At this juncture I foresee this as my last post here. I've been served a 10 day 'Pay or Vacate' eviction order... I'm at a loss as to how I can pay up and so I'm currently scrambling to find some immediate housing for my family... I'd like to extend my grateful thanks to Jo Fish for handing me the keys to M&C! It has been a honor and a privilege! I'm unsure as to when I'll be able to carry on with the posts... Again, I offer my humble apologies...
I'd still like to point out some of today's news in Iraq...
In a blunt assessment, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, said Thursday that there is a 20 percent to 30 percent chance that the United States and Iraq won't reach a deal to allow U.S. troops to operate in Iraq past Dec. 31.
On a scale of one to 10, "I'm probably a seven or eight that something is going to be worked out," Gen. Odierno told The Washington Times during a visit to the 101st Airborne Division in Samarra, about 120 miles north of Baghdad. "I think it's important for the government of Iraq. I think it's important for security and stability here."
Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government, told The Times on Wednesday evening that he would be happy to host U.S. troops if the central government in Baghdad refuses to do so.
"The people of Kurdistan highly appreciate the sacrifices American forces have made for our freedom," Mr. Barzani said at a reception in Washington after meetings with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
That would be a huge mistake in staying in Kurdistan after the expiration of the timeline for our full withdrawal...
Lady Bird offers an excellent run down on who's for and against the SOFA...
This is a good “helicopter -view” of the Iraqi political scene regarding SOFA:
- The Kurdish nationalist parties publicly announced their total support to SOFA, and attacked SOFA’s opposition political blocs. The Kurdish Islamic parties, stayed silent.
- Parties allied under the United Iraqi Alliance exchanged different roles. The leaders of the Supreme Council shared various positions from the security agreement. Between non-acceptance, acceptance and asking to add new amendments to the pact, they finally settled on refusing seven - five articles in the final draft. Second-degree politicians from this coalition are still announcing different positions.
- Maliki’s Dawa Party, in each occasion keeps repeating that the party supports the government decision.
- Sunni “Accordance Front” are also in different positions, some of them endorsed SOFA, some with reservation, and the other called for more time.
The official position of the Front has changed, from a neutral position and very close to support the pact at the beginning, to the reservation and demand amendments.
- SOFA’s opposition fronts are not at their best also, the ironic scene of the anti-occupation camp gives us an initial idea of the reality of this camp:
Baath Party released a list of names called “traitors and agents of the occupation” includes the name of Muqtada Al-Sadr and the leaders of the Sadr Trend, some of them are still in the American prisons, while the Sadrists in every occasion curse the Baathists repeatedly.
This is just a tragic example refers to the totalitarian mentality that produced such attitudes and delayed the final defeat of the occupation.
Aswat Aliraq has a statement from SIIC's Sayyid Abdulaziz al-Hakim...
“The UIA on Thursday evening held and important meeting, headed by SIIC leader Sayyid Abdulaziz al-Hakim, in the presence of Vice President Adil Abdulmahdi, during which the pact was deliberated,” read the release that was received by Aswat al-Iraq.
“The bloc stressed the necessity of rescuing Iraq and not to risk its future, the importance of an Iraqi consensus agreement over the pact and the need to steer clear of any vague projects,” it added.
The release quoted Abdulmahdi as saying, “Many efforts have been made to explain the pact items, and those efforts need to be completed with some issues that were submitted to the U.S. side, and we are still waiting to hear about”.
The UIA is the largest bloc in the Iraqi council of representatives (parliament) with 83 out of 275 seats.
Aswat Aliraq also released a poll on the Iraqi's perceptions of the SOFA...
Security pact to damage sovereignty – 70% believe in survey
Thirty-five percent of Iraqis have no detailed idea about the content of the proposed Iraqi-U.S. security pact while 70% thought it would damage Iraq’s sovereignty, according to a survey by an NGO in Karbala.
“The five-question poll comprised 500 persons,” the spokesperson of al-Marefa Cultural Foundation told Aswat al-Iraq.
“Survey results that were revealed yesterday showed that 35% have no details about the agreement, 45% have incomplete information about it, while only 20% said that they have a detailed idea about it,” Adheem Dayan said.
“Three percent said the pact would serve Iraq’s interests, 53% said it would serve U.S. interests, 39% said it would serve both sides’ interests, and only five percent abstained,” he added.
“Forty percent believed that Iraq’s parliament should vote on the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA), 57% said that the Iraqi people should vote on it and three percent abstained,” he noted.
“Twenty-six percent accepted the pact as it is now, 71% did not accept it, while only three percent abstained,” he added.
In regards to the upcoming Provincial elections, Reidar Visser gives an overview of how the new 'lists' are shaping up...
After a long series of extensions, it now seems as if the final deadline for forming coalitions for the next local elections in Iraq will be on 2 November 2008. The first announcement of coalitions among the Shiite Islamist parties is one of the indicators that suggest the coalition-forming process could be coming to an end.
The most newsworthy feature of the updated coalition list is that the main Shiite Islamist parties in the Maliki government are subdivided into two camps, “The List of the Martyr of the Mihrab and the Independent Forces”, and “The Alliance of the Rechtsstaat” (Itilaf dawlat al-qanun – perhaps it could be called the Rule of Law Alliance in English). This could be a step towards a formalisation of the growing tension between the alliance partners of Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and Nuri al-Maliki’s Daawa party, which form the nuclei of the two new lists. ISCI’s list is named after the late Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim (Shahid al-Mihrab), and also contains a reference to independents. However, on closer inspection, this seems like old wine in a new bottle: apart from ISCI, the list consists of familiar names – Badr, “Hizbollah in Iraq” and the Sayyid al-Shuhada movement, all frequently accused of having particularly close links to Iran. The only “independent” element – “The Independent Society for the Sake of Iraq” – is in fact the personal creation of ISCI member Adil Abd al-Mahdi.
The Daawa coalition, on the other hand, has scored one important victory: it now includes the independent list of Husayn al-Shahristani alongside the two main factions of the Daawa. ISCI has long attempted to portray itself as a party with particularly close ties to the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (who, for his part, has failed to reciprocate); the decision by someone like Shahristani to join the Daawa coalition rather than ISCI must be something of a defeat for them, as the Iraqi oil minister is thought to have good relations with Sistani. Still, this merely emphasises a division that dates back at least to February, when Maliki and independents of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) were at odds with ISCI over the provincial powers law. Other new elements in the Daawa coalition are smaller local parties from Dhi Qar and Qadisiyya as well as some Turkmen and Fayli Kurd parties
.
Now, here's one of the best plans I've seen yet about how to approach our eventual withdrawal from Iraq...
The Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq was formed to answer this charge:
The President has announced that a complete military withdrawal from Iraq will take place over the next 12-18 months. What concrete policy steps can the US government take, immediately and during the withdrawal, to encourage peace and stability in Iraq?
We do not underestimate the challenges posed by this charge. Iraq is a traumatized and politically fragmented country. Neighboring states may be tempted to intervene in Iraq's internal conflicts to protect their own interests. The credibility of the United States is badly eroded by a war that most of the world opposed.
The United States and the international community bear a responsibility to contribute to the alleviation of suffering and the advancement of stability and peace in Iraq. It was the consensus of our expert Advisory Group that there is little the United States can do to achieve those goals as long as it maintains an open-ended military presence in Iraq. In the context of withdrawal, however, there are many measures the United States and international community can take to maximize the chances for progress. In this report, we propose a set of initiatives that, taken in the proper sequence, can help to create the conditions for ending Iraq's long national nightmare.
To make its intentions clear prior to withdrawal, the United States can and should:
* Seek a short-term renewal of the UN mandate instead of a bilateral US-Iraqi security agreement.
* Announce support for a new UN mandate to take effect in 2009 that will legitimate and define international participation in Iraqi reconciliation, reconstruction, and humanitarian aid.
* Signal that all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, will henceforth be treated as partners in promoting stability.
* Support the establishment of an International Support Group for Iraq.
* Inform the Maliki government that the United States will soon announce a timetable for withdrawal and will shift toward a stance that emphasizes neutrality and non-interference in Iraqi politics.
Subsequent to the announcement of a timetable for withdrawal, to promote reconciliation in Iraq the United States can and should:
* Take vigorous diplomatic steps to stem the flow of arms and foreign fighters feeding the civil war and communal violence.
* Assist Iraqi actors and the UN in convening a pan-Iraqi conference on reconciliation, backed by an expanded writ for a UN mission in Iraq. Among other things, that conference should seek an immediate ceasefire and redress of the losses of refugees and internally displaced persons.
On the international level, the United States can and should:
* Immediately re-engage Syria and Iran in non-coercive "give-and-take" diplomacy addressing bilateral issues.
* Engage with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey seeking their support for peace and economic recovery efforts in Iraq.
* Work within the International Support Group to encourage Iraq's six neighbors to promote peace and stability in Iraq and the region.
* Strengthen the provisions of the International Compact with Iraq for reparations and debt relief.
With regard to security, the United States can and should:
* Identify likely flashpoints and, when requested by Iraqis, factor them into into the planning for transitional US military activities during the period of withdrawal.
* In anticipation that a blue-helmeted peacekeeping force will be requested by Iraq and needed when the US withdraws, support the UN in organizing and funding it.
* Assist the UN and donor states in creating disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programs.
With regard to economic and humanitarian issues, the United States can and should:
* Cease pressure on Iraq to open up its oil sector and other parts of its economy.
* Support the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in better addressing the plight of Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons.
* Give aid to Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon earmarked for the care of Iraqi refugees.
* Support a plan to fund refugee resettlement in third countries.
* Donate to an Iraq Development Fund that bankrolls a labor-intensive public works program and helps to fix the broken food rationing system.
* Help to strengthen Iraqi NGOs, with special attention to women's groups.
In sum, the United States can and should: quickly carry out a full military withdrawal from Iraq, carefully pursue diplomatic remedies for the Iraq crisis, and generously give to help rebuild Iraq in the long run. The responsibilities are not America's alone, but America must lead.
The 'Donate' button located on the right hand side in the credits does benefit me directly! Any and all contributions would be gratefully appreciated! Mahalo Nui Loa!
First, as Erdla of Gorilla's Guides and Lady Bird of Roads to Iraq pointed out...
Al-Arabiya reported that Syria reduced its military forces and border guards on the Syria - Iraq border [cutting diplomatic ties with Iraq also], but what I heard [from my own sources] is that Syria withdrew all its forces from the border [which means giving the green light to armed groups to cross to Iraq].
And...
They've(Syria) just thrown their border wide open and broken all contacts with Baghdad,
Expect some painful blowback.
Erdla
Gorilla's Guides
That doesn't bode well...
Nor does the Kirkuk issue as the International Crisis Group stated in their recent report; "Oil for Soil: Toward a Grand Bargain on Iraq and the Kurds..."
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A long-festering conflict over Kirkuk and other disputed territories is threatening to disrupt the current fragile relative peace in Iraq by blocking legislative progress and political accommodation. Two events in particular stand out: a two-month stalemate in July-September in negotiations over a provincial elections law in which Kirkuk’s unresolved status was the principal obstacle and, during this period, a campaign by the Iraqi army in and around the Kurdish-controlled disputed district of Khanaqin. To avoid a breakdown over the issue of Kirkuk, the current piecemeal approach should be discarded in favour of a grand bargain involving all core issues: Kirkuk and other disputed territories, revenue sharing and the hydrocarbons law, as well as federalism and constitutional revisions.
Despite some progress, Iraq’s legislative agenda, promoted by the U.S. in order to capitalise on recent security gains, is bogged down. The main culprit is a dispute over territories claimed by the Kurds as historically belonging to Kurdistan – territories that contain as much as 13 per cent of Iraq’s proven oil reserves. This conflict reflects a deep schism between Arabs and Kurds that began with the creation of modern Iraq after World War I; has simmered for decades, marked by intermittent conflict and accommodation; and was revitalised due to the vacuum and resulting opportunities generated by the Baath regime’s demise in 2003. In its ethnically-driven intensity, ability to drag in regional players such as Turkey and Iran and potentially devastating impact on efforts to rebuild a fragmented state, it matches and arguably exceeds the Sunni-Shiite divide that spawned the 2005-2007 sectarian war.
Numerous reports place the blame squarely on Kurds for inciting the violence against the Christians and Arabs in and around Kirkuk...
"Investigations have been completed and proved the involvement of Kurdish militias in the displacement and killing of Christians," Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki reportedly said during a discussion with Iraqi lawmakers, according to Osama Al Nojaifi, a deputy in the Iraqi parliament.
Al Nojaifi said Al Maliki had ordered Kurdish units in the Iraqi army out of Mosul but was reluctant to officially announce details of the investigations for fear they would destabilise his government.
Arab members of parliament have upped their criticism of Kurdish militia practices in provinces bordering their semi-independent enclave.
Latest accusations include the forcing of 13,000 Arab families to flee the restive Province of Diyala of which Baaquba is the capital.
Kurdish militias are present in larges numbers in the provinces of Diyala, Nineveh, of which Mosul is the capital, and Tameem of which Kirkuk is the capital.
These three provinces are now among the most restive in the country. Many in Iraq now openly blame the Kurds for the rise in the tide of violence in them.
“Kurdish Peshmerga (militias) are supposed to preserve security in these areas but they have forced 13,000 Arab families to flee Diyala,” said Mohammed al-Dayni, an Arab parliamentary deputy.
He said Kurdish militias were in control of government buildings in the three provinces and were determined to bring about “demographic changes” in them.
He said conditions were precarious in the three provinces particularly in Nineveh where thousands of Christian families have fled the provincial capital Mosul.
Most Arab deputies in the parliament oppose Kurdish practices and Dayni said “a broad coalition” is gathering momentum in the parliament to force Kurdish militias to leave the three provinces.
Kurds are adamant to add the oil-rich Kirkuk to their areas and have sent their militias into the city of Mosul and large swathes of Diyala.
Kurdish politician and Deputy Fouad Maasoum denied the accusations.
He said the Kurds were part of the ruling coalition “and it is not logical for us to carry out actions that will be embarrassing for us and distance the Iraqi people from us.”
Kurdish leaders argue Iraq's constitution gives them the right to absorb Kirkuk and other historically Kurdish-majority areas, in the name of "normalising" demographics skewed under Saddam Hussein by forced removals and a policy of Arabisation.
Today's ICG report recommends that the only solution to the seemingly intractable problem is an "oil-for-soil" trade-off, in which the Kurds are given the right to manage revenues from their own mineral wealth and receive security guarantees for the existing internal boundary between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq, in exchange for deferring their claims on Kirkuk for 10 years.
The report warns: "The most likely alternative to an agreement is a new outbreak of violent strife over unsettled claims in a fragmented polity governed by chaos and fear."
Is it any small wonder that the Kurds are gungho on the SOFA, and, Barzani personally visited Shrub to push for it...?
I wonder why Maliki ordered the Kurdish units of the IA out of Mosul...? Ah-ha...!
The government is massing troops in the restive Mosul in preparation for a large-scale offensive to subdue the northern city.
Mosul is Iraq’s second largest city after Baghdad with nearly two million inhabitants.
Thousands of troops with heavy military gear have already been deployed inside the city particularly its western side.
The troops have set up scores of checkpoints and cordoned off neighborhoods in search of suspects.
It will be the third massive military offensive on the city in one year. The previous two, in which large numbers of U.S. occupation troops took part, failed to bring peace to the city.
Security has deteriorated in the city despite the presence of thousands of Kurdish militias known as Peshmerga there. An anti-Christian campaign which has so far been confined to the Kurdish-controlled areas has forced more than 2,500 Christian families to flee.
It is extremely worrying what is going on in Kirkuk and the outlying provinces...
Hopefully, the Kurds will take UNAMI and ICG's recommendations to heart and seek peaceful means to end the tensions between the Arabs and Kurds as well as the Christians...!
Then there is the diametrically opposite explanation (there always is with Syria): namely, that the entire thing was preplanned and coordinated between America and Syria as part of an ongoing effort and shared interest to undermine al-Qaeda, and that was actually a prelude to warmer bilateral relations.
It is certainly the case that Syria has been plagued recently by the actions of Salafist Jihadi groups, some emanating from Lebanon, and some from Iraq. There is also evidence that Syria and the U.S. have cooperated in the past in pushing back al-Qaeda activities. Juan Cole speculated on this yesterday, and Israeli intelligence analyst at the leading Israeli daily, Yediot Aharonot, Ronen Bergman, takes the claim several steps further today, and states, sourcing two unnamed American officials, that "the American commando attack in Syrian territory on the Iraqi border was coordinated in advance with Syrian military intelligence (translated from the Hebrew-DL)." Bergman cites as evidence that no anti-aircraft guns were used on the American helicopters, nor did local Syrian military units engage, although this occurred in broad daylight and in a police state where the presence of security service personnel is ubiquitous. Bergman is a respected commentator in Israel. He also of course is reliant on sources that may be using him as a mouthpiece for their own psyche-ops and propaganda. In this scenario, the shrill response of Syrian officials to the raid, which Baath party number two Mohammed Saeed Bkheitan called an "act of piracy" and "state terrorism", becomes part of the game.
"Most of the people who live here have families in Iraq. A lot of smuggling goes on: bringing guns and sheep from Iraq to Syria.
There is security everywhere in this country. The government is very severe with the locals; if they have a tip-off that someone has a stolen gun, the place will be surrounded in two minutes.
But yesterday there was zero response. The attack happened close to a bridge over the Euphrates and there are military posts either side of the bridge - so very near…”
If it was coordinated between Syria and the US it does show up the hypocrisy of the Syrian leaders in that video above and in this AP article...
Syria threatened Wednesday to stop cooperating with the U.S. and Baghdad on security along its Iraqi border if there are more American raids on Syrian territory like the weekend attack that killed eight people.
The government also demanded Washington apologize for Sunday's cross-border helicopter strike by American special forces, which U.S. military officials said killed a top al-Qaida in Iraq operative who was about to conduct an attack in Iraq.
Syria's order for the closure of an American school and cultural center and an embassy warning to be vigilant raised concerns among Americans living in Damascus. A huge protest against the raid was called for Thursday in Damascus. While Americans have generally been welcomed in Syria, protests in the past have turned violent against U.S. and European targets.
Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad said Syria wants assurances that Iraqi territory will not be used again to raid Syria.
"We have demanded that an investigation be conducted and that Iraq not be used for attacks against Syria. Otherwise, this would torpedo all agreements reached during the Iraq neighbors' meetings and bilateral agreements," he told The Associated Press in an interview.
Iraq also demanded Wednesday that a crucial security deal under discussion with the U.S. must include a ban on American troops using Iraqi territory to attack neighboring countries.
Ironically, I think it had more of an effect on the Iraqis than the Syrians...
Iraq wants a security agreement with the U.S. to include a clear ban on U.S. troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, the government spokesman said Wednesday, three days after a dramatic U.S. raid on Syria.
Also Wednesday, the country's most influential Shiite cleric expressed concerned that Iraqi sovereignty be protected in the pact. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani wields vast influence among the Shiite majority and his explicit opposition could scuttle the deal.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the ban was among four proposed amendments to the draft agreement approved by the Cabinet this week and forwarded to the U.S.
President Bush said Wednesday that the U.S. had received and negotiators were analyzing the Iraqis' proposed amendments to the so-called Status of Forces Agreement.
"We obviously want to be helpful and constructive without undermining basic principles," Bush said in the Oval Office during a meeting with Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. "I remain very open and confident that the SOFA will get passed."
Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the U.S. unilaterally attacks one of Iraq's neighbors.
I swear Shrub cuts off his nose to spite his face...! Teh stupid... It burns...!
This report was just sent by a reader (6:30 p.m. central time, Sunday):
Joshua and all,
I just spoke on the phone with a doctor in ABou Kamal- He confirmed that the attack happened around sunset. The 4 helicopters came from the East of the township, he saw them coming. The soldiers debarked and shot people who were working in a building under construction on the periphery of the township.
9 people were pronounced dead on arrival to the hospital- Two more are severely wounded and are being operated on right now [he does not expect them to survive]- He has not read the papers (there are none to read at this time of the night) nor listened to the news and there is no internet there….His report was completely spontaneous-
I was not able to get the details on the ages of the injured but he described them as poor simple people (Masakeen)from the town. If the matter were otherwise, he would have let me know.
"I live less than two miles (three kilometres) away from where it took place. I was asleep at the time, but went to the hospital less than two hours afterwards. Nearly everyone who had heard about it was there.
Most of the people here have bitter anti-American sentiments and this has only added fuel to the fire.
We are also very disappointed with the lack of response from our own authorities.
The attack was in the village of Sukariya, which is inhabited almost entirely by the Mashahda tribe.
They are very relaxed, laid back people, not very religious - there's no Mujahideen from this tribe. The guard and the woman who died were very simple people.
They lived in a tent and were being paid to guard building materials such as cement and timber, 24 hours a day. These people will have had nothing to do with the insurgency in Iraq.
Most of the people who live here have families in Iraq. A lot of smuggling goes on: bringing guns and sheep from Iraq to Syria.
There is security everywhere in this country. The government is very severe with the locals; if they have a tip-off that someone has a stolen gun, the place will be surrounded in two minutes.
But yesterday there was zero response. The attack happened close to a bridge over the Euphrates and there are military posts either side of the bridge - so very near..."
Hmmm... Definitely sounds like a hub of AQI activity, eh?
A US helicopter raid into Syria killed a key figure involved in the smuggling of foreign fighters into Iraq, unnamed US officials have said.
Officials called the raid, which they said killed Iraqi Abu Ghadiyah, a "success". The White House has neither confirmed nor denied the incident.[...]
"It was a successful operation. [Abu Ghadiyah] is believed to be dead. This undoubtedly will have a debilitating effect on this foreign fighter smuggling network," the official said.
A second official told the agency that only people the forces considered a threat had been targeted and that women and children were alive when the team left.
A US intelligence official told Associated Press news agency there was information that Abu Ghadiyah was about to carry out an attack in Iraq and that this had led to the raid.
"The trip wire was knowing an attack was imminent, and also being able to pinpoint his location," the official said.
The official said the US had similar but less detailed information in the spring
Shortly afterwards, 11 Iraqi policeman were killed in an attack the US believes was led by Abu Ghadiyah personally.
Sunday's attack took place during the afternoon rest period, with a troop assault preferred over a missile strike to reduce civilian casualties, the intelligence official said.
So Abu Ghadiyah was smuggling foreign fighters into Iraq, eh? But, was he not dead already from a previous missile strike...? From the BBC...
Mystery surrounds the fate of a top al-Qaeda operative reportedly targeted by an alleged US strike on Syria.
US officials have identified Syrian militant Abu Ghadiya as a key figure behind the smuggling of foreign fighters into Iraq.
They are reportedly claiming that his death in the raid will have a major impact on al-Qaeda's capabilities.
But this runs at odds with statements made by the militant's organisation, al-Qaeda in Iraq, which announced his death on jihadist web sites over two years ago.
According to an al-Qaeda obituary of the militant released in August 2006, Abu Ghadiya died on the Saudi-Iraqi border sometime after the US-Iraqi offensive on Fallujah in November 2004.
The group said he had been sent to the area to meet with a leader of al-Qaeda's Saudi branch.
Both men died in an airstrike which targeted a house they were meeting in, the group claimed.
Fancy that! We killed him again...!
Now, as numerous reports suggest this was 'approved' not by MNF-I and Odierno, but, possibly as high as the WH...
The timing is amazing from a neoconservative point of view, a few days before the American elections. Right now, after years of scrupulously avoiding crossing into Syrian territory, the American military receives instructions to invade a town in Syria and kill 8 people.
A U.S. military official confirmed late Sunday an American helicopter attack in an area along Syria’s border with Iraq, which left 8 people dead and three people wounded.
Syria condemned the attack, which it called “serious aggression.”
We are closer than ever before to serious conversations between Israel and Syria, Syria has recognized an international border with Lebanon for the first time in modern history, and this is horrifying to neoconservatives who ran Washington for the last decade. They need to use force and force only to conquer Iraq, Iran and Syria. And they need to promote a conception of the American presidency that is focused on the use of military force. It is vital to their conception of American hegemony. It is as opposite from a realist’s interests in exploring common interests internationally, with both allies and adversaries, as one could imagine.
What better way to move the American people back to a neoconservative view than by provoking a Syrian/American conflict days before one of the most fateful elections in American history.
The timing was startling, not least because American officials praised Syria in recent months for its efforts to halt traffic across the border.
But in justifying the attack, American officials said the Bush administration was determined to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.
Together with a similar American commando raid into Pakistan more than seven weeks ago, the operation on Sunday appeared to reflect an intensifying effort by the Bush administration to find a way during its waning months to attack militants even beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States is at war.
Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite “special groups” that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces.
American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the raid said the mission had been mounted rapidly over the weekend on orders from the Central Intelligence Agency when the location of the man suspected of leading an insurgent cell, an Iraqi known as Abu Ghadiya, was confirmed. About two dozen American commandos in specially equipped Black Hawk helicopters swooped into the village of Sukkariyah, six miles from the Iraqi border, just before 5 p.m., and fought a brief gun battle with Abu Ghadiya and several members of his cell, the officials said.
At present; the Bush Administration and its perennial and unending hostility to Syria is about to disappear, negotiations between the US and Iraq are in a delicate condition, Syria has signaled a desire to improve relations with the US, Israel and Lebanon, there is a new US commander in Iraq.
Where in all of that is an explanation for this US commando raid into the Syrian border country?
Some thoughts:
- The US Special Operations Forces (USSOF) counter-terrorist forces may have been "off the leash" on this one. These forces are exclusively focused on hunting down terrorist people and support group world-wide. Rumsfeld made them largely independent of the regular military chain of command. They amount to a global SWAT team. They develop their own targeting intelligence and make their own plans. The amount of control that the local US joint commander has over them is not very clear. They are not noted for a great deal of insight into geopolitical niceties.
- General Odierno, the man who replaced Petraeus in Iraq, is not famous for nuanced reactions to frustrating situations.
Whatever the cause, the result of ham fisted actions of this kind can be disastrous for the chance of making something better emerge from the situation that Bush/Cheney is leaving for President Obama and his team. pl
Helena Cobban thinks it was a botched attempt at an 'October Surprise'...
Attack on Syria: White House misjudgments
...I had thought, and wrote earlier, that it was already too late for such an October surprise to be successful. We are now just eight days from the election. Perhaps we are still at the outer edge of when-- in the estimation of the McCheneys of this world-- such a crisis might be "politically advantageous."
If so, their judgment is deeply flawed on two counts.
1. First, and most important, a raid of this dimension-- a handful of helicopters, going against one farm compound, and killing a reported eight people, all described as civilians and described as including four children-- is not on its own going to provide or provoke the kind of security crisis that would make waves inside the US. For that to happen, the raid would have had to provoke a strong Syrian response.
But the Syrians have not responded, and are not about to respond, in any way that is violent or otherwise escalates tensions.
I've been studying the behavior of this Baathist regime in Syria closely for 34 years now. They have steely nerves. They are just about impossible to "provoke," at any point that they judge a harsh response is not in their interest. They are quite ready to absorb material and human losses without making any kind of harsh response, and even to suffer repeated episodes of political humiliation from among their highly nationalistic political base, as they do so.
They are not about to over-react.
This stymies any McCheneyist plan for an October surprise.
2. But the idea of initiating some kind of security-related "October surprise" also, imho, represents a serious misread of US public opinion. A clear majority of US opinion is now clearly very angry over many aspects of the Bush-Cheney years, with the financial/economic crisis now top of the list of their (our) concerns. The US electorate might have been distractable with foreign military adventures for much of the past eight years. (I'm reading Bart Gellman's masterly study of the Cheney vice-presidency. He sketches out what could be a convincing case that just about all of Cheney's actions-- in the realm of foreign affairs as well as economic affairs-- have been directed centrally at increasing the powers of the presidency. Disturbing to think that at one level Cheney was simply "using" the whole of the GWOT and the foreign military projects just for that... )
But I think the scales have now fallen from the eyes of enough of the US electorate, regarding the lying and very damaging manipulations that have marked the Bush-Cheney years, that no additional military/security escalation anywhere could swing opinion back behind McCain.
So once again, in these two respects, the folks in the White House have seriously misjudged the world that exists outside their bubble. This is certainly the case if their intention was that yesterday's raid would lead to a Syrian over-reaction that would then provide the excuse for further US escalations.
The Syrian government is deliberately responding only through strong diplomatic protests.
The American provokers may, of course, have a slightly longer-term project in mind-- perhaps one in which a whole series of US raids into Syria, which are not "answered" by a response from the Syrian government that is "strong" enough to satisfy the country's hardliners, could lead to rising anti-government unrest inside Syria?
The net result seems to cement Shrub's 'Legacy' in the ME for Obama to suck it up...
Now, what is the immediate fallout from this fuckery...?
A senior Shi'ite member of parliament said the U.S. strike's timing makes it more difficult to gather support for the pact.
"The whole strike is confusing for us. Why now, why at this time when we are negotiating the pact?" he said. "One of the red lines which neither Maliki nor any of the other political powers would allow to be crossed is the use of Iraq as a staging ground to attack other countries."
The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy issued a statement expressing “serious concerns” about the raid and the loss of Syrian lives. Syria has lately embarked on policies that France and other Western governments have viewed favorably, including indirect peace talks with Israel. Russia also voiced concern about the operation.
It is a real head scratcher as to why we committed this 'war crime'. WTF were they thinking...? Are they determined to derail any and all diplomatic efforts throughout the ME? January 20th, 2009 is not coming fast enough...
Please show some love and click on the advertisements or make a small donation...! Mahalo Nui Loa!!!
Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, informed Iraqi officials last week that if their country doesn't agree to a new agreement governing American forces in Iraq, it would lose $6.3 billion in aid for construction, security forces and economic activity and another $10 billion a year in foreign military sales.
The warning was spelled out in a three-page list that was shown to McClatchy on Monday. Iraqi officials consider the threat serious and worry that the impasse over the so-called status of forces agreement could lead to a crisis in Iraq. Without a new agreement or a renewed United Nations mandate, the U.S. military presence would become an illegal occupation under international law.
Odierno's spokesman, Lt. Col. James Hutton, said that the list "provided information as a part of our normal engagements with many in the government of Iraq."
If no new mandate or agreement is in place on Jan. 1, the U.S. would stop sharing intelligence with the Iraqi government and would cease to provide air traffic control, air defense, SWAT team training or advisers in government ministries, according to the document. The list also says that there'd be no "disposition of U.S.-held Iraqi convicts" without a security agreement.
Odierno's letter adds that American forces would stop training Iraq's Security Forces and its barely functioning navy and air force, patrolling its borders and protecting its waterways. The U.S. military would stop employing some 200,000 Iraqis and wouldn't refurbish 8,500 Humvees it's given to the Security Forces. Nearly every Iraqi unit works in tandem with the roughly 151,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and American training teams are training Iraqi Security Forces nationwide.
With no agreement, U.S. troops would pull back to their bases and begin to withdraw from Iraq, American officials have said.
Without coalition forces, Iraq would virtually shut down.
The U.S. military controls the Iraqi intelligence services and Iraqi airspace, and Iraqi officials often use American military aircraft to travel safely. The Iraqi government is unable to monitor air traffic over the country, so commercial airplanes flying over Iraq would have to be rerouted and flights to and from the country would be grounded.
McClatchy had an earlier article pointing out the Iraqi reaction to Odierno's threats...
Many Iraqi politicians view the move as akin to political blackmail, a top Iraqi official told McClatchy Sunday.
In addition to halting all military actions, U.S. forces would cease activities that support Iraq’s economy, educational sector and other areas _ "everything" _ said Tariq al Hashimi, the country’s Sunni Muslim vice president. "I didn’t know the Americans are rendering such wide-scale services."
Hashimi said that Army Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, listed “tens” of areas of potential cutoffs in a three-page letter, and he said the implied threat caught Iraqi leaders by surprise.
"It was really shocking for us," he said. "Many people are looking to this attitude as a matter of blackmailing."
How else would one construe those threats by Odierno and Co...? It's blackmail pure and simple and I fervently hope they call them out on it...!
I don't see many being fooled by the hollow threats, we shall see...
"I have a great deal of respect for him (Biden). I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Obama. We are given four minutes of a satellite window for these interviews. Four precious minutes. I got right down to it and, yes, I think I asked him some pointed questions. These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don't think I was rude or inconsiderate to him. I think I was probing and maybe tough. I can't believe that in all of his years in politics, and all of his campaigning and such, that he hasn't run into some tough questions before. He's certainly up to it in giving good answers."
Biden did a great job in fending off that hatchet job!
Peter Wehner recently penned this garbage; "Liberals and the Surge." I wonder if Dan Balz realizes how accurate he was in describing Wehner's role in the WH...
Pete Wehner has the rarest of White House jobs. He is paid to read, to think, to prod, to brainstorm -- all without accountability... ...runs the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives (or the Office of Strategery, as it is known inside the building after a "Saturday Night Live" skit spoofing the president's mangling of the English language). The OSI was Rove's idea, created shortly after President Bush was elected in 2000. It is the smallest unit in the Rove empire, with six employees, and represents the closest thing the White House has to an in-house think tank.[...]
Pete Wehner says he believes President Bush is on the right side of history and of important current issues.
Weiner, err... Wehner is so Kool Aid addled that he actually uses all the right quotes but arrives at the wrong conclusion...
While both Petraeus and Crocker were careful not to overstate the degree of progress in Iraq, and reminded everyone who would listen that the country remained a fragile place, they left no doubt of their belief that, in the words of Crocker, “a secure, stable, democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors is attainable.”
But none of this mattered to the administration’s liberal critics, who to their earlier prognosis of failure were now adding charges of government cooking of the evidence. Even before the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic majority whip, warned Americans that “by carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working.” After the hearing, Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts said the general’s testimony was “just a façade to hide from view the continuing failure of the Bush administration’s strategy.” To Representative Rahm Emanuel, the general’s written report deserved to win “the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction.”[...]
Others were not quite so ready to abandon their conviction that the surge itself had failed, even if that meant moving the goalposts on the definition of success. In February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, questioned on her unbending insistence that American troops must begin an immediate and massive withdrawal from Iraq, was asked by the CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer: “Are you not worried that all the gains that have been achieved over the past year might be lost?” Pelosi replied: “There haven’t been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure.” In the Washington Post, the writer Michael Kinsley rang an inventive change on the same motif: the surge was a failure, he reasoned, because even though violence was down, and even though political progress was being made, the number of American troops was still roughly where it was when the surge was announced—as if the achievements produced by those troops were somehow disconnected from their presence.
In early April of this year, Petraeus and Crocker made a return appearance on Capitol Hill. By then, some liberal politicians were reluctantly conceding security gains, but insisted they were evanescent and therefore unimportant—“very nice to have,” in the words of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, “but essentially . . . meaningless.” To the columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., the problem now was that “the administration and its supporters talk incessantly about winning but offer no strategy for victory.” In doing so, he continued, they “resemble their own parody of liberal do-gooders insisting on continuing flawed and foolish programs no matter how obvious it becomes that their efforts are doing more harm than good.”
Not once does Wehner mention the GAO report denouncing much of Betrayus's assertions...
From his summation...
Fortunately, as I noted at the outset, Americans at large are not so ready to deny the evidence of their senses, and appear open to reasoned argument on the basis of that evidence. For a political leader in high office, this is a great blessing. Some eyes will refuse to open and some ears will refuse to hear and some voices will always be raised high in derision. To act rightly in such circumstances is difficult and often enormously costly; but it is the very essence of leadership. If a leader’s decision is wise, there are grounds for hoping that in time this wisdom will be vindicated and, perhaps, recognized—even in the case of a war once massively unpopular but now winnable.
I swear his eyes are glued shut and he remains deaf and mute to the actual realities on the ground in Iraq... Much less to the countless deaths and the vast destruction of a once proud and productive nation!
In an article that reflects yesterday's post, Barney Frank is calling for...
In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.
The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.
"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary." The Maliki government in Iraq "can't sell (the withdrawal deal with the U.S.) because it sounds like we're going to stay too long."
"I was teasing (U.S. Rep.) Jack Murtha (a key supporter of military budgets) and I said to him, 'For the first time, somebody else has got a bill that's almost as big as yours.' We don't need all these fancy new weapons. I think there needs to be additional review."
I've always enjoyed Frank's frankness...!
It's amazing all the contradictory statements flying around about the SOFA... Be it Kurdish, Shi'ite, or Sunni...
“I think the Iraqis can defend their interests without the Iranians, thank you very much,” Rice told a press conference in Mexico when asked to comment on the remarks.
“That hasn’t been the happiest relationship, ever,” Rice said during a visit to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
“What the Iranians were doing was arming special groups in the south who were killing innocent Iraqis. So frankly I don’t take these comments very seriously,” said Rice, alongside Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa.
Rice then reiterated that “this is a good agreement,” referring to the security pact that has been the subject of months of difficult negotiations with the Iraqis.
“It’s an agreement that both protects our armed forces and will allow them to continue to support the Iraqis as they consolidate the gains that they have made on the security side,” Rice said.
It is also “totally respectful of Iraqi sovereignty,” she added.
She seems to omit the fact that we've killed numerous innocent Iraqis and that no Iraqi seems to find the draft 'respectful of Iraqi sovereignty' much less totally respectful...
As Gareth Porter brilliantly summed up in this article...
Final Text of Iraq Pact Reveals a U.S. Debacle
...The collapse of the Bush administration's ambitious plan for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq highlights the degree of unreality that has prevailed among top U.S. officials in both Washington and Baghdad on Iraqi politics. They continued to see the Maliki regime as a client which would cooperate with U.S. aims even after it was clear that Maliki's agenda was sharply at odds with that of the United States.
They also refused to take seriously the opposition to such a presence even among the Shiite clerics who had tolerated it in order to obtain Shiite control over state power.
The only Iraqi backers of the SOFA are the Kurds and the current PM of the KRG, Nechirvan Barzani, No. 2 man and nephew to the President of the KRG, Masoud Barzani, (don't tell me nepotism doesn't run rampant...) made this ridiculous claim...
...Nechirvan Barzani also told The Times that a conditions-based target contained in a draft version of the status of forces agreement for all US soldiers to exit the country within three years was “unrealistic” given the limited capabilities of the fledgling Iraqi Army. Instead, the Prime Minister, who is No 2 in the Kurdish region after Masoud Barzani, the President, predicted a US military presence of some form until 2020.[...]
Mr Barzani said he thought that the Iraqi announcement was mere posturing by politicians wanting to demonstrate their independence from US influence.
“These people probably think that with slogans they can run a country and I believe this is wrong,” the Prime Minister said. “They want to be given the credit as heroes or considered as heroes.”
He also blamed “external interference”, without naming specific countries. Neighbouring Iran, which is close to the Shia Arab parties that hold the majority in Iraq’s Government, has been a vociferous opponent of the pact.
It's funny that he blames 'external interference' without naming Iran... Could it be because his Uncle just wrapped up a three day trip to Iran...?
Iraqi Kurdistan President Massoud Barazani and his delegation returned to Arbil from a three-day visit to Iran on Friday, the presidential cabinet chief said, terming the visit as “successful”.
“Barazani discussed with Iranian officials several issues including the security agreement between Iraq and the United States, bilateral relations between the two sides and the Iranian shelling of border areas within Iraq’s Kurdistan region as well as regional political developments,” Fouad Hussein told Aswat al-Iraq.
Barzani had led a Kurdish delegation on Wednesday to Iran, where he met with senior officials including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Now, the Sunnis were quiet on the SOFA draft, not so now...
A lawmaker from the main Sunni bloc on Wednesday called for the government to wait until a national consensus would be reached on the security with U.S.
“The Iraqi political scene manifested no national consensus among the national parties on Iraq-U.S. security deal,” MP Dhafir al-Ani from the Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF).
“There was no point in presenting the agreement to the parliament since it might not be passed,” he explained.
When about asked about U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ warning of “dramatic consequences” if Washington and Baghdad do not agree a security deal on U.S. forces in Iraq, the MP said “lawmakers represents Iraqi people and would take the Iraqi interest and would not succumb to U.S. dictations”.
As I argued, even the Shi'ite aren't all on the same page...
A lawmaker from the main Shiite bloc on Friday called for rational debate on a U.S.-Iraq security deal.
Speaking to worshippers at Buratha mosque in Baghdad, Jalal Eddin al-Sagheer said “the government was still tinkering with a deal to give the U.S. a legal basis for keeping its forces three more years in Iraq”.
Al-Sagheer urged against “an outright rejection of the pact”, noting “the agreement advocates and opponents are complicating the process.
The pact would remove American forces from Iraqi cities by June 2009, with all U.S. troops out of the country by the end of 2011, unless both sides agree to an extension.
But the security agreement faces real problems — clearly more serious today than a few weeks ago. Iraqi leaders are torn between desire for continued U.S. help and the yearning of many Iraqis for an end to what they consider foreign military occupation.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has refused to submit the draft to parliament unless he is certain of strong backing. He fears rivals will use the agreement against him in provincial and national elections next year — a real possibility in a country exhausted by nearly six years of war and eager to end outside domination.
One thing that you can be assured of is the fact that the SOFA is dead for quite some time... Next stop the UN...!
At a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July, Eric Edelman, Under Secretary
of Defense for Policy, said: “We all agree that a militarized foreign policy is not in our interests.”
He’s right. Since 2004, the annual Unified Security Budget report has outlined and promoted a rebalancing of resources funding offense (military forces), defense (homeland security), and prevention (non-military international engagement, including diplomacy, nonproliferation, foreign aid, peacekeeping, and contributions to international organizations.)
FINDING:■ ■ This year that goal has entered the realm of conventional wisdom. During the past year, the foreign policy establishments
representing defense, diplomacy, and development have all converged to support a rebalancing of security spending.
Leading the pack has been the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself. In a November 2007 speech he said, “Funding for non-military foreign affairs programs… remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military… Consider that this year’s budget for the Department of Defense—not counting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—is nearly half a trillion dollars. The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion… [T]here is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security.”
But saying this should be done is not the same as actually doing it.
FINDING:■ In the last budget he will be officially
responsible for, the increase Secretary Gates requested for his own department closely matched that $36 billion that he cited, and deplored, as the State Department’s total.
When supplemental war spending is included in the total, this budget widens the gap, in real terms, between current U.S. military spending and all previous levels since World War II. This budget would have U.S. levels exceeding total military spending by the next 45 countries combined.
FINDING:■ Our analysis shows that 87% of our security resources are being spent on military forces (in the regular budget alone, excluding war spending), vs. 8% on homeland security and 5% on non-military international engagement.
Finding: In the final Congressional appropriations for FY 2008, the ratio of funding for military forces vs. non-military international engagement was 16:1. Despite Secretary Gates’ lament about this disparity, his defense budget for FY 2009 actually widens it to 18:1.
This report, written by a taskforce of experts in fields including military budgeting, forces and policy, nonproliferation, development, alternative energy, and homeland security, outlines a way to do the rebalancing between military and non-military security tools, rather than just talking about it.
It recommends $61 billion in cuts in military programs and explains why each can be made with no sacrifice to our security.
The reductions include:
About $25 billion to be saved by reducing ■our nuclear arsenal, keeping National Missile Defense in a research mode and stopping the weaponization of space;
Another $24 billion in savings from scaling ■back or stopping R&D and production of weapons we don’t need;
About $5 billion in savings from unneeded ■conventional forces including two active Air Force wings and one carrier group;
and,
About $7 billion from tackling procurement ■waste and pork-barrel earmarks.
The Unified Security Budget also shows where an additional $10 billion in savings can be achieved by rescinding funds that were appropriated in previous years but have not yet been spent.
As the third finding points out we're spending 87% of the funding for military forces vs. 5% for non-military international engagement in the Bush administration’s budget for the 2009 fiscal year.
As Ike eloquently stated...
...America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.
We're reaping what Shrub has sown...!
As one of the participants, Travis Sharp, noted...
What many Americans may not realize is that the United States is likely to spend $711 billion on national defense in the fiscal year that began on October 1 (assuming fiscal year 2009 war costs are $170 billion, an estimate provided by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates). You read that correctly: the United States will spend more on defense over the next 365 days than on the $700 bailout package.
"If the defense budget is indeed going to decline, the Pentagon will have to do something it hasn't done in years," Sharp said. "It will have to choose what to spend money on instead of just buying everything it wants."
Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information, points out in a recent report in Armed Forces Journal that, in contrast with their price tag, our military forces are smaller than they have been since the end of World War II, and major military equipment is older than it has ever been. Wheeler attributes this strange disparity to gross misappropriation of funding, with more money now being used to buy fewer weapons - some of which will not even be used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additionally, Sharp noted the high price tag of "high-risk missile defense programs," as well as Cold-War-era weapons systems that are not only costly, but also out of date.
"There's lots of low-hanging fruit, if ever there were a Congress or a Secretary of Defense willing to make cuts," Wheeler told Truthout.
Rethinking military spending right now is trickier than it might look, according to Craig Jennings, federal fiscal policy analyst at the government watchdog group OMB Watch. In a time of deep economic crisis, Jennings told Truthout, it doesn't make sense to cut government funding. Yet, a shifting of funds from the military to other priorities could work well.
We need to hold our critters' feet to the fire... They need to rein in their pet defense projects that virtually encompasses every federal congressional district, just as Ike noted...
Learning the lessons of history will avoid our being doomed to repeat it...!
"UNHCR: Iraqis still at the top of the asylum seeker table, despite drop"
The Real News video points out that most of the returning Iraqi refugees are returning because their savings have been depleted and no jobs can be found to support themselves in Syria...
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) recently released their latest report (PDF!) on asylum levels and trends. Once again Iraqis are the top asylum seekers to the industrialized nations! From the UNHCR press release...
According to the asylum trends report, the number of claims made by Iraqis (19,500) during the first six months of 2008, was higher than the combined number of asylum claims submitted by citizens of the Russian Federation (9,400) and China (8,700), the second and third most important source countries. Other important countries of origin of asylum seekers were Somalia (7,400), Pakistan and Afghanistan (6,300 each).
Compared to the previous six months, however, the number of Iraqi asylum seekers fell by 18 percent and by 10 percent compared to the first half of 2007. In spite of this downward trend, Iraqis still accounted for 12 percent of all asylum applications lodged in the industrialized world.
It is extremely disturbing that Iraqis comprise the largest segment of asylum seekers by far, however, at least it seems to be trending downwards. Where are they going within the industrialized nations...?
Sixty percent of all Iraqis claimed asylum in only four countries: Sweden (20 percent), Germany (18 percent), Turkey (14 percent) and the Netherlands (12 percent). One in five of all applications by Iraqis were submitted in Sweden (3,900), which has been the main destination country for Iraqi asylum seekers for some time.
Arrivals in Sweden, however, have seen a recent drop following a change in Swedish decision-making on Iraqi asylum claims, which has resulted in fewer Iraqis submitting applications. At the same time, applications by Iraqis have gone up in Germany, the Netherlands and Norway. Germany, for example, received 3,400 Iraqi asylum claims in the first half of 2008, the same level as in the preceding six months, but four times more than in the first half of 2007.
Notice that Sweden, Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands are taking in thousands of Iraqis each reporting period. Now...
The United States remained the largest single recipient of new claims by asylum seekers of all nationalities during the first six months of 2008. An estimated 25,400 individuals submitted asylum applications in the US, representing 15 percent of all applications lodged in the 44 industrialized countries covered by the report.
Canada ranked second country of destination with 16,800 applications by asylum seekers of all nationalities during the first six months of 2008, followed by France, the United Kingdom and Sweden.
Isn't it funny that we're the largest recipient of asylum seekers, but, not from Iraq! Within the reporting period from 2006, 2007, and half of '08; a grand total of 2,344 Iraqi applications were recorded(734, 1029, and 581 respectively)! Within the Nordic region of the EU alone, a total of 5,646 Iraqis were recorded within just the first half of 2008... 3,433 in the first quarter! In 3 mos time they've dwarfed our grand total! What is wrong with that picture?
Let's not even consider all the IDP's and the flood of refugees to neighboring Jordan, Syria, et al...
Apart from asylum seekers, UN figures estimate the number of displaced Iraqis inside the country at 2 million and another 2 million in neighbouring countries, mainly Syria which hosts 1.2 million Iraqis and Jordan, 750,000 Iraqis.
This is a travesty! We caused this whole mess! God help us all...
"It is an important agreement that fully restores Iraq's sovereignty while allowing US forces to continue for a temporary time to assist Iraqi security forces," Mr Crocker, the US ambassador to Baghdad, said in a speech in the city.
"There is great reluctance to engage further in the drafting process," Gates told reporters.
"I don't think you slam the door shut, but I would say it's pretty far closed," he added, "The consequences of not having Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) and of not having a renewed UN authorisation are pretty dramatic."... ...Further warning that failure to reach a new status of forces agreement (SOFA) or renew the current U.N. mandate for U.S. troops would mean "we basically stop doing anything."[...]
"What really needs to happen is for us to get this Sofa done. It's a good agreement. It's good for us. It's good for them. It really protects Iraqi sovereignty," Mr Gates said... ..."We just have to let the Iraqi political process play out."
But he added: "Clearly the clock is ticking."
Mr Gates said a new UN mandate was not necessarily a "clean" option.
"So that's not a solution without peril itself," he said.
A UN Security Council vote would be needed and analysts say there could be a threat of a Russian veto.
(Itar-Tass) -- Russia will support Iraq’s request to the U.N. Security Council for an extension of the international military presence in that country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday.
“There are international troops in Iraq in accordance with a U.N. Security Council mandate,” Larvov said.
“If the government of Iraq asks for the mandate of these troops to be extended, Russia will certainly support it,” he said.
Lavrov is accompanying Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on a visit to Armenia.
“We are confident that it would be wrong to speak about a complete and immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq now,” Lavrov said. “It is important to determine the timeframe for the start of such withdrawal, and this is the position of the Iraqi government.”
“We support the government of Iraq as far as the need to ensure the sovereignty of Iraq on its own territory is concerned. And this also concerns who will have the jurisdiction over foreign troops in Iraq,” the minister said.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has told the BBC she believes the Middle East is a better place for the policies of President George W Bush.[...]
She insisted that what she called a US-inspired "freedom agenda" had taken hold in the Middle East.
Ms Rice also said Iraq had become a "good Arab friend" of America.
"The Middle East is a different place and a better place," Ms Rice told BBC Arabic TV.
Iraq, far from being destroyed, was fully integrated into the Arab world, she said.
Elsewhere, Syrian forces were out of Lebanon and women had the vote in Kuwait, she noted.
"Democracy is finally in the vocabulary of the Middle East in a way it was not before," Ms Rice said.
Whew, that's some serious sh*t she's smoking right alongside the rest of them...!
Sorry for the temporary hiatus, I was pulling 14 hour night shifts atop Mauna Kea...
Please make a donation above if ya can, and, please click on the ads...! Mahalo Nui Loa!!!
Seven paragraphs in the security deal planned to be signed with Washington need to be amended, a key member of Shiite leader Abdelaziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) said on Sunday.
“There is no attitude taken in advance regarding the Iraq-U.S. long-term security pact but there are some paragraphs that have to do with Iraq’s full sovereignty and security that need to be amended,” Sheikh Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, the leader of the SIIC parliamentary bloc, told Aswat al-Iraq.
The Iraqi and U.S. sides have been negotiating over a long-term security agreement to organize the presence of the U.S. army on Iraqi territories as its international mandate is due to expire late this year.
“These points have to do with the judicial jurisdiction, prisons, the nature of U.S. mail and the nature of the Iraqi government’s monitoring over it,” Saghir said.
The 'nature of U.S. mail' threw me for a bit... But, Roads to Iraq clarified it...
At least we know one “new” disputed-point as reported on Al-Qabas saying:
Iraq’s right to inspect [U.S.] cargos to/from Iraq is at the heart of the discussions, and if these cargos contain weapons that could hurt Iraq, despite the U.S. promised not to introduce weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq.
The WaPo covered some of the other contentious issues...
The United Iraqi Alliance is also insisting that Iraq have a bigger role in determining whether U.S. soldiers accused of wrongdoing are subjected to prosecution in Iraqi courts.
If the conditions are not met, "I cannot see that this agreement will see the light," said Sami al-Askeri, a Shiite parliamentarian and political adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.[...]
"Some people say, what's going on?" he said. "This article opens the door to the next government" of Iraq to lengthen the U.S. troops' stay, he said. Iraq holds national elections next year.
On the issue of legal jurisdiction, the draft accord says that U.S. forces can be subject to Iraqi law if they are accused of a major crime while outside their bases and off-duty. American troops rarely leave their bases when not on official missions, so it would appear that soldiers would rarely, if ever, be subject to Iraqi law.
Askeri said that lawmakers did not want U.S. military authorities to make the decision on when a soldier was considered off-duty. That determination should be made by a joint committee, and if they deadlocked, it should go to an Iraqi court, he said. The Pentagon insists on having sole legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops in most foreign countries.
As the Wapo notes, and, I've mentioned before...
Kurdish lawmakers, who make up the second biggest block in parliament, support a deal. Leaders of Sunni blocs have not publicly expressed a strong opinion for or against the proposed agreement, saying they need time to examine the draft.
Discussions about contentious bills have stalled in Iraq's parliament for months amid bickering and deadlocks. Many lawmakers are likely to be particularly sensitive to the potential political ramifications of their stance on the agreement because it is expected to come up for a vote weeks before provincial elections.[...]
"We continue to be in discussion with the Iraqis and the Iraqis continue to discuss this amongst themselves," said Susan Ziadeh, the spokesperson at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. "That's to be expected. We'll see where these discussions lead."
Stick a fork in it... It's over until after the our presidential elections, and, probably until after their Provincial elections too...
Sadrists or Iraqis loyal to Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr took to Baghdad streets in a demonstration against the security agreement that is scheduled to take place with the United States.
“Nearly one million people took part in the demonstration against foreign presence in Iraq and the long-term security agreement that is scheduled to take place between Iraq and the United States,” the media director of al-Sadr’s office in Baghdad’s eastern side of Rasafa, Abu Zahraa, told Aswat al-Iraq.
“Organizations and members of other groups and ethnicities, including Sunnis, Kurds and Christians, took part in the demonstration, in addition to a large number of chieftains, clerics and politicians,” the director explained.
A correspondent for Aswat al-Iraq who attended the demonstration said that it had set off from al-Sadr’s office in Sadr city and marched toward al-Muthfar Square, one of the main entrances to the city.
The demonstrators waved Iraqi flags and chanted anti-American slogans. Most of the main streets have been blocked to vehicle traffic, according to the correspondent.
Many dispute the million mark, but do agree on tens of thousands...
Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraq's parliament to reject a pact that would extend U.S. presence in Iraq for three years as tens of thousands of his followers marched through Baghdad's streets Saturday to reinforce that demand.
The large turnout points to trouble ahead for the U.S.-Iraqi security deal as Sunni and Shiite lawmakers weigh the political risks associated with the far-reaching agreement.
Waving Iraqi flags and green Shiite banners, protesters chanted slogans condemning the pact. The demonstration in the mostly Shiite eastern part of Baghdad was staged under tight security, with soldiers and police manning checkpoints along the route.
"I am with every Sunni, Shiite or Christian who is opposed to the agreement ... and I reject, condemn and renounce the presence of occupying forces and bases on our beloved land," al-Sadr said in a message read to the crowd by a senior aide.
In other news, they arrested four individuals for terrorizing the Christians...
Iraqi security forces arrested four men on Friday for allegedly planning attacks on members of the country's Christian community in the northern city of Mosul, a top official told AFP.
"Four people have been arrested today in Mosul's northern neighbourhoods of Al-Jaza'ar and Al-Nabi Yunus," defence ministry spokesman Major General Mohammed al-Askari said.
"They are suspected of planning the attacks against the Christians in Mosul."
Twelve Christians have been killed in past weeks in Mosul, provoking more than 1,300 families of the mixed Christian minorities to flee their homes in the country's third largest city.
Iraqi authorities have yet to publicly announce who they believe is behind the campaign of violence, although Al-Qaeda is suspected. The attacks have been widely condemned by religious and political groups.
Do you notice they failed to mention that they were Kurds?
Mosul (AINA) -- A spokesman for Iraq's defense ministry confirmed on Friday the capture of six men suspected of perpetrating attacks on the Assyrians in Mosul. Sources have told AINA that four suspects are residents of the Kurdish region and are affiliated with the Kurdistan Democratic Party (headed by Massoud Barazani) in northern Iraq, as shown by their ID cards. The affiliations of the two other suspected is not yet known. American forces in Mosul declined to comment on the arrests.
The official MNF-I website posted this PAO story today: Mosul Market District Secure, Thriving. A feel good story about how our patrols have fostered enough confidence in the locals to reopen their stores and is now a bustling hub of economic activity. I was taken aback at the touchy-feely aspects of the story when it's actually Mosul they're talking about...
Subsequently, I decided to fact check it against actual Iraqi reports... From just today's Aswat Aliraq...
A civilian man was killed and another wounded when an improvised explosive device went off in northern Mosul on Friday, police said.
“The IED exploded near a civilian man’s house in al-Rashidiya area, northern Mosul. There was no security target in the area,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq.
Five people, including two policemen, were wounded when an improvised explosive device (IED) went off near a police patrol in northern Mosul on Friday, a security source said.
“The IED ripped through al-Jamea neighborhood, northern Mosul, near a police patrol, wounding two security men and three civilians who happened to be near the explosion scene,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq.
An Iraqi soldier was killed and four others wounded when an improvised explosive device (IED) went off in eastern Mosul city on Friday, a police source in Ninewa said.
“The IED blast targeted an Iraqi army patrol in al-Karama neighborhood, eastern Mosul, leaving an Iraqi soldier killed and four others, including an officer in the rank of lieutenant, wounded,” the source told Aswat al-Iraq, not giving more information about the incident.
These are all separate incidents and had only occurred just today! Yesterday had 3 separate incidents resulting in 10 killed and wounded civilians and Iraqi soldiers... The day before that, Wednesday, had two more incidents including two bombs being detonated with numerous casualties... Need I go on...?
I don't begrudge the PAO for doing their jobs, but, I do take offense at the apparent blinders they wear...
Less than a week after the Washington Post reported that the Department of Defense will pay private contractors $300 million over the next three years to "produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to 'engage and inspire' the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government," Virginia Sen. Jim Webb wrote a strongly worded letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. "I have serious reservations about the need for this expenditure in today's political and economic environment," he wrote. "Consequently, I am asking that you put these contracts on hold until the Armed Services Committee and the next administration can review the entire issue of U.S. propaganda efforts inside Iraq."
Good for Sen. Webb! Somebody is calling them out! As Liliana Segura goes on to point out...
Circumventing Congress
In the United States, few lawmakers have had a chance to scrutinize this latest deployment of public funds for propaganda. (Like so many other contracts awarded to private defense corporations, this one was awarded with no Congressional approval.) But Webb's letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggests that it could become an issue.[...]
Webb, who first learned about this contract as did most Americans, from the Washington Post, has called for a thorough review of the Pentagon's "strategic communications" initiatives, including Congressional hearings." Were this to happen, says Farsetta, "I would love for those hearings to include representatives from foreign governments and civil society groups where the U.S. has major propaganda operations, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The heads of firms like the Lincoln Group, L-3 and Rendon should also testify, under oath."
She also covered some other shenanigans...
Profiting off the "War of Ideas"
Beyond the Pentagon's pundit "scandal," the fact that propaganda contracts continue to be awarded to the very companies that have previously been implicated in ethical breaches for disseminating unattributed U.S. propaganda abroad is reason enough to renew alarm. More than the dollar amount, what is outrageous to Farsetta about the most recent propaganda contract is that it is "blatantly illegal." "If you look at this most recent contract," she explains, "one of the 'strategic audiences' is U.S. audiences." According to federal law going back to World War II, she says "no taxpayer money can go to propagandize U.S. audiences."
We need to have serious Congressional investigations ASAP, and, appropriate actions taken to stop this propaganda b*llshit and stop the further fleecing of the taxpayers...
I can only hope Lieberman and Collins will be ousted from the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations and real adults put in charge!
As several articles point out today, the final tentative draft of the SOFA is being submitted to the Iraqi Parliament and to key members of Congress...
The Bush administration launched a lobbying campaign Thursday to convince Congress of the merits of a draft agreement governing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq in the years ahead.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., was expecting a call from national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to discuss the proposed pact. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates earlier reached out to senior members by phone. They included the Democratic chairmen of the Armed Services committees, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri and Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, as well as Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the ranking Republican on the House panel.
“From the initial details we received, the agreement appears to provide enough flexibility to allow the U.S. to continue operations against al-Qaeda and stand up the Iraqi security forces,” Hunter said. “We look forward to receiving additional details from the Department of Defense.”
The pact would provide the legal underpinnings for the U.S.-led coalition’s further military engagement in Iraq after Dec. 31, 2008, when the U.N. resolution authorizing its presence expires.[...]
Although Congress is not bound by law to ratify the pact, the Iraqi parliament is. And the prospects the pact will be approved in Baghdad are far from certain. To address that risk, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has begun to press the case for the agreement with Iraqi lawmakers.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Rice had spoken to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite and a top member of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a Shiite political party whose support for the agreement is pivotal and far from certain.
“The Iraqis are considering the text; we are talking to the Iraqis,” McCormack said.
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is satisfied with a draft agreement with Baghdad on the legal status of US forces in Iraq and has begun consultations with Congress, his spokesman said Thursday.
Gates believes the draft agreement "adequately" protects US troops in all facets of their operations from combat to legal protections, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.
"We would never advocate for a document for a ... status of forces agreement that did not adequately protect our forces," Morrell said.[...]
Morrell said the agreement reached by US and Iraqi negotiators would not be final until it had been approved by leaders in both countries, but it was close enough that Gates had decided to consult key members of Congress.
On Thursday, the secretary began making calls to the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees to discuss key points of agreement contained in the draft, the spokesman said.
Let's reflect back on the long and twisty road the SOFA process has taken... It all started with the joint Declaration of Principles signed by Shrub and Maliki back in November 2007...
Taking into account the principles discussed above, bilateral negotiations between the Republic of Iraq and the United States shall begin as soon as possible, with the aim to achieve, before July 31, 2008, agreements between the two governments with respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres.
So much for meeting the 31 Jul.08 deadline, eh? Anyways, in starting the journey, Shrub laid out some lofty goals he had expected to foist upon Maliki and the Iraqis... U.S. Asking Iraq for Wide Rights on War...
With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.
This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.
Rather prophetic, no? As Leila Fadel and others had enumerated the U.S. SOFA demands had included amongst others: 1) 58 U.S. bases on Iraqi soil from which U.S. forces can launch operations in and out of Iraq without the consent of Iraq's government, 2) Control of Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet,and, 3) Full legal immunity for U.S. troops and private security contractors.
The first condition has taken the most contorted path of all, it has evolved from 58 'permanent' bases with an 'aspirational time horizon' for our withdrawal, to a general time horizon...
The White House offered no specifics about how far off any “time horizon” would be, with officials saying details remained to be negotiated. Any dates cited in an agreement would be cast as goals for handing responsibility to Iraqis, and not specifically for reducing American troops, said a White House spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe.
But the White House statement said that the two leaders “agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.”
The United States asked Iraq for permission to maintain a troop presence there to 2015, but U.S. and Iraqi negotiators agreed to limit their authorization to 2011, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.
"It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said in an interview with al-Hurra television, a transcript of which was posted on his party's website on Wednesday.
Now, the legal immunity for the troops and private contractors followed a much straighter trajectory... Shrub's sheer obstinacy and Maliki's vow to stand firm ensured that...
He also said no foreigners would be given full legal immunity. The US has been trying to include immunity from prosecution in the Iraqi courts for its soldiers as part of the deal.
“We will not accept to put the lives of our sons on the line by guaranteeing absolute immunity for anybody, whether Iraqis or foreigners,” Mr Maliki said. “The sanctity of Iraqi blood should be respected.”
Ironically, as I noted here, Maliki has forced Shrub to concede fully on the immunity issue, otherwise, with no security deal in place and a balky Russia potentially fouling up an extension to the UN mandate...
"If that happens, according to the international law, Iraqi law and American law, the US forces will be confined to their bases and have to withdraw from Iraq."
This is the full version of the 52-and-a-half minute video of the incident in "building #2." Except for blurring the image of Pfc. Albert Nelson, which was done at the request of his family, Salon has not abridged the tape in any fashion. The footage includes graphic violence and profanity.
This shit pisses me off to no end! The cover up started immediately...
" Them tankers got an ass whooping coming from hell," said one. "I swear to fucking God I'm beating some ass. That was uncalled for."
"Hey. Live in the now," cautioned Rob, taking a break from radio chatter. "Where it's good."
"Meeker said he saw when the bitch came in on him," protested a soldier. "He saw the bitch come in on him."
"I saw it too," agreed Rob.
"I'm just pissed," said the soldier. "I know," said Rob.
"The reason why I was pissed is because he saw that round, from the tank. That was not an Iraqi."
"I saw it too," repeated Rob. "It was a tank."
"And I was right next to him," said a soldier who'd been on the roof.
"It was a tank, it was a tank," repeated Rob, agreeing with his angry men, trying to get them to calm down.
"We know it was a tank. They got an ass whooping coming. That's all I got to say."
Rob decided to deliver the message to higher-ups. "I want it understood," he said into the radio to Dog-6, the handle used by the company commander, Capt. James Enos. "That was one of our tanks."
As Rob listened to what his superiors were telling him, the men on the ground floor started to catch the drift. Rob said, "Good, copy," but before he could say anything to the soldiers around him, one of them had blurted, "That's bullshit!"
"You're going to have to walk with me," said Rob.
"That's fucking bullshit," insisted the soldier.
The Army was telling Rob that the men on the roof, Hobson, Meeker, Nelson, Suarez and the Iraqis, had been hit by enemy fire, not a tank round.
"It is a tank," insisted a soldier who'd been on the roof. "I was up there. I know." "OK," said Rob. "Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. None of it matters. OK? Doesn't matter.
"Yeah, it matters," protested another soldier.
"Doesn't matter," insisted Rob.
"It matters to me," said the soldier.
"They're saying we got hit with a 120," said another soldier, telling the men in the room what the official story would be. Rob addressed the men, confirming their suspicions. "It was a 120 mortar, OK? Got it? You fucking got it? It was a 120 mortar."
"Don't even worry about it, OK? Until we hear different it was a 120- millimeter mortar. I don't think it was. But for now, that's the way it is, and that's what happened, got it?"
About 50 minutes after the explosion on the roof, one of Sergeant Rob's men told him, "Your camera's still on." Startled, Robison responded, "Yeah. Turn that bitch off."
By that time, Nelson was dead. He had lost too much blood during the confused and protracted effort to evacuate him. He died inside the medevac vehicle at the gates of the military hospital.
Officers need to fry over this utter bullshit! Even with video footage they lied their asses off...! Hell has a special place reserved for these sorry f*cks...