"Iraq, an experiment in an American laboratory." surging. purging, and regurgitating

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Key Iraqi Sunni tribal leader killed

September 13, 2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A key leader of an alliance of Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes that opposed al Qaeda was killed in a roadside bomb attack on Thursday, police and a tribal sheikh said.

Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was killed in the bomb blast near his home in Ramadi, provincial capital of the western province of Anbar. U.S. President George W. Bush had met Abu Risha during a visit to Iraq last week.

"The sheikh's car was totally destroyed by the explosion. Abu Risha was killed and two of his bodyguards were seriously wounded," Ramadi police officer Ahmed Mahmoud al-Alwani told Reuters.

Abu Risha set up an alliance of tribal sheikhs in Anbar to fight Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, an effort which has been held up by U.S. and Iraqi leaders as one of the biggest success stories in improving security in Iraq.

But the alliance had shown signs of splintering in recent months over dissatisfaction with Abu Risha's leadership and infighting between tribal leaders.

It was one of the first examples of working with local tribal sheikhs in Anbar, once the most dangerous area of Iraq for U.S. forces, to develop tribal police to secure their own communities.
 
Iraqi government may ban Blackwater security group

By Dan Murphy
Christian Science Monitor, September 18, 2007


CAIRO - The Iraqi government said it would suspend the license of Blackwater, probably the most famous among the armies of private security contractors working inside Iraq, after an incident in central Baghdad in which government officials allege eight civilians were killed. The incident looks certain to rekindle the controversy of the wide role given to the contractors in the Iraq war, with critics saying that they operate outside the sorts of legal oversight and codes of conduct that restrict the behavior of soldiers in war zones.

Blackwater first became famous after four of its contractors were murdered in Fallujah in early 2004, an event that prompted an American assault on that city that engendered widespread anger against the US inside the country.

Reuters reports that the government is vowing a tough line with Blackwater, with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki saying the incident was a "criminal act." An Interior Ministry spokesman said the contractors, working for a US security firm, "opened fire randomly at citizens" on Sunday after mortar rounds landed near their cars: "We formed a committee to investigate the incident and withdraw the license from this company and also to deliver those who committed this act to the court," Brigadier-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told Reuters.

The U.S. military said on Sunday security contractors working for the State Department were involved in an incident, but gave no further details.

Khalaf said the contractors opened fire after two mortar rounds landed in Nusour Square in the western Baghdad district of Mansour. "By chance the company was passing by. They opened fire randomly at citizens," Khalaf said. Eleven people were killed, including one policeman, and 13 people were wounded, he said.

The Washington Post reports that one of its employees witnessed the incident: "A Washington Post employee in the area at the time of the shooting witnessed security company helicopters firing into the streets near Nisoor Square in Mansour. Witnesses said they saw dead and wounded people on the pavement." Blackwater often uses light helicopters with riflemen at the windows to provide cover to ground-based convoys.

The Associated Press reports that witnesses said the convoy definitely came under attack: "We saw a convoy of SUVs passing in the street nearby. One minute later, we heard the sound of a bomb explosion followed by gunfire that lasted for 20 minutes between gunmen and the convoy people who were foreigners and dressed in civilian clothes. Everybody in the street started to flee immediately," said Hussein Abdul-Abbas, who owns a mobile phone store in the area.

The wartime numbers of private guards are unprecedented — as are their duties, many of which have traditionally been done by soldiers. They protect U.S. military operations and have guarded high-ranking officials including Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Baghdad.

Blog reactions to the incident, so far, have roughly broken down along left-right lines, with right-leaning blogs viewing groups like Blackwater as patriots doing difficult jobs, and left-leaning ones seeing the groups as dangerous and financially predatory.

On Freerepublic, a popular pro-war blog, one fairly representative comment was: "Methinks they were just doing their job. The message is, if terrorists dress like civilians you can't shoot at them even if they blow up your vehicle. What cowardice." At Democratic Underground, which sits firmly on the left of the US blog divide, this was a fairly typical comment: "Goes to show what I think of the sovereignty of the Iraqi government. It will be interesting to see if they can make this stick, and improve their rep, or if [it] fails and provides another evidence of their government's impotence."

The controversy comes even as Blackwater appears set to begin offering direct counterinsurgency training to foreign air forces. A number of blogs, including Danger Room, a national security blog for Wired Magazine, referred to a subscription-only article in Jane's, a defense magazine, in late August, that said Blackwater was seeking to buy a Super Tucano light-attack plane. The Wired blog shares the following passage from the Jane's article: "Blackwater President Gary Jackson confirmed to Jane's at the Force Protection Equipment Demonstration in Stafford, Virginia, in mid-August that the company is in the process of acquiring the Super Tucano for a new training programme. If the deal goes through, it will give the company a significant boost in a growing international market for fixed-wing tactical flight instruction, as well as a potential platform for counter-insurgency-style training. The Super Tucano is in service with the Brazilian Air Force, which operates the aircraft as a primary aircraft trainer and in border-patrol missions under its SIVAM (Sistema de Vigilância da Amazônia) programme. Colombia finalised a contract for 25 Super Tucanos in December 2005; the aircraft has also been marketed to Singapore and the Dominican Republic. Fully equipped, the aircraft features five weapon hardpoints and a night-vision goggle (NVG)-compatible 'glass cockpit'."

In an interview with PBS Frontline, Peter Singer, a scholar at the Brookings Institute in Washington who has tracked the rise of Private Military Contractors (PMCs) like Blackwater, said the business is worth $100 billion a year and worries about the impact their role is having on policy and accountability: "You're talking about an industry that really didn't exist until the start of the 1990s. And since then, it's grown in size, in monetary terms to about $100 billion worth of revenue a year. In geographic terms, it operates in over 50 different countries. It's operated on every single continent but Antarctica. It operates in poor states, rich states -- you know, the Saudi Arabias, the Congo-Brazzavilles. It operates in superpowers like United States -- we're the largest client of that industry; the Pentagon's entered into over 3000 contracts with it in the last couple years -- to weak states, failed states, Sierra Leones, Liberias, Afghanistans of the world...sometimes [the Pentagon has] outsourced things that infringed upon the core function of the military. And that's when you see all these kind of questions of accountability, all these kind of questions of how the heck did we get contractors in that role, where it's not only the public that's surprised, but people in the military themselves who are surprised and offended by it."
 
Last edited:
Their deaths aren't counted, their crimes aren't punished. "Security contractors" my ass. They're highly paid mercenaries who undermine what our troops are doing, and most people (including members of Congress) don't know anything about them.

I highly recommend the book Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill. Here's a short video clip with more background if anyone's interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8
 
Blackwater 'needs no license' in Iraq


Published: Sept. 17, 2007 at 2:26 PM

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 (UPI) -- Questions are being raised about the efficacy of Iraq’s attempt to close down Blackwater's operations in the country after civilian deaths.

Iraqi Interior Ministry officials told reporters in Baghdad Monday they would revoke the company’s license and initiate criminal proceedings after Blackwater contractors providing security for U.S. diplomats allegedly opened fire from aircraft into a Baghdad street -- killing 11 people, according to some reports.

The problem is, Blackwater does not have or need a license, and its employees are not subject to Iraqi criminal jurisdiction.

Former senior State Department official Larry Johnson wrote in his Web long No Quarter Monday, “Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through (the Bureau of) Diplomatic Security.”

U.S. State Department security staff, whose duties Blackwater contractors perform in Iraq, typically enjoy the same immunities accorded to all foreign diplomats.

Doug Brooks, president of The International Peace Operations Association, representing private companies involved in peace-keeping and low-intensity conflict operations around the world, said that U.S. law gave jurisdiction to federal law enforcement.

“Under the Military Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Act,” he said, those accused of a crime “would be brought back to the U.S. and tried in federal court.”

He said that investigations could be undertaken by Dept of Justice prosecutors or FBI personnel in Iraq, working with the coalition military, but that the initial decision to refer a case for investigation would be taken by U.S. military lawyers known as JAGs.

Blackwater representatives did not return phone calls or e-mails requesting comment.
 
On Christmas Eve 2006, a Blackwater employee got drunk while inside the Green Zone in Baghdad and got in an argument with a guard of the Iraqi Vice President. He then shot the Iraqi dead. The employee was quickly flown out of the country and, 9 months later, has not been charged with any crime. Imagine the same thing happening in the US, an Iraqi embassy guard, drunk at a a Christmas party, shooting a Secret Service agent guarding Vice President Cheney, and you can see some potential for underlying tension there.
 
In the documentary "No End in Sight" there is footage of Blackwater mercenaries shooting at everything in sight without justification. I've heard too many of these stories now and I'm glad this is finally getting some attention in mainstream media.
 
I saw that movie, too.


I've spent so much time on all of this,
that the movie was just depressing to me
seeing all the things I believe
confirmed on the big screen


however, I do recommend everyone seeing this film


back to blackwater,

there will be a few more news stories

but at the end of the day
blackwater will remain in Iraq with fingers on the triggers
 
Iraqi officials now say at least 20 civilians were killed in the Sunday shooting incident in Baghdad involving the contractors. A joint U.S.-Iraqi commission is investigating the shootings that took place on Sunday.

"We will never allow Iraqi citizens to be killed in cold blood by this company which doesn't care about the lives of Iraqis," al-Maliki said.
 
Macleans_Oct1.JPG


How George Bush became the new Saddam

COVER STORY: Its strategies shattered, a desperate Washington is reaching out to the late dictator's henchmen.

article here
 
U.S. moves in Iraq may push Iraqi and Iranian governments closer


The US arrest of an Iranian official to Iraq has resulted in closed borders between the two Middle Eastern countries – a decision that may take an economic toll.
By Dan Murphy

Iran shut most of its border crossings with Northern Iraq on Monday to protest the US military's arrest of an Iranian official who had been visiting Iraq as part of an official delegation.

The detention in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah of the Iranian, who was visiting Iraq at the behest of both the Iraqi central government and the semiautonomous Kurdish government in the north, has brought protests from the Iraqi government as well as rare signs of unhappiness with the US from the Kurds, who are usually the most pro-American of any Iraqi faction, the Associated Press reports.

Iran closed major border crossings with northern Iraq on Monday to protest the U.S. detention of an Iranian official the military accused of weapons smuggling, a Kurdish official said.

The closings came four days after U.S. troops arrested an Iranian official during a raid on a hotel in Sulaimaniyah, 160 miles northeast of Baghdad.

U.S. officials said he was a member of the elite Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards that smuggles weapons into Iraq. But Iraqi and Iranian leaders said he was in the country on official business and with the full knowledge of the government.

"This closure from the Iranian side will have a bad effect on the economic situation of the Kurdish government and will hurt the civilians as well," said Jamal Abdullah, a spokesman for the autonomous Kurdish government. "We are paying the price of what the Americans have done by arresting the Iranian."

US officials have alleged that the arrested man, Mahmudi Farhadi, is not a diplomat as Iraqi and Iranian officials insist, but has instead been involved in smuggling weapons into Iraq.
 
Army is worn too thin, says general
Calls force not ready to meet new threats

By Bryan Bender, Boston Globe Staff | September 27, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Army's top officer, General George Casey, told Congress yesterday that his branch of the military has been stretched so thin by the war in Iraq that it can not adequately respond to another conflict - one of the strongest warnings yet from a military leader that repeated deployments to war zones in the Middle East have hamstrung the military's ability to deter future aggression.

In his first appearance as Army chief of staff, Casey told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

Officials said Casey, who appeared along with Army Secretary Pete Geren, personally requested the public hearing - a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.

Casey, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted a public forum even though he has ample opportunity to speak to lawmakers in closed-door meetings.

Representative John M. McHugh, a New York Republican, said Casey's blunt testimony was "just downright frightening."

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked Congress for a record-setting $190 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next year - nearly $50 billion more than anticipated. Most of the money would go to Iraq. If the request is approved, the cost of the 2003 invasion will top $600 billion.

Gates's request is expected to include $17 billion to manufacture thousands of new, heavily armored vehicles designed to withstand the lethal blasts of roadside bombs, the biggest cause of US combat deaths.

Seeking to head off Democrats' maneuvers to attach conditions, including troop withdrawals, on an Iraq spending bill they will send to President Bush, Gates urged the Senate Appropriations Committee "to approve the complete global war on terror request as quickly as possible," without "excessive and counterproductive restrictions."

But Casey, a four-star general who until earlier this year was the top commander in Iraq, made it clear to the House committee that the costs to ongoing military operations is rising, especially in terms of the United States' strategic position in the world.

The strain on the Army has been growing steadily since Bush sent troops into Iraq in 2003 - the longest sustained combat for an all-volunteer American force since the Revolutionary War. The Pentagon and military analysts have documented the signs of the breakdown: serious recruiting problems, an exodus of young officers, and steadily falling readiness rates of nearly every stateside unit.

Casey's testimony yesterday sent a clear message: If President Bush or Congress does not significantly reduce US forces in Iraq soon, the Army will need far more resources - and money - to ensure it is prepared to handle future security threats that the general warned are all but inevitable.

"As we look to the future, national security experts are virtually unanimous in predicting that the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict," Casey told the panel, citing potential instability caused by globalization, humanitarian crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Casey's assessment of the Army's preparedness, however, was far more pessimistic than his predecessor's, General Peter Schoomaker, the former Army chief of staff.

When the same committee in January asked him about the Army's overall condition, Schoomaker answered only that he had "concerns" about the Army's "strategic depth."

Several Pentagon insiders have privately remarked that Casey's apparent alarm about the Army heightened when he returned from nearly three years of duty in Iraq. One civilian military adviser said that Casey was taken aback when informed at a recent meeting that some combat units were heading into battle short of key personnel. After the meeting, the adviser said, Casey took an officer aside and peppered him with questions about exactly which units were affected.

Casey and Geren insisted that the units now deployed to the combat zone are highly trained and outfitted with the proper equipment. However, they said the units of most concern are the ones returning from Iraq or those preparing to deploy without all the proper equipment.

Stocks of equipment the Army has positioned around the world are also growing low because of the war, they said. Replenishing those stockpiles, Casey told the committee, "will give us back our strategic flexibility."

A major risk for the future, however, is that the Army currently spends nearly all of its time training for counterinsurgency operations - "to the detriment of preparedness" for other types of combat, Casey testified. If troops don't continue to train, their skills "will atrophy over time."

Army units are now deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan for 15 months at a time. At current force levels, that allows them 12 months or less back home before being sent overseas again. Casey said yesterday that the cycle allows for "insufficient recovery time."

Compounding the situation, he said, is the fact that part-time soldiers in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard - considered the nation's backup forces in the event of a major conflict - "are performing an operational role for which they were neither originally designed nor resourced."

At the same time, he said, the toll on soldiers' families is even greater, raising serious questions about whether the Army will be able to retain its best soldiers.

In the six months he has been Army chief of staff, Casey said that he and his wife have talked extensively with commanders and Army families about the pressures of repeated tours. "It was clear to us the families are affected," he said. "It's cumulative."

But he warned that the Pentagon's current system can not sufficiently support the troops or their families. "Army support systems including health, education, and family support systems are straining under the pressures from six years of war," he said.

Given enough resources, Casey predicted, it would take at least three to four years to restore the Army to full strength, including replacing damaged or destroyed equipment, adding tens of thousands more soldiers, and increasing health and other benefits for Army families coping with frequent deployments of loved ones.

But committee members wondered if there is enough time.

"This is foremost a question of strategic risk," said the committee's chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat, noting that the United States has used military force on a dozen occasions over the past 30 years. "In most cases the United States was forced to act with little warning. It will happen again; later we hope, but undoubtedly sooner than we'd like."
 
(Reuters) Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda

By Kate Kelland1 hour, 48 minutes ago

Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least 10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."

"Failure to make the necessary changes could result in the war on terror lasting decades," the report added.

Rogers also warned of a drift toward conflict with Iran.

"Going to war with Iran," he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."
 
Pentagon is pressed on killings of Iraqis
Lawmakers, ACLU want records on civilian deaths

By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff | October 9, 2007

WASHINGTON - The firestorm over the Sept. 16 shooting of more than a dozen unarmed Iraqis by members of Blackwater USA, a private security firm, has sparked renewed calls for the US military to release its own records related to the killing of Iraqi civilians at checkpoints or near convoys.

Many hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured by US forces for getting too close to checkpoints or convoys over the past four years, according to US military documents and officials.

Private security contractors such as Blackwater and US soldiers are authorized to fire at vehicles that get too close to convoys or checkpoints, after giving a series of warnings known as "escalation of force."

US military officials say they have launched a successful effort to reduce the number of such shootings by training soldiers to give more visible warnings, but the Pentagon so far has declined to release data to back up the assertion. That refusal has sparked a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking copies of military reports on such escalation-of-force shootings. Key members of Congress have also called for the release of the documents.

"Without these documents being released, we don't really know how well the military is doing," said Jon Tracy, a former judge advocate general in Iraq who now works for CIVIC, a Washington-based group that seeks to curb civilian deaths. "We don't know how often this happens, and when it does happen. We can't know if a soldier reasonably had fear or was the soldier was just trigger-happy?"

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who has been an outspoken advocate of civilian victims in Iraq and Afghanistan, has renewed calls for the Pentagon to create a declassified database of civilian deaths.

"Such a database would assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the Pentagon's efforts to reduce civilian casualties and in determining appropriate compensation for the victims' families," Leahy said in a statement to the Globe last week. "It would also help to credibly refute inaccurate claims of civilian deaths."

Military officials who worked on the effort to reduce civilian deaths say that the information Leahy and the ACLU are seeking is classified. Military spokesmen reached in Baghdad said they would release statistics on escalation-of-force killings when they become available but did not provide statistics for this report.

Civilian shootings by Blackwater and other contractors have come under scrutiny since the Sept. 16 episode. Blackwater has reported involvement in 195 shootings since 2005, 80 percent of which were deemed "escalation of force incidents" in which Blackwater fired without being fired upon. But contractors are not required to complete the same rigorous investigations of shootings that the US military conducts.

Initial reports suggest that the Sept. 16 event was sparked when a driver unwittingly came too close to the Blackwater convoy and was shot by Blackwater personnel. As the dead driver's car continued rolling toward the convoy, Blackwater security reportedly continued to shoot, killing at least 14 people and sparking an uproar in the Iraqi government and on Capitol Hill.

Similarly, hundreds of shootings at US checkpoints and near convoys have ignited simmering outrage among Iraqis for years and taken hundreds of lives, although they have not gotten the attention in the United States that the Blackwater shooting has received.

"Many hundreds are killed and their cases are not even recognized," said Karzan Sherabayani, an Iraqi living in London who made a documentary about his struggle to find out what happened to his 75-year-old uncle, whose car was hit with more than 80 bullets when he tried to turn around at a checkpoint in Kirkurk. "I wanted to know if somebody had been given responsibility for this."

Of 500 claims for compensation filed by Iraqi families and released after an ACLU court action, 133 were allegedly killed for driving too close to a convoy, while 59 were allegedly killed at checkpoints.

Those cases include allegations that US soldiers, on several occasions, shot at random from convoys, killing bystanders; a case in which soldiers allegedly fired 200 rounds into a car that did not stop soon enough at a checkpoint, killing two parents and injuring their two young children; and an allegation that US soldiers had fired on a car carrying a pregnant woman who was on her way to the hospital to give birth, killing her.

In the vast majority of cases, soldiers were deemed to have acted within their rights to fire at the vehicles that they feared posed a threat. Soldiers were found negligent in only a tiny handful of cases. In many cases, the claims were denied because the event had not been reported up the chain of command.

Military officials say soldiers are under tremendous pressure at checkpoints and in convoys, and often have only a few seconds to decide if a vehicle is a threat. Sometimes, they say, soldiers err on the side of killing an innocent driver instead of risking death to himself and fellow soldiers.

"They are 19, 20 years old and we are asking them to make some pretty big decisions, and they are doing a great job," said Colonel Kent Crossley, former chief of Analysis and Integration at the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who served multiple tours in Iraq. Crossley cochaired a conference earlier this year on how to rewrite the handbook on "escalation of force" procedures in a way that could reduce civilian deaths.

He said the military was trying to give soldiers the tools to avoid such killings, including nonlethal tactics, and better, more visible signs which can be understood by Iraqis who do not speak English.

"Just because you have the right to use lethal force, it doesn't mean you should. That's what we are trying to teach these soldiers," he said.

When General Peter Chiarelli arrived in Iraq as the number-two US military official in 2006, he announced that every "escalation of force" shooting that resulted in a death or injury should be investigated and reported up the chain of command in what is known as a "15-6" report.

Within months, the number of reported checkpoint shootings dropped dramatically, from one per day to one a week, military officials said, heralding a major success.

But in July, the McClatchy news service reported that the number of "escalation of force" shootings had spiked with the increase of US troops in recent months, with 429 civilians killed or wounded in checkpoint and convoy shootings over the past year.
 
Bush and Condi are on bended knee to Turkey


and we (The United States) are now subject to black mailing??



"Absolutely not, I would not call it that." she said.


Bush to Congress: Don't cross Turks on Armenians
by Frank James

Much of the world acknowledges the genocide of as many as 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks between 1915 and 1923 , a genocide that's often called the first in a century of genocides--the 20th century.

But it's taboo to talk about the genocide in Turkey where many Turks deny the mass murders ever happened.

And apparently, because of increasing pressure from Turkey, it’s now taboo as well for the U.S. Congress to pass a resolution calling on Bush Administration foreign policy to take account of the Armenian genocide.

President Bush came as close as a president comes to publicly begging Congress not to pass the resolution.

House Resolution 106, which is to be considered this afternoon by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, starts thusly:


Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.

That language seems straightforward enough. But the Turkish government so fiercely opposes the resolution that U.S. officials have clearly been warned that the resolution's passage could jeopardize Turkish cooperation on Iraq.

That would be disastrous for U.S. troops in Iraq since much of the materiel and oil that keeps them going passes through Turkey, the U.S.'s longtime and NATO member.

So worried is the Bush Administration, that President Bush appended some remarks about his opposition to the resolution to comments he made this morning on the South Lawn on a completely different matter, improvements to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act:

Bush said:


On another issue before Congress, I urge members to oppose the Armenian genocide resolution now being considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people that began in 1915. This resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to our relations with a key ally in NATO and in the global war on terror.

To drive home the message he sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates out to underscore the difficulties that would be created for U.S. efforts in Iraq if Turkey decides to stop cooperating with the U.S.


SEC. RICE: We have just come from a meeting with the president and from a meeting with our team in Iraq and in the field, and we just wanted to make a brief comment about the Armenian Genocide Resolution that is before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee today. And we are all in agreement that the passage of this resolution would be very destabilizing to our efforts in the Middle East, very destabilizing to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, because Turkey, as an important strategic ally, is very critical in supporting the efforts that we are making in these crucial areas.

I just want to note that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker brought up the issue of this Armenian Genocide Resolution, as did Admiral Fallon, and ask that we do everything that we could to make certain that it does not pass.

I'm going to turn to Secretary Gates. But let me just say that this is not because the United States fails to recognize the terrible tragedy of 1915, the mass killings that took place there, that President Bush had spoken about this issue repeatedly throughout his presidency. We have encouraged the Turkish government to work with the Armenian government to put together a way to overcome and reconcile these horrible -- this horrible past and these terrible differences. We believe that there is some improvement in Turkish- Armenian relations.

So this is not to ignore what was a really terrible situation. And we recognize the feelings of those who want to express their concern and their disdain for what happened many years ago. But the passage of this resolution at this time would indeed be very problematic for everything that we are trying to do in the Middle East because we are very dependent on a good Turkish strategic ally to help with our efforts.

And maybe I could turn to Secretary Gates for a couple of comments.

SEC. GATES: Just a word or two. The reason that the commanders raised this issue as our heavy dependence on Turkey in terms of resupply in Iraq -- about 70 percent of all air cargo going into Iraq comes -- goes through Turkey; about a third of the fuel that they consume goes through Turkey or comes from Turkey. They believe clearly that access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would be very much put at risk if this resolution passes and the Turks react as strongly as we believe they will.

Just one other small fact is that, as you know, we're airlifting these MRAPs, these Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, right now into Iraq; 95 percent of those MRAPs going into Iraq right now are flying -- are being flown in through Turkey. And so our heavy dependence on the Turks for access is really the reason the commanders raised this and why we're so concerned about the resolution.


Since what's on the table in the House is a resolution that doesn't need a presidential signature, not a bill making law, the president can’t exercise a veto like he has recently on legislation he has found objectionable.

All he can do is jawbone Congress and raise the prospect of the U.S. military being punished if Turkey retaliates, which the administration clearly believes is likely judging by the urgency it attaches to this issue.

To many minds, the situation the U.S. finds itself in with Turkey is akin to being blackmailed.

"Is Turkey blackmailiing the U.S.?" a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Dana Perino at today's press briefing.

"Absolutely not, I would not call it that." she said.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

Fully agree with this.

I guess what frustrates me the most about all this is that people warned of problems such as this right before we went into Iraq. But noooooo, they were told to shut up and support the president, and how dare they criticize and make such claims? I'm glad people are finally realizing this was a big, BIG mistake. I just wish they'd realized it a lot sooner.

I'll have to check out that film people here are talking about sometime. It sounds good. Depressing, but good.

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
"Going to war with Iran," he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

Again, agreed (pray tell, just where the hell do you intend on getting the money and troops for such a war, Bush?). That's all a war does-it makes people angrier, it leads them to hold grudges, it just makes a situation even worse than it already is. Anybody who's even remotely glanced at history would know that.

This adminstration is seriously scaring the crap out of me and pissing me off so much. I cannot WAIT until the day when they're all out of here.

Angela
 
deep said:
Bush and Condi are on bended knee to Turkey


and we (The United States) are now subject to black mailing??



"Absolutely not, I would not call it that." she said.




it passes

now what?

Genocide measure passes in tight vote


Published: 10/10/2007


Seven of eight Jewish members on a U.S. congressional committee voted for a resolution to recognize the Armenian genocide.

The non-binding resolution, which recognizes the World War I massacre of Armenians by Turkey as genocide, passed the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday by a closer than expected vote, 27-21. The resolution is likely to go to the full House.

The only Jewish member to vote against was Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), who cited among other reasons Turkey's close relationship with Israel.

The measure was expected to pass by a much wider margin but faced a last-minute lobbying blitz by the Turkish government and the Bush administration, which marshalled all eight living former secretaries of state to oppose it.

Turkey has threatened to downgrade military ties with the United States if the measure passed, and intimated it would do so with Israel, too.

The closeness of the committee vote suggests it will be more difficult to pass the resolution when it comes to the House floor. Turkey's Jews have pressed U.S. Jewish groups to oppose the measure. U.S. Jewish organizations have held back from lobbying but some groups, including the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, have said a congressional resolution recognizing the genocide would be a strategic blunder.

Jewish congressmen who supported the resolution included the committee chairman, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the only Holocaust survivor in Congress. Others, including Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and Ron Klein (D-Fla.), cited Holocaust remembrance as a reason for their votes.
 
October 11, 2007
Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq
By THOM SHANKER NY Times

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The Marine Corps is pressing to remove its forces from Iraq and to send marines instead to Afghanistan, to take over the leading role in combat there, according to senior military and Pentagon officials.

The idea by the Marine Corps commandant would effectively leave the Iraq war in the hands of the Army while giving the Marines a prominent new role in Afghanistan, under overall NATO command.

The suggestion was raised in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders. While still under review, its supporters, including some in the Army, argue that a realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.

As described by officials who had been briefed on the closed-door discussion, the idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.

At the moment, there are no major Marine units among the 26,000 or so American forces in Afghanistan. In Iraq there are about 25,000 marines among the 160,000 American troops there.

It is not clear exactly how many of the marines in Iraq would be moved over. But the plan would require a major reshuffling, and it would make marines the dominant American force in Afghanistan, in a war that has broader public support than the one in Iraq.

Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.

It is not clear whether the Army would support the idea. But some officials sympathetic to the Army said that such a realignment would help ease some pressure on the Army, by allowing it to shift forces from Afghanistan into Iraq, and by simplifying planning for future troop rotations.

The Marine proposal could also face resistance from the Air Force, whose current role in providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan could be squeezed if the overall mission was handed to the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines would bring a significant force of combat aircraft to that conflict.

Whether the Marine proposal takes hold, the most delicate counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan, including the hunt for forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, would remain the job of a military task force that draws on Army, Navy and Air Force Special Operations units.

Military officials say the Marine proposal is also an early indication of jockeying among the four armed services for a place in combat missions in years to come. “At the end of the day, this could be decided by parochialism, and making sure each service does not lose equity, as much as on how best to manage the risk of force levels for Iraq and Afghanistan,” said one Pentagon planner.

Tensions over how to divide future budgets have begun to resurface across the military because of apprehension that Congressional support for large increases in defense spending seen since the Sept. 11 attacks will diminish, leaving the services to compete for money.

Those traditional turf battles have subsided somewhat given the overwhelming demands of waging two simultaneous wars — and because Pentagon budgets reached new heights.

Last week, the Senate approved a $459 billion Pentagon spending bill, an increase of $43 billion, or more than 10 percent over the last budget. That bill did not include, as part of a separate bill, President Bush’s request for almost $190 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senior officials briefed on the Marine Corps concept said the new idea went beyond simply drawing clearer lines about who was in charge of providing combat personnel, war-fighting equipment and supplies to the two war zones.

They said it would allow the Marines to carry out the Afghan mission in a way the Army cannot, by deploying as an integrated Marine Corps task force that included combat aircraft as well as infantry and armored vehicles, while the Army must rely on the Air Force.

The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.

The Marine Corps has recently played the leading combat role in Anbar Province, the restive Sunni area west of Baghdad.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Army officer in Iraq, and his No. 2 commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, also of the Army, have described Anbar Province as a significant success story, with local tribal leaders joining the fight against terrorists.

Both generals strongly hint that if the security situation in Anbar holds steady, then reductions of American forces can be expected in the province, which could free up Marine units to move elsewhere.

In recent years, the emphasis by the Pentagon has been on joint operations that blur the lines between the military services, but there is also considerable precedent for geographic divisions in their duties. For much of the Vietnam War, responsibility was divided region by region between the Army and the Marines. As described by military planners, the Marine proposal would allow Marine units moved to Afghanistan to take over the tasks now performed by an Army headquarters unit and two brigade combat teams operating in eastern Afghanistan.

That would ease the strain on the Army and allow it to focus on managing overall troop numbers for Iraq, as well as movements of forces inside the country as required by commanders to meet emerging threats.

The American military prides itself on the ability to go to war as a “joint force,” with all of the armed services intermixed on the battlefield — vastly different from past wars when more primitive communications required separate ground units to fight within narrowly defined lanes to make sure they did not cross into the fire of friendly forces.

The Marine Corps is designed to fight with other services — it is based overseas aboard Navy ships and is intertwined with the Army in Iraq. At the same time, the Marines also are designed to be an agile, “expeditionary” force on call for quick deployment, and thus can go to war with everything needed to carry out the mission — troops, armor, attack jets and supplies.

General Petraeus is due to report back to Congress by March on his troop requirements beyond the summer. His request for forces will be analyzed by the military’s Central Command, which oversees combat missions across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and by the Joint Staff at the Pentagon. All troop deployment orders must be approved by Mr. Gates, with the separate armed services then assigned to supply specific numbers of troops and equipment.

Marines train to fight in what is called a Marine Air-Ground Task Force. That term refers to a Marine deployment that arrives in a combat zone complete with its own headquarters, infantry combat troops, armored and transport vehicles and attack jets for close-air support, as well as logistics and support personnel.

“This is not about trading one ground war for another,” said one Pentagon official briefed on the Marine concept. “It is about the nature of the fight in Afghanistan, and figuring out whether the Afghan mission lends itself more readily to the integrated MAGTF deployment than even Iraq.”
 
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

The ministry released the new figures as bomb blasts in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul killed five people and six gunmen died in clashes with police in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala south of the Iraqi capital.

Washington began dispatching reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq's feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.

While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling violence.

Under the plan, U.S. troops left their large bases and set up combat outposts in neighborhoods while launching a series of summer offensives against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias in the Baghdad beltway.

Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters that there had been a 70 percent decrease in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September over the previous quarter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSCOL24813120071022?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
 
^ setting up for a 2008 drawdown. just in time for the election (the American one). :up:

we can't view the drop in violence as anything other than A Good Thing, but we also have to realize that "the surge" is only sustainable until March of 2008. so what's going to happen? some minor political event that will be be blown up in importance, then we'll talk about the "victory" over AQM, and then we'll say, "this time, Mission actually Accomplished," and then settle in for an attack on Tehran?
 
U.S. ordering some diplomats to Iraq

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - The State Department said Friday it will begin ordering diplomats to serve in Iraq because of a lack of volunteers to work at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the first such large-scale call-up since the Vietnam War.

Beginning Monday, 200 to 300 diplomats will be notified that they have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 40 to 50 vacancies that will open next year at the embassy, said Harry Thomas, director general of the Foreign Service.

Those notified that they have been selected for a one-year posting will have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go to Iraq and face dismissal if they refuse, Thomas said.

"If someone decides ... they do not want to go, we will then consider appropriate action," Thomas said. "We have many options, including dismissal from the Foreign Service."

Diplomats who are forced into service in Iraq will receive the same extra hardship pay, vacation time and choice of future assignments as those who have volunteered since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this past summer ordered Baghdad positions to be filled before all others around the world.

It is certain to be unpopular due to serious security concerns in Iraq and uncertainty over the status of the private contractors who protect U.S. diplomats there, particularly after a deadly Sept. 16 shooting in which guards from Blackwater USA protecting an embassy convoy were accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians.


The move to directed assignments is rare but not unprecedented.
In 1969, an entire class of entry-level diplomats was required to go to Vietnam.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Iraq's brutally wounded-a photo essay

http://www.alternet.org/story/65513/

That was heartbreaking...

I was in a waiting room the other day at a doctor's office and a couple (probably in their 40's) were looking at a magazine, and they had a similar photo essay, and I overheard the woman say, "I'm sick and tired of this liberal media, who cares about the damn iraqis. It's their fault they're losing limbs." It took everything I had not to bitch them out...

And this isn't the first time I've heard this type of sentiment. I just don't understand conservatives that support a war because "it will spread democracy" but hate the people it's spreading it to... So then what's the point, why do you support this war? You don't even know anymore except it's the conservative, patriotic, freedom loving thing to do...

:sad:
 
I think some people are just "haters".

they hate themselves
so it is very easy to hate "others".


I pity them,
the Iraqis,
my country
and myself.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I was in a waiting room the other day at a doctor's office and a couple (probably in their 40's) were looking at a magazine, and they had a similar photo essay, and I overheard the woman say, "I'm sick and tired of this liberal media, who cares about the damn iraqis. It's their fault they're losing limbs." It took everything I had not to bitch them out...

:|. That's...charming.

(How the hell is it their fault they're losing limbs? They weren't the ones who started this war, lady)

Angela
 
Wow, that's extremely depressing. But you certainly see a blaming the innocent victim mentality everywhere and about several issues. Obviously that's on a larger and more vicious scale, since it's about war victims who have nothing to do with this war. I just don't get how some people can be so heartless. I still hold onto the belief that the majority of people here would never have such a belief much less express it, but maybe that's hopelessly naive.
 
Back
Top Bottom