between Google’s past and existing military contracts and actual war work. That attitude would certainly fit with the position taken years ago by Starbucks when asked why it would open a store at Guantanamo death camp. Starbucks replied that a decision not to locate there would amount to taking a position, whereas locating there was just normal, inevitable, or some such weasel word.
Yet, here are a bunch of apparently sane and conscious Google employees, who’ve somehow come to terms with the many evil things that Google does, but who live in a world somewhere in the United States (where the top quarterback in the NFL can’t get a job) in which they have the impression that it is working for the military rather than declining to work for the military that will harm your reputation.
That’s wonderful! And it is certainly the case with me. If Google listens to its employees on this, I will think much better of it.
But you have to go back to the 1920s and 1930s to find majorities in the United States who wanted to abolish war, completely disarm, ban war profiteering, require a public referendum before any war, create world law, outlaw war, outlaw conscription, etc. I mean, that world has not existed in the U.S. macrocosm for over 75 years. If there exists a Google microcosm where it (or anything remotely like it) exists now, I will actually consider going back to school and studying computers in order to move there.
--
David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.
Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.
Help support DavidSwanson.org, WarIsACrime.org, and TalkNationRadio.org by clicking here: http://davidswanson.org/donate. 

Sign up for these emails at https://actionnetwork.org/forms/articles-from-david-swanson.